LUISA ELENA ALCALÁ

"Where do we go from here?"

Themes and Comments on the
Historiography of Colonial Art
in Latin America

I n 2006,1 attended a conference in Philadelphia entitled "The Power of Images:

Images of Power in Colonial Latin America" celebrated in conjunction with the
exhibition The Arts in Latin America, 1492-1820 at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.1
At the round table discussion of the closing session, the moderator raised the ques-
tion: "Where do we go from here?" Answers carne in, part and parcel, but, to the
best of my recollection, there was no single, completely satisfying reply. Open-
ended discussions are what round tables are about, and in posing this question the
moderator fulfilled her role brilliantly. Since then, the question has stayed with me,
continuously begging reflection although perhaps not always in the ways imagined.
What fascinates me most about the closing question is the assumption that is
built into it. Namely, who is this "we"? Answers will invariably be conditioned by
how the "we" is defined. Nonetheless, I am quite certain that this "we" was inno-
cently posed in an effort to embrace all the attendees at the conference. In the
room there was gathered a heterogeneous group of scholars: historians, anthro-
pologists, ethnographers, specialists in Latin American colonial literature, music
and art history both of the pre-Hispanic and colonial periods. Judging by the
audience then, the moderator's "we" addressed the group under the umbrella of
Latín American studies. And yet, I wonder the extent to which individually each
attendant at the conference felt well described by this comprehensive "we." The

323
 symposium in Philadelphia was reniarkably inclusive, Ínternational, and coherent. cultures involved
The work of all those present definitely warranted a sense of belonging and of these traditions w
sharing common interests across distinct academic traditions. At trie same time, Latín America. C
however, there were issues that were not discussed about many of the "images" methodology in i
and histories presented. The excluded questions were often the technical ones, the of questions aske
pockets of information and áreas of expertise which are probably less transferable modern definitio
across disciplines, and which mark the limits of interdisciplinary approaches. occupied center s
Turned on itself and held up as a mirror to the disciplines that it addressed, Revilla (1863-1924
the question "Where do we go from here?" begs greater examination of the devel- praised the local r
opments in the fields involved. At the very least, for this art historian, it merits "el estilo peculiar d
analysis of how Latín American colonial studies relates to Latín American colonial from Spanish art
art history. How did these two fields develop, and at what point and on what Since then,
grounds did they converge? To what extent has the field of colonial and post- vis-á-vis Spain, ha
colonial studies influenced the art history of Spanish America? And, on the con- ology has occupie
trary, did some of the fundamental concerns that bring these fields lar nature of coló
together—indeed that entice scholars from a variety of disciplines other than art historians still dis
history to study Latín American images and art—origínate in art history? This attempt to find a
essay examines these questions within a broader overview of some of the central that in all probabi
issues in the historiography of viceregal art. It is by no means intended to reflect stylistically and ir
the state of the field or its past in any complete way. I will only discuss a few problem of the id
aspects, or monients, that seem particularly relevant for an appreciation of how provoking essay D
we arrived at the international effervescence and methodological pluralisrn that various interpretr
currently characterizes studies on colonial objects. Admittedly, there is no single Given the scope o
historiography of colonial art in Latín America—or rather, no single historio- of the historiogra
graphic tradition—but many, the majority of which have been constructed by texts that may she
each modern nation of the Americas. Nonetheless, the points I have selected for As a field th;
discussion are presurnably not only some of the central questions in the historio- many specialized
graphy but also the issues that helped develop a coherent sense for the field. 19305, and it did si
panded upon his i
The Persistent Matter of Identity (i850~i927).6 The
Most surveys of colonial art begin by stating the obvious: that art produced in the Architecture appea
Spanish colonial period is the result of Hispanic art forms imposed on an entirely as it coincided wi
different pre-Hispanic culture and society. The ways in which that indigenous pre- of viceregal art, a
Hispanic world received, assimilated, and transformed European artistic idioms also struggling wi
have always dominated discourse, but, as is well known, the nature of that dis- this question tool
course has been constantly evolving. Today there is a healthy respect for all the provided by the w

324
 cultures involved, but there have long been divergent opinions on how exactly
these traditions worked themselves out to produce a distinct body of art in colonial
Latin America. Central to all these discussions is the issue of identity. While not a
methodology in itself, identity has had a tremendous impact on shaping the kinds
of questions asked of colonial art. And even if 'identity" and especially a post-
modern definition of it, dominates discourse today it is a rather oíd problem that
occupied center stage for much of the twentieth century. As early as 1893, Manuel
Revilla (i863-i924),2 in one of the earliest books on Spanish colonial art in México,
praised the local manifestations of the eighteenth-century churrigueresque style as
"el estilo peculiar del virreinato," noting also that colonial art in México was different
from Spanish art in part because of the indigenous component.3
Since then, the centrality of the issue of identity, and especially difference
vis-á-vis Spain, has been constantly reflected in the pre-eminent role that termin-
ology has occupied in the literature. The most passionate battles over the particu-
lar nature of colonial art have centered on issues of nomenclature. Today,
historians still dispute terminology redefine oíd terms, and coin new ones in an
attempt to find a satisfying way to address a corpus of objects and monuments
that in all probability are much too heterogeneous geographically chronologically
stylistically and in a myriad of other ways to fit neatly into any one category.4 The
problem of the identity of colonial art is the subject of a thorough and thought-
provoking essay recently published by Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann that compares
various interpretive strategies in the historiography and also suggests new ones.5
Given the scope of that work, I would like to pursue a loosely chronological focus
of the historiography instead, and turn my attention to some key debates and
texts that may shed further light on how we understand the past.
As a field that was in its incipient stages, with many aficionados and not
many specialized art historians, Revilla's lead did not gain momentum until the
19305, and it did so in part through the influence of another author who ex-
panded upon his insistence on difference and originality Silvester Baxter
(1850-1927).6 The Spanish translation of Baxter's 1901 book Spanish Colonial
Architecture appeared in 1934, and it had an impact on Mexican thinkers in so far
as it coincided with their growing concerns over how to identify the uniqueness
of viceregal art, a preoccupation that existed in other nations of Latin America
also struggling with their colonial past. A useful way to gage the extent to which
this question took over the field in Latin America during the 19305 and 19405 is
provided by the work of José Moreno Villa (1887-1955), Spanish emigré to

325
 México.7 In the prologue of his peculiar but still interesting book Lo mexicano en identification of ce
las artes plásticas, published in 1948, he explains that when he arrived in México, leading, especially
an exile of the Spanish Civil War, he was asked by friends and colleagues to iden- supposedly on the
tify what was different about Mexican art.8 The underlying assumption was that Jumping ahea
because of his intimate knowledge of Spanish art, he could shed light on the re- America was comí
lationship between Spain and México and preferably distill the differences. That phies than twenty
his circle was emphasizing the differences and not the similarities should be áreas of study or v
taken as a sign of the rising nationalism in Mexican cultural politics since the
i92os.9 Moreno Villa initially thought he had identified several uniquely Mexican sionalizing the fíe
artistic manifestations, only to discover later that European precedents existed— over methodologic
such as in the case of the historiated crosses in sixteenth-century missionary many voices called
convents. Nonetheless, he went on to explore more refined ways of identifying methods.16 Formal
the local production by discussing style and anachronism. Moreover, his book documentary histo
still appeared with the title Lo mexicano, thus contributing to the way Mexican although certainly
art could be discussed as having its own personality despite European connec- The centralit
tions.10 Moreno Villa was associated with a group of writers, historians, and these years—discu
philosophers in México that did much to advance the state of knowledge on the majority of the
viceregal art. In fact, Manuel Toussaint's book on colonial art was published in Most were Latín A
the sanie year as Lo mexicano. Thus, although Moreno Villa was not alone, and While documentin
the full ramifications of his project and the larger one orchestrated by Mexicans remained how acó
themselves (especially in terms of the idea of mexicanidad) are too broad for the ness to versus its in
present discussion,11 it is safe to say that his little book contributed to a growing tion, for some it irr
current stressing the unique identity of colonial art. culturally with thei
At the same time, what has later often been perceived as the counter-current these works as an e
to this kind of more nationalistic approach was emerging in the publications of a leanings seeped int
few scholars—mostly professional art historians—working outside Latín America. subsequent general
In 1948, George Kubler (1912-1996) published Mexican Architecture of the Sixteenth ing this element in
Century and in 1959, his collaborative work with Martin Soria, Art and Architecture important to frame
in Spain and Portugal. Starting in 1945 and expanding into the 19505, Diego Ángulo history of Latín An
íñiguez (1901-1987) wrote the volumes of his Historia de Arte Hispano-Americano in degree of nationali
collaboration with Enrique Marco Dorta (1911-1980) and Mario J. Buschiazzo the period should a
(1902-1970). This multi-volume survey was the most comprehensive one to date. dynamic that swun
In their volition to write a Pan-American history of Spanish American art, these many but not all Lí
historians represent a different trend in the historiography.12 As stated above, they neutral academic a
and a few others have sometimes been cast as a kind of "school," characterized by between those on t
an eclectic academic approach.13 However, as I will discuss below, overstating the called for greater n<

326
identification of certain scholars as constituting a group or trend can be mis-
leading, especially because many of them collaborated and befriended those
supposedly on the other side of this methodological divide.
Jumping anead, by the 19605 and 19705, the art history of colonial Latín
America was coming into its own with many more specialists from all geogra-
phies than twenty years earlier.14 Some scholars still carne to art history from other
áreas of study or were self-taught, but especially in places like México or
Argentina, a few art historians and a great many architects were rapidly profes-
sionalizing the field.15 This was also a time increasingly dominated by concerns
over methodological issues. In prívate correspondence as well as scholarly arricies,
many voices called for serious rethinking and the abandonment of earlier
methods.16 Formalism was considered unsatisfactory, and even the wealth of
documentary histories being published was regarded as somehow insufficient,
although certainly welcome and necessary.
The centrality of the identity issue in the debates that dominated the field in
these years—discussed below—reveáis that there was something else at stake for
the majority of the scholars involved besides the advancement of knowledge.
Most were Latin American and many were pioneers in their áreas of research.
While documenting and analyzing monuments, one of their primary questions
remained how accurately to describe viceregal art in Latin America, its indebted-
ness to versus its independence from European art forms. As the enduring ques-
tion, for some it implied self-reflection since many of these scholars identified
culturally with their área of study and were reacting against the tendency to see
these works as an extensión of Iberian Spanish art; consequently, nationalistic
leanings seeped into their writings, something that has often been criticized by
subsequent generations. Rather than adopt a critical or apologetic stance regard-
ing this element in the historiography, in order to assess the period fairly, it seems
important to frame these methodological debates against the cultural and political
history of Latin America in the twentieth century. Doing so reveáis that a certain
degree of nationalistic feelings could hardly have been avoided.17 The debates of
the period should also be seen against the backdrop of a controverted internal
dynamic that swung between the somewhat unavoidable nationalistic agendas of
many but not all Latin Americans,18 and a simultaneously growing desire for more
neutral academic approaches. In other words, this was not just a time of división
between those on the outside (mostly Anglo-Saxons and some Europeans) who
called for greater neutrality and those on the inside, as has often been assumed in

327
 the literature. Por the Latín American scholars, there was an internal battle going welcome receptio
on as well. As one of many who straddled two continents, Leopoldo Castedo nial art as well, suc
(1915-1999), a Spaniard exiled to Chile after the Civil War and nationalized as a Constantino Reyes
Chucán in 1948, was aware of the problem, and he characterized it in this way: Gisbert began to a
"Mucho se ha escrito y mucho ha de escribirse aún, acerca del encuentro (o desencuentro) ture.25 Then, at the
de Hispanoamérica con su propia esencia. "I9 So while the historiographic stage was 1964, heated contrc
shared by Latín Americans and a few highly accomplished foreign scholars (Kubler George Kubler wh<
and Ángulo íñiguez, to ñame but two), it is important to recall, and not just dis- come of the confe
miss, the passionately complex issues at hand for most of those implicated. sidered only applic
Conversely, one should also not assume that contemporary world politics did not Gisbert provided e
play a role (unconscious or otherwise) on how the supposedly more neutral ap- referred to a type o
proaches were forged. In this respect, Karen Cordero Reiman has elucidated the tural relief decorat
tremendous contrast that existed between the historical situation of scholars in to 1780 in limited r
México and those working in the United States in the Second World War period As Ramón M
and its aftermath: while the former, coming out of the Mexican Revolution, were
beginning to build a sense of Mexico's own artistic canon after a long period of only a matter of se
cultural Europeanization, the latter were reacting to the situation in Europe and tence of this polem
rejecting any intrusión of nationalistic (reminiscent of fascist) impositions on art historical quest
academic practice.20 Although these differences were to a certain extent palpable, cultural identity. Fo
to characterize the period and its authors in any extreme polar way—which in- turally what it desi
evitably fosters bias on our perception of the past—does not do justice to the —a mixture, seeme
complexity of the time ñor to the plurality of the individual minds involved. was not then being
Likewise, as mentioned above, neither does it fairly represent the personal rela- truc, and the way n
tionships which certainly informed developments in the field, even if they are to the Andean style
harder to recover historically. Given this introduction, let us now explore just what it has also become ;
was being questioned in these decades. parts of South Ame
The earliest of these debates revolved around the issue of whether the term the work of Serge C
"mestizo style" was a valid descriptor of colonial art.21 This term had first been mestizaje was used t
applied to some examples of South American Baroque architecture by Ángel by revisiting the oíd
Guido (d. 1960) in 1938. However, it had earlier roots in the work of another counter" between d
Argentine, Martín Noel (1888-1963), writing in the 19105 and I920S,22 and in the many who regard m
way in which indigenist movements of the time "helped rethink 'the Indian' and would prefer to see
'the mestizo' as theoretical and ideological tools that contested dominant euro- likely that challenge
centric biases."23 By the late 19405, several authors were using mestizo style, includ- emerging from a de
ing Harold Wethey (1902-1984) and Pal Kelemen (1894-1993). Even though mestizo elements in colonial
art was being applied mostly to describe South American colonial art, it found a role, presence, and ]

328
welcome reception among scholars coming up with new terms for Mexican colo-
nial art as well, such as Moreno Villa and his coinage of the term tequitqui or, later,
Constantino Reyes Valerio's arte indo-cristiano.^ In 1955, José de Mesa and Teresa
Gisbert began to apply the mestizo style more consistently to Andean architec-
ture.25 Then, at the XXXVI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas held in Seville in
1964, heated controversy broke out.26 Despite the opposition of some, such as
George Kubler who wrote an article in 1965 calling it a racialist category,27 the out-
corne of the conference was a clearer definition of mestizo style; it was now con-
sidered only applicable for the art of Perú and Bolivia. Shortly after, Mesa and
Gisbert provided even more precise criteria for its art historical use: mestizo style
referred to a type of Andean church architecture with rich applications of sculp-
tural relief decoration on facades, and it was found in buildings from about 1680
to 1780 in limited regions of Perú and Bolivia.28
As Ramón Mújica has explained, for some contemporary scholars, like
Kelemen, the schism that this issue had caused was regrettable for it seemed to be
only a matter of semantics.29 However, not everyone agreed. In fact, the very exis-
tence of this polemic in the historiography demonstrates the extent to which the
art historical questions of the period were entangled in larger debates over
cultural identity. For those that espoused it, using mestizo as a term to signal cul-
turally what it designated biologically—the offspring of a Spaniard and an Indian
—a mixture, seemed a useful way to underscore difference, especially because it
was not then being coined to describe European art. Ironically, this is no longer
truc, and the way mestizo is used today has diversified significantly. It still pertains
to the Andean style of sculptural decoration that Mesa and Gisbert described, but
it has also become a more generalized signifier of national identities in certain
parts of South America. At the same time, it has reached the global stage through
the work of Serge Gruzinski.30 And, in a recent exhibition in Spain the theme of
mestizaje was used to establish common ground between Spain and Latin America
by revisiting the oíd theme of Iberian Spain's own history as a place of "en-
counter" between different cultures and religions.31 Nonetheless, there are still
many who regard mestizo art—in some or all its incarnations—with suspicion and
would prefer to see more neutral terminologies in place. Given its resilience, it is
likely that challenges to its popularity will not come from new terminologies
emerging from a desire to describe the mixture of Hispanic and indigenous
elements in colonial art, but rather from alternative ways of conceptualizing the
role, presence, and power of these art forms in specific colonial contexts.32

329
 The heated debates over mestizo art have sometímes been treated as a self- monograph on
contained polemíc in which tensions that had been mounting for decades between interpretations
the Eurocentric versus nationalistic, indigenist or ethnocentric approaches finally also the idea th
exploded. However, it is important to remember that this debate partly developed cally in terms o
out of another query regarding art in Europe, namely the issue of what Baroque colonial archite
art was all about, and the extent to which it was applicable as a term to seven- problematizatic
teenth-century art and architecture from various parts of Europe. Thus the colonial art pro"
mestizo style question should be considered part of these larger disciplinary devel- art in a new co
opments in art history even though it generated a different historiography, which more critical stv
only shares certain points in common with the history of the concept of the Gasparini was p
Baroque in Europe. Indeed, for most of the specialists of Latín America at the as in its regiona
time, the two íssues were closely interconnected. After all, what was being said recommendatio
about the Baroque in Latín America if some of its most salient Andean examples be provincial bu
were now being called mestizo4? than thirty year
Given this backdrop, it is not surprising that by the 19705, the dominant architecture wa
question in the field was rapidly becoming whether there was Latín American original becaus
Baroque art or símply Baroque art in Latín America.33 This question—more so dialectic of resp
than the one over mestizo art, which may have seemed more geographically cir- le espressioni reg
cumscribed to some—provided a nexus for specialists addressing the colonial terne in aree limi
arts of many parts of Latín America. In this way, it effectively, perhaps also inad- driven as some
vertently, contributed to the construction of a sense for the field as such. The Although
Baroque question took center-stage at a famous symposium organi/ed in the of the 1980 Rom
Istituto Ítalo-Latino Americano in Rome in ipBo.34 A prestigíous group of inter- some of his me
national historians gathered to examine the nature of the relationship of purist attendees, inclu
(Central Italian) Baroque forms to contemporary monuments on the other side agendas had to
of the Atlantic. For a long time, it had been clear that Latín American colonial indeed necessar
architecture was not Baroque spatially. Typically, these churches displayed discuss and reth
simple rectangular or cross-shaped ground plans and were only Baroque in the was a welcome
profuseness of their ornamental vocabulary: in this, they were considered cióse "Latín America
to the tradition of Iberian Spanish architecture. The symposíum in Rome recon- was an affront o
sidered these issues of typology and their methodological consequences in Manrique (b. 19
terms of definítions of style. necessary in ord
The most provocative voice at the symposium, Graziano Gasparini (b. 1924) Baroque art.41 O
questioned whether one could even apply "Baroque" to Latín American colonial nology was not
churches.35 Unabashedly, he criticized practícally every contríbution of the Ironically
previous historiography on colonial architecture, just as he had done in his 1972 Baroque only se

330
 monograph on the subject.36 He repudiated both the nationalistic bent of some
interpretations coming from Latín America and the Ibero-centrism of others, but
also the idea that the indigenous influence was strong in colonial art. More specifi-
cally in terms of architectural history, he objected to the way most texts discussed
colonial architecture in plástic terms; they were descriptive but there was scant
problematization of how the buildings and builders dealt with space. He called
colonial art provincial.37 But, he did not consider it to be a mere copy of Spanish
art in a new continent either. Instead, he insisted on its specificity and called for
more critical studies of its relationship to the society that produced it. To be fair,
Gasparini was profoundly interested in the local dynamics of colonial art as well
as in its regional diíferences and for this reason, some of bis methodological
recommendations—although somewhat contradictory, for example, claiming it to
be provincial but specific at the same time—are certainly less surprising today
than thirty years ago. Ultimately, he was suggesting that Latín American colonial
architecture was neither a direct transplant of European art, ñor that it was
original because of some indigenous element, but rather that it developed in a
dialectic of response and recomposition of models at the local level: "In definitiva,
le espressioni regionali americane sonó la conseguenza di un processo di trasmissioni in-
terne in aree limítate ,..."38 Nonetheless, in the end, his discourse was as ideologically
driven as some of the writings he criticized for that same reason.39
Although Gasparini's combatant and irreverent tone is what most remember
of the 1980 Román conference, over time, the academic community conceded to
some of his methodological complaints. Subsequent arricies by some of the
attendees, including the Latín Americans, supported the idea that nationalistic
agendas had to be set aside and that more profound discussions about style were
indeed necessary. In other words, the opportunity that the symposium offered to
discuss and rethink some of the assumptions underlying the study of colonial art
was a welcome one.40 Nonetheless, the very idea that one should not use the term
"Latín American Baroque art" found strong opposition among many who felt it
was an affront on the specificity and validity of these works. Jorge Alberto
Manrique (b. 1936) defended a "barroco americano" arguing that the term was
necessary in order to differentiate these monuments from Italian and Spanish
Baroque art.41 Once again, as with the debate over mestizo art, the issue of termi-
nology was not negotiable.
Ironically, in the end Gasparini's denunciation against a Latin American
Baroque only served to strengthen this paradigm. Through its association of a

33i
 style with a territory—even the spirit of a nation or continent—the concept of a Spaniards and India
Latin American Baroque had long-established roots in the historiography, going all Eurocentric and in
the way back to Revilla's discussion of the churrigueresque in viceregal México. riography: "Eí barr
After 1980, however, the concept was reframed by more serious academic dis- panoamericana] ...."
course. Several scholars aggressively prometed this new tendency, especially one, on the surface
Ramón Gutiérrez, who has since become the central spokesperson for a Latin idea of a Latin Am
American Baroque.42 He argued that Latin American colonial art could and should respond to the gro~
be studied in its context as an artistic idiom that was defined by its own terms. were not operative
This art was Baroque not because it copied European models faithfully, but rather used at all, they hac
because it interpreted those sources creatively filtering them through local and 19805 then, a trium
regional tastes, materials, and techniques. Aspects of the Baroque existed abun- one of its by-produ
dantly in Latin American churches: Solomonic columns, exaggerated forms, nial art—all of it—
horror vacui, and rich ornamental effects. The results were monuments, mostly art historical tool a
churches, which are recognizable as Latin American to most. It was on these Baroque had becon
grounds that Latin American art could legitimately lay its claim to belong to the As stated earli
Baroque and yet retain its difference. Indeed, it became a commonplace in the lit- America is not enti
erature to assert that colonial art was often more Baroque than European art. the twentieth centu
Revisiting this thesis in a recent book, Gutiérrez comes back to the question, Toussaint in 1943: "1
noting that one should not apply an Italianate definition of the Baroque to Latin todos los países de nu<
America. If one does, the results are either that one will have to conclude that and how the "Baroc
these monuments are provincial because they are being judged by Central Italian To the extent that h
parameters; or that there was no authentically Baroque art in Latin America. To history, Toussaint o
avoid either one of these erroneous conclusions, Gutiérrez has long espoused little that correspon
looking at Latin American colonial art "desde lo colonial."43 most of the colonia
Although used widely, the term Latin American Baroque is of course prob- Chronologically th
lematic. It does not fit comfortably with all artistic manifestations in the vast towards neoclassica
heterogeneous geography of the Americas, ñor can it encompass some of the arriving Spaniards
major sixteenth-century monuments of the first decades after colonization. entirely or unánime
Despite how obvious this is, even to those who espouse it, Latin American Baroque seemed m
Baroque has been a powerful methodological tool, a kind of mantra, and this is Baroque with natio
partly because of its legitimating capacity. As a category that has paradoxically popularizing a sentí
come to define itself as all encompassing regardless of its evident limitations, twentieth-century A
Latin American Baroque responded to the enduring desire for a unique identity earlier.46 But in the
for colonial art. It provided the ideological unity and specificity to the field for influence than any
which some of its practitioners had long searched. For some, like Ramón formed Baroque m
Gutiérrez, Latin American Baroque even bridges the socio-ethnic divide between art but also of art fi

332
 Spaniards and Indians, suggesting that it may also overeóme the schism between
Eurocentric and indigenist currents that characterized much of the earlier histo-
riography: "El barroco fue el arte americano que expresó a toda la sociedad [his-
panoamericana] ,..."44 Because it is not a racial term but rather an art historical
one, on the surface, it seems more neutral than the category of mestizo art. The
idea of a Latín American Baroque art was also embraced because it seemed to
respond to the growing opinión in the field that European stylistic categories
were not operative for the study of art in Spanish America. If they were to be
used at all, they had to be redefined to fit the local artistic production. In the
19805 then, a triumphant spirit infused the field, especially in Latín America, and
one of its by-products became the identification between Latín American colo-
nial art—all of it—and the Baroque. Although for many it was intended to be an
art historical tool and a descriptive category, by the 19905 Latín American
Baroque had become ideologically charged.
As stated earlier, this rhetorical championing of the Baroque in Latín
America is not entirely new, and it has had several incarnations over the course of
the twentieth century. Gutiérrez's claims echo earlier statements pronounced by
Toussaint in 1943: "El barroco es el arte de América," and also: "el arte barroco une a
toaos los países de nuestro continente."45 In these phrases, Toussaint reveáis just why
and how the "Baroque" became an attractive unifying concept for Latín America.
To the extent that his ideas about art were shaped by contemporary European art
history, Toussaint considered the Renaissance as superior. Nonetheless, there was
little that corresponded to this style in Spanish America. By contrast, the art of
most of the colonial period seemed to respond to Baroque artistic forms.
Chronologically, the Baroque in Latín America stretched even beyond the shift
towards neoclassical art in Europe. Furthermore, an élite group led by newly
arriving Spaniards largely imposed neoclassicism upon the viceroyalties. It was not
entirely or unanimously embraced by colonial society, and consequently, the
Baroque seemed more genuinely to represent the continent. In equating the
Baroque with national (and even continental) identity, Toussaint himself was
popularizing a sentiment that had germinated in the late nineteenth- and early
twentieth-century works of Manuel Revilla and Silvester Baxter, mentioned
earlier.46 But in the second half of the twentieth century, Toussaint had far greater
influence than any of the earlier writers.47 His advocacy of a nationalistically in-
formed Baroque must be reckoned within the historiography not only of Mexican
art but also of art from the rest of Latín America. In other words, Toussaint paved

333
 the way for some of the later developments discussed above. Tracing the ways in development of urb
which Baroque has been capitalized upon as an identifying trait of Latín American to consider the socia
art more comprehensively falls beyond the scope of this essay, but it is important Iconography \
to recognize that it has a long and somewhat circular history.
Regardless of its problematic overuse, the triumph of the paradigm of Latin 1995), a Spaniard wh
American Baroque art, and perhaps also its endurance, can be partly explained thereafter, producin
because it coincided and overlapped with another development in the field, I990S.56 In Sebastián
namely a growing emphasis on the relevance of historical context for art historical the intellectual valu
analysis. In the 19705, but even more so in the 19805, acculturation and trans- unencumbered by q
culturation theory were impacting all fields of study dealing with Latin America.48 contribution for the
In so far as acculturation and transculturation capitalized on the ways in which specific work of art
the cultures involved in a colonial situation inevitably change, it became a recon- religious images anc
ciliatory concept, around which historians of different minds could come to- Spanish America.571
gether. Paradoxically in terms of their seemingly irreconcilable differences, both Francisco Stastny in
Gasparini and Gutiérrez used it.49 The methodological assimilation of accultura- colonial art because
tion theory from anthropology to the history of Latin American colonial art— common in Spanish
today a naturalized practice—was also possible because of the way it converged The work of anothe
with internal changes taking place in the field of art history.50 ferent direction by u
In the 19605 and 19705, some historians of art began to deal with subjects that Andean art rather Ü
would ultimately emerge as central issues for both the art history of colonial Sebastián and Gisbe
Spanish America and the wider field of Latin American studies. Even earlier, a few ological change earl
individuáis were venturing into new territory that would later prove tremendously exemplify those nev>
fertile. The writings of Francisco de la Maza (México 1913-1972) on diverse topics 19805 and 19905 also
of Mexican art and architecture, including the Virgin of Guadalupe (written as it called attention to
early as 1953), have recently been discussed for just this reason.51 In addition, on architecture. Icoi
Justino Fernández's queries into aesthetics, highlighting the relevance of a spirit of deal with questions
Grandeza Mexicana for the comprehension of colonial art, proved influential for it as a history of imé
later studies of art and culture in New Spain.52 By the 19705, a more systematic and Much of what
concerted effort to practice two new types of art history was clearly emerging: a specific social, politi
social history of art and iconography/iconology. With respect to the former, it is world to explain Spa
important to note that the work of Arnold Hauser had a much greater influence internal art histórica
in the Spanish speaking academic world—both within Spain and in Latin date it, are over. No
America—than in the Anglo-Saxon world.53 Influenced by Hauser, Fierre There have been no
Francastel, and others, several scholars of art in Latin America were calling for a the 19605 to the earl1
history of art that placed the work in its social milieu.54 Ramón Gutiérrez himself way to sound acadei
took a leading role with respect to architectural history, promoting the the terminologies di

334
 development of urban studies, and exemplifying in various publications the need
to consider the social status of artists and the guild systems.55
Iconography was to spread more rapidly and extensively and has probably
had a greater impact. One of its primary exponents was Santiago Sebastián (1931-
1995), a Spaniard who lived in Colombia in the early 19605 and returned to Spain
thereafter, producing important contributions to the field in the 19805 and early
19905.56 In Sebastián's work, iconographic analysis provided a means to highlight
the intellectual valué of colonial culture, validating it in a new and exciting way
unencumbered by questions of stylistic derivation. Sebastián's most significant
contribution for the colonial material, however, lies not in the analysis of any
specific work of art, but rather in his repeated insistence on the importance of
religious images and the Counter-Reformation context, both in Iberian Spain and
Spanish America.57 Iconography, practiced by Sebastián and many others, such as
Francisco Stastny in Perú, was also a new means of addressing the identity of
colonial art because it revealed that there were certain themes that were more
common in Spanish America than in Europe and others that were entirely new.58
The work of another scholar, Teresa Gisbert, took iconographic analysis in a dif-
ferent direction by using it to systematically consider the indigenous elements in
Andean art rather than searching for the European symbols.59 Interestingly
Sebastián and Gisbert were among the scholars who had called for method-
ological change early on, and who, in their own academic evolvement, carne to
exemplify those new approaches as well.60 The rise in iconographic analysis in the
19805 and 19905 also contributed to a deeper transformation in the field in so far as
it called attention to colonial painting, previously always overshadowed by studies
on architecture. Iconography liberated the discourse on painting from having to
deal with questions of style (and ultimately quality), and helped re-conceptualize
it as a history of images.
Much of what has come since the early 19805 are studies which use the
specific social, political, commercial, and material parameters of the colonial
world to explain Spanish American art. For many working in the field today, these
internal art historical battles over what to cali this art, and ultimately, how to vali-
date it, are over. No one doubts its specificity or difference from European art.
There have been no more major debates like those that marked the period from
the 19605 to the early 19805, and the earlier nationalism has for the most part given
way to sound academic approaches.61 At the same time, this does not mean that
the terminologies discussed earlier, and even the ideas they represent, have

335
 the way for some of the later developments discussed above. Tracing the ways ín development of urb
which Baroque has been capitalized upon as an identifying trait of Latín American to consider the soci
art more comprehensively falls beyond the scope of this essay, but it is important Iconography v
to recognize that it has a long and somewhat circular history. had a greater impac
Regardless of its problematic overuse, the triumph of the paradigm of Latín 1995). a Spaniard wr
American Baroque art, and perhaps also its endurance, can be partly explained thereafter, producin
because it coincided and overlapped with another development in the field, I990S.56 In Sebastián
namely a growing emphasis on the relevance of historical context for art historical the intellectual valu
analysis. In the 19708, but even more so in the 19805, acculturation and trans- unencumbered by c
culturation theory were impacting all fields of study dealing with Latin America.48 contribution for the
In so far as acculturation and transculturation capitalized on the ways in which specific work of art
the cultures involved in a colonial situation inevitably change, it became a recon- religious images an<
ciliatory concept, around which historians of diíferent minds could come to- Spanish America.571
gether. Paradoxically in terms of their seemingly irreconcilable differences, both Francisco Stastny in
Gasparini and Gutiérrez used it.49 The methodological assimilation of accultura- colonial art because
tion theory from anthropology to the history of Latin American colonial art— common in Spanish
today a naturalized practice—was also possible because of the way it converged The work of anothc
with internal changes taking place in the field of art history.50 ferent direction by i
In the 19605 and 19705, some historians of art began to deal with subjects that Andean art rather ti
would ultimately emerge as central issues for both the art history of colonial Sebastián and Gisbe
Spanish America and the wider field of Latin American studies. Even earlier, a few ological change cari
individuáis were venturing into new territory that would later prove tremendously exemplify those ne\
fertile, The writings of Francisco de la Maza (México 1913-1972) on diverse topics
of Mexican art and architecture, including the Virgin of Guadalupe (written as it called attention te
early as 1953), have recently been discussed for just this reason.51 In addition, on architecture. Ico:
Justino Fernández's queries into aesthetics, highlighting the relevance of a spirit of deal with questions
Grandeza Mexicana for the comprehension of colonial art, proved influential for it as a history of im¡
later studies of art and culture in New Spain.52 By the 19705, a more systematic and Much of what
concerted effort to practice two new types of art history was clearly emerging: a specific social, politi
social history of art and iconography/iconology. With respect to the former, it is world to explain Sp;
important to note that the work of Arnold Hauser had a much greater influence internal art historie;
in the Spanish speaking academic world—both within Spain and in Latin date it, are over. No
America—than in the Anglo-Saxon world.53 Influenced by Hauser, Fierre There have been no
Francastel, and others, several scholars of art in Latin America were calling for a the 19605 to the earl
history of art that placed the work in its social milieu.54 Ramón Gutiérrez himself way to sound acade
took a leading role with respect to architectural history, promoting the the terminologies d

334
 development of urban studies, and exemplifying in various publications the need
to consider the social status of artists and the guild systems.55
Iconography was to spread more rapidly and extensively and has probably
had a greater impact. One of its primary exponents was Santiago Sebastián (1931-
1995), a. Spaniard who lived in Colombia in the early 19605 and returned to Spain
thereafter, producing important contributions to the field in the 19805 and early
i99os.56 In Sebastián's work, iconographic analysis provided a means to highlight
the intellectual valué of colonial culture, validating it in a new and exciting way
unencumbered by questions of stylistic derivation. Sebastián's most significant
contribution for the colonial material, however, lies not in the analysis of any
specific work of art, but rather in his repeated insistence on the importance of
religious images and the Counter-Reformation context, both in Iberian Spain and
Spanish America.57 Iconography, practiced by Sebastián and many others, such as
Francisco Stastny in Perú, was also a new means of addressing the identity of
colonial art because it revealed that there were certain themes that were more
common in Spanish America than in Europe and others that were entirely new.58
The work of another scholar, Teresa Gisbert, took iconographic analysis in a dif-
ferent direction by usíng it to systematically consider the indigenous elements in
Andean art rather than searching for the European symbols.59 Interestingly
Sebastián and Gisbert were among the scholars who had called for method-
ological change early on, and who, in their own academic evolvement, carne to
exemplify those new approaches as well.60 The rise in iconographic analysis in the
19805 and 19905 also contributed to a deeper transformation in the field in so far as
it called attention to colonial painting, previously always overshadowed by studies
on architecture. Iconography liberated the discourse on painting from having to
deal with questions of style (and ultimately quality), and helped re-conceptualize
it as a history of images.
Much of what has come since the early 19805 are studies which use the
specific social, political, commercial, and material parameters of the colonial
world to explain Spanish American art. For many working in the field today, these
internal art historical battles over what to cali this art, and ultimately, how to valí-
date it, are over. No one doubts its specificity or difference from European art.
There have been no more major debates like those that marked the period from
the 19605 to the early 19805, and the earlier nationalism has for the most part given
way to sound academic approaches.61 At the same time, this does not mean that
the terminologies discussed earlier, and even the ideas they represent, have

335
 the way for some of the later developments discussed above. Tracing the ways in development of urb
which Baroque has been capitalized upon as an identifying trait of Latin American to consider the soci
art more comprehensively falls beyond the scope of this essay, but it is important Iconography v
to recognize that it has a long and somewhat circular history. had a greater impac
Regardless of its problematic overuse, the triumph of the paradigm of Latin 1995), a Spaniard wr
American Baroque art, and perhaps also its endurance, can be partly explained thereafter, producin
because it coincided and overlapped with another development in the field, I990S.56 In Sebastián
namely a growing emphasis on the relevance of historical context for art historical the intellectual valu
analysis. In the 19705, but even more so in the 19805, acculturation and trans- unencumbered by c
culturation theory were impacting all fields of study dealing with Latin America.48 contribution for the
In so far as acculturation and transculturation capitalized on the ways in which specific work of art
the cultures involved in a colonial situation inevitably change, it became a recon- religious images an
ciliatory concept, around which historians of different minds could come to- Spanish America.571
gether. Paradoxically in terms of their seemingly irreconcilable differences, both Francisco Stastny in
Gasparini and Gutiérrez used it.49 The methodological assimilation of accultura- colonial art because
tion theory from anthropology to the history of Latin American colonial art— common in Spanish
today a naturalized practice—was also possible because of the way it converged The work of anothc
with internal changes taking place in the field of art history.50 ferent direction by i
In the 19605 and 19705, some historians of art began to deal with subjects that Andean art rather ti
would ultimately emerge as central issues for both the art history of colonial Sebastián and Gisbe
Spanish America and the wider field of Latin American studies. Even earlier, a few ological change earl
individuáis were venturing into new territory that would later prove tremendously exemplify those ne\
fertile. The writings of Francisco de la Maza (México 1913-1972) on diverse topics
of Mexican art and architecture, including the Virgin of Guadalupe (written as it called attention te
early as 1953), have recently been discussed for just this reason.51 In addition, on architecture. Ico:
Justino Fernández's queries into aesthetics, highlighting the relevance of a spirit of deal with questions
Grandeza Mexicana for the comprehension of colonial art, preved influential for it as a history of im;
later studies of art and culture in New Spain.52 By the 19705, a more systematic and Much of what
concerted effort to practice two new types of art history was clearly emerging: a specific social, politi
social history of art and iconography/iconology. With respect to the former, it is world to explain Sp;
important to note that the work of Arnold Hauser had a much greater influence internal art historie;
in the Spanish speaking academic worid—both within Spain and in Latin date it, are over. No
America—than in the Anglo-Saxon world.53 Influenced by Hauser, Fierre There have been no
Francastel, and others, several scholars of art in Latin America were calling for a the 19605 to the earl
history of art that placed the work in its social milieu.54 Ramón Gutiérrez himself way to sound acade
took a leading role with respect to architectural history, promoting the the terminologies d

334
 development of urban studies, and exemplifying in various publications the need
to consider the social status of artists and the guild systems.55
Iconography was to spread more rapidly and extensively and has probably
had a greater impact. One of its primary exponents was Santiago Sebastián (1931-
1995), a Spaniard who lived in Colombia in the early 19605 and returned to Spain
thereafter, producing important contributions to the field in the 19805 and early
I990S.56 In Sebastián's work, iconographic analysis provided a means to highlight
the intellectual valué of colonial culture, validating it in a new and exciting way
unencumbered by questions of stylistic derivation. Sebastián's most significant
contribution for the colonial material, however, lies not in the analysis of any
specific work of art, but rather in his repeated insistence on the importance of
religious images and the Counter-Reformation context, both in Iberian Spain and
Spanish America.57 Iconography, practiced by Sebastián and many others, such as
Francisco Stastny in Perú, was also a new means of addressing the identity of
colonial art because it revealed that there were certain themes that were more
common in Spanish America than in Europe and others that were entirely new.58
The work of another scholar, Teresa Gisbert, took iconographic analysis in a dif-
ferent direction by using it to systematically consider the indigenous elements in
Andean art rather than searching for the European symbols.59 Interestingly,
Sebastián and Gisbert were among the scholars who had called for method-
ological change early on, and who, in their own academic evolvement, carne to
exemplify those new approaches as well.60 The rise in iconographic analysis in the
19805 and 19905 also contributed to a deeper transformation in the field in so far as
it called attention to colonial painting, previously always overshadowed by studies
on architecture. Iconography liberated the discourse on painting from having to
deal with questions of style (and ultimately quality), and helped re-conceptualize
it as a history of images.
Much of what has come since the early 19808 are studies which use the
specific social, political, commercial, and material parameters of the colonial
world to explain Spanish American art. For many working in the field today, these
internal art historical battles over what to cali this art, and ultimately, how to vali-
date it, are over. No one doubts its specificity or difference from European art.
There have been no more major debates like those that marked the period from
the 19605 to the early 19805, and the earlier nationalism has for the most part given
way to sound academic approaches.61 At the same time, this does not mean that
the terminologies discussed earlier, and even the ideas they represent, have

335
development of urban studies, and exemplifying in various publications the need
to consider the social status of artists and the guild systems.55
Iconography was to spread more rapidly and extensively and has probably
had a greater impact. One of its primary exponents was Santiago Sebastián (1931-
1995). a Spaniard who lived in Colombia in the early 19605 and returned to Spain
thereafter, producing important contributions to the field in the 19805 and early
19908.56 In Sebastián's work, iconographic analysis provided a means to highlight
the intellectual valué of colonial culture, validating it in a new and exciting way
unencumbered by questions of stylistic derivation. Sebastián's most significant
contribution for the colonial material, however, lies not in the analysis of any
specific work of art, but rather in his repeated insistence on the importance of
religious images and the Counter-Reformation context, both in Iberian Spain and
Spanish America.57 Iconography, practiced by Sebastián and many others, such as
Francisco Stastny in Perú, was also a new means of addressing the identity of
colonial art because it revealed that there were certain themes that were more
common in Spanish America than in Europe and others that were entirely new.58
The work of another scholar, Teresa Gisbert, took iconographic analysis in a dif-
ferent direction by using it to systematically consider the indigenous elements in
Andean art rather than searching for the European symbols.59 Interestingly,
Sebastián and Gisbert were among the scholars who had called for method-
ological change early on, and who, in their own academic evolvement, carne to
exemplify those new approaches as well.60 The rise in iconographic analysis in the
19803 and 19905 also contributed to a deeper transformation in the field in so far as
it called attention to colonial painting, previously always overshadowed by studies
on architecture. Iconography líberated the discourse on painting from having to
deal with questions of style (and ultimately quality), and helped re-conceptualize
it as a history of images.
Much of what has come since the early 19805 are studies which use the
specific social, political, commercial, and material parameters of the colonial
world to explain Spanish American art. For many working in the field today these
internal art historical battles over what to cali this art, and ultimately how to vali-
date it, are over. No one doubts its specificity or difference from European art.
There have been no more major debates like those that marked the period from
the 19605 to the early 19805, and the earlier nationalism has for the most part given
way to sound academic approaches.61 At the same time, this does not mean that
the terminologies discussed earlier, and even the ideas they represen!, have

335
 vanished. Nonetheless, it is perhaps truc that the earlier terms do not always carry recently anthropo
the same charge and controversial connotations that they once had. Although the ments as separate
terms mestizo and "Latin American Baroque" remain, they have to a certain extent former rather than
been naturalized and consequently neutralized. Many times they are used as explore the ways i
descriptors rather than as ideological constructs, which, of course, does not mean Indeed, we would
that this is not problematic. Furthermore, in the current state of methodological aróse earlier rathe
pluralism, these past terms share the stage with new words, such as cultural ex-
change, negotiation, and hybridity, some of which—such as the latter—are hardly The Rising Inte
new in themselves and have their own complex historiography.62 And overall, al- Bringing the twen
though occasional discussions of terminology resurface, more often than not, sider a few aspects
current scholarship focuses on process, usually on the micro-historical level, rather because one of the
than terminology at the macro level. There is a general acceptance that one of the the growing atten
truly unique and fascinating aspects of colonial Latin America is precisely that least studied,65 wh
artistic process was múltiple, diverse, and often contradictory so that the words twentieth century.
and ideas that help explain one event might not serve the next. As a result of these survey books on L
new focuses, the way in which identity is discussed today is quite different from warranted conside
the interest it held for Moreno Villa in 1948. For example, because there is now a graphy this was la
keen awareness of competing identities sharing the colonial stage, rarely is iden- was underapprecia
tity discussed in the singular any more. To mention but one other salient method- but did not seem t(
ological corrective, the Indians, as a category has been broken down both by art it was labeled deri
historians and by scholars from other disciplines who distinguish between indige-
nous élites and common Indians, while the specificity of individual ethnic groups models and was th
(Otomi, Tlaxcaltecas, and so forth) has been restored in discussions of how local charming.68 Many
contexts affected artistic production. manifesting their d
Such transformations have come about gradually and from a variety of disci- importancia tiene la
plinary developments. The growing field of Latin American colonial studies and hechos. Como los pin
its interest in images is partially responsible for having brought renovated perspec- penumbra."69 Not si
tives to the history of viceregal art. At the end of the twentieth century, non-art nial art presented i
historians dealing with images introduced stimulating, non-traditional art histori- architecture, or scu
cal questions to the field.63 Post-colonial studies and greater interdisciplinarian fo- Nonetheless, painti
cuses related to the rise of post-modernism and its interest in discussions of up with architectuí
difference, subalterns and subaltern élites, have certainly had an impact on the art painters have appe;
history of colonial Latin America. However, as demonstrated here, it is fair to say works addressing s¡
that although the field of colonial art history has partly changed due to these ex- is not simply a mat
ternal influences, simultaneously new directions were coming from within as what kinds of paini
well, such as in the rising interest in social art history, iconography, and, more today than in earlie

336
recently, anthropology of art. In addition, although I have treated these develop-
ments as sepárate—inside and outside art history with more attention paid to the
former rather than the latter—a deeper analysis would be important to further
explore the ways in which these avenues of inquiry became interconnected.
Indeed, we would probably discover that the connections, the interdisciplinarity,
aróse earlier rather than later in the twentieth century.64

The Rising Interest in Latín American Colonial Painting

Bringing the twenty-first century into focus in this section, I would like to con-
sider a few aspects of the historiography of viceregal painting, especially
because one of the newest developments in the study of colonial art is precisely
the growing attention that painting is receiving. Sculpture has always been the
least studied,65 while architecture dominated the historiography for much of the
twentieth century. One need only glance at the table of contents of all the
survey books on Latín American colonial art to confirm that painting always
warranted considerably fewer pages than architecture.66 In the earlier historio-
graphy, this was largely because of pejorative views.67 Painting from New Spain
was underappreciated because it was considered closely related to Spanish art
but did not seem to attain the heights of the Iberian masterpieces; consequently
it was labeled derivative. Paradoxically, for South America, negative assessments
were based on the contrary impression; it was too different from the European
models and was thus relegated to the sphere of the na'ive, popular or, at most,
charming.68 Many of the earliest historians of colonial art had no qualms in
manifesting their disinterest in this material. For Moreno Villa, "... poca o ninguna
importancia tiene la pintura colonial. Pero así es, y no está en mis manos el remediar los
hechos. Como los pintores de esa época hubo centenares en España que no pasaron de la
penumbra."69 Not surprisingly then, the central debates on the identity of colo-
nial art presented in the previous section framed their discussions in terms of
architecture, or sculptural work in church facades, but passed over painting.
Nonetheless, painting has steadily been overtaking the field (or at least catching
up with architecture). In the last twenty years, new monographs on colonial
painters have appeared,70 painting exhibitions have been organized,71 and critical
works addressing specific questions have been published.72 This transformation
is not simply a matter of quantity. Both the way in which painting is studied and
what kinds of paintings are considered valid for analysis is dramatically different
today than in earlier periods.

337
 Re-reading Manuel Toussaint's Pintura Colonial en México is illuminating in art, on the other. 1
this respect for it reveáis how fundamentally some of the basic assumptions about their time, unders
colonial painting have changed.73 For Toussaint (1890-1955), considered the found- completely abandc
ing father of the art history of New Spain, the late seventeenth century marked Mexican painting 1
the beginning of the decline of colonial painting in México which then became Besides style
unsalvageable in the eighteenth century. Although he partly blamed this on the were worthy of st
contemporary fashion for retablos increasingly displaying more sculpture than the European grar
painting, he went so far as to suggest that colonial society itself was decadent, a good number of
with poor taste accounting for the undesirable work painters produced.74 In fact, not fit into this ser
he titled Part Three of his book, "La Decadencia." His position may seem some- of his monograph
what paradoxical considering that Toussaint is typically considered one of the key which was also co
voices defending the thesis that the Baroque, which extended well into the eigh- Under this rubric,
teenth century in Latin America, was the style that best expressed Mexico's colo- popular scenes of
nial identity. In his book Arte Colonial en México, he introduces the eighteenth saints; and portrai
century as a time of great wealth, artistic patronage, and magnificence. In part, longing to an infe
this disparity can be explained because Toussaint differentiated his treatment of aware of their pot
painting from architecture, with the latter being the site of Baroque praise rather he himself was wr
than the former. The dates of his publications provide another means for under- popular, que llenarle
standing this apparent contradiction. The book on painting was published post- opuesta, a la histoñi
humously in 1965 but the manuscript was reportedly completed around 1934, Toussaint's ic
pre-dating the colonial art book of 1948. These dates suggest that his thoughts on onates prophetical]
art were evolving during this period. Toussaint's disdain for eighteenth-century the images he rele¿
painting was largely informed by his wholesale application of European stylistic the history of coló
categories to the study of colonial art. He wrote about Mexican painting follow- nicentric images, F
ing early twentieth-century ideas so that the Renaissance was the apex of artistic places that intrigue
achievement with the Baroque, and even more so, the rococó marking subsequent formation on the 1<
decline. Thus, colonial painting of the eighteenth century was mediocre with its ing exhibition serie
palé tonalities and soft lines just as it was in the rest of the world.75 However, as gious images in To
Toussaint became more involved in the wave of Mexican cultural nationalism of exhibition on Mexi
the 19405, he increasingly upheld the Baroque—especially in architecture—as the ognized anonymoi
ultímate expression of Mexican sensibility and art. This duality in his perspective the ex-voto traditic
over the Baroque is not typically mentioned in the literature on Toussaint.76 tionally tagged ont
Bringing it to light, underscores the extent to which he was informed by both entirely neglected i
national and international trends. Toussaint was divided between an art historical urban México in m
academic tradition of European origins that he undoubtedly admired, on the one field, familiar even
hand, and a national project of identity formation through the appropriation of painting has embrí

338
art, on the other. Tríese two projects were not always compatible. As products of
their time, understandably today Toussaint's discussions on decadence have been
completely abandoned. In fact, as is well known, research on eighteenth-century
Mexican painting has undergone a complete reversal.77
Resides style, Toussaint used subject categories to decide which paintings
were worthy of study and which were not, once again following the hierarchies of
the European grand manner. Interestingly, however, he clearly felt that there were
a good number of paintings that should be included in his book even if they did
not fit into this scheme. In order to include them but not compromise the entity
of his monograph, Toussaint turned to the resourceful category of popular art,
which was also commonly applied for European and Spanish art at the time.
Under this rubric, he included four types of paintings: ex-votos; works depicting
popular scenes of everyday life, historical events, or identifiable places; images of
saints; and portraiture. Despite the fact that Toussaint regarded these works as be-
longing to an inferior category of art, he was drawn to them. Moreover, he was
aware of their potential to tell a different history of Mexican painting than the one
he himself was writing: "No es posible hacer un estudio completo de nuestra pintura
popular, que llenaría, por sí sola, todo un libro, un libro que formara pareja, aunque
opuesta, a la historia de nuestra pintura 'personal.'"7S
Toussaint's idea that these other kinds of works were worthy of study res-
onates prophetically of the developments in the field in the last decades. Many of
the images he relegated to the sphere of popular art are now considered central to
the history of colonial painting. Using the categories of chorographic and commu-
nicentric images, Richard Kagan dedicated a monograph to those paintings of
places that intrigued Toussaint, uncovering their relevance for processes of identity
formation on the local as well as imperial level.79 Jaime Cuadriello's ground-break-
ing exhibition series Los Pinceles de la. Historia hung some of the more "popular" reli-
gious images in Toussaint's category with more canonical works.80 In an earlier
exhibition on Mexican ex-votos in 1996, paintings by renowned artists, as well as rec-
ognized anonymous masterpieces, shared walls with the more popular renditíons of
the ex-voto tradition, implicitly challenging assumptions of high and low art tradi-
tionally tagged onto this genre.81 And casta painting, a genre which Toussaint almost
entirely neglected in his survey,82 and which represents the mixed-race society of
urban México in mostly pleasing family groups, has emerged as the postcard of the
field, familiar even to those outside it. In these and other ways, the field of colonial
painting has embraced a wider range of works than Toussaint ever dreamed. But,

339
 whereas Toussaint envisioned two parallel histories of painting, the overall impres- mestizo and/or Ba
sion is that there is simply a new history in place, which is more inclusive. educated or elevat
In many of these studies, discussions of aesthetic worth and style are absent Baroque art in Lat
and have been displaced by foregrounding other issues, especially content. to explain the seen
Through various methodological currents—some noted in the previous section of tectural vocabular
this essay—paintings have come to be regarded as images representing individual in most Latin Ame
histories, rather than "art" measured by a European canon of aesthetic worth.83 As artistic production
a result, Latin American colonial painting has gained ground over earlier periods was his equivalen!
marked by greater discomfort regarding issues of quality. In these new ap- elements; the othe
proaches, divisions such as those that Toussaint established between popular and he was refuted by
élite become unnecessary. Paradoxically, however, it was perhaps his decisión to be misma época, en un
inclusive, even if also categorical, that ultimately called attention to these works in puedan darse dos vo
the first place. tions remain blurr
Toussaint's dichotomy of popular versus élite or more elevated art was, of ered separately in 1
course, not his. This kind of división was applied to the art of many geographies; alternative ways o
for Latin America, it became common in the central decades of the twentieth as well as various é
century, and it has had long term consequences for the way objects are still per- and even Gasparin
ceived self-consciously but often also implicitly. Furthermore, the implementation Bayón especially p
of this categorical dichotomy did not opérate in the same way for all colonial these discussions,;
painting. For example, in his study on art in Perú (1959), Cossío del Pomar (1889- captured by one oi
1981) concluded that these two types of art existed distinctly from each other in Manrique: "Invente
the viceroyalty of New Spain—following Toussaint on this—while in the Andean
región they merged. He even went as far as positing that official religious painting Conclusión
in New Spain, which he considered the élite art, was less original because it con- Time has answereí
formed to European models more closely than Andean art. By contrast, he cham- ways of thinking a
pioned the idea that in the Andes, a unique mix between the official religious solid academic grc
models and strong local "popular" elements converged to créate something en- transformational p
tirely new, "un arte religioso-popular."*4 Although Cossío del Pomar did much to alleged neutrality
further general awareness of the uniqueness and valué of Cuzco School painting, the scholarship of
in the end, the idea that stuck in the historiography for a long time, probably to great monographs
this day, is that Andean colonial painting is more popular than New Spanish paint- mentation, much i
ing, something which is not always regarded in the positive way he envisioned. monuments. In so
The categories of arte culto and arte popular carne under greater scrutiny in vided the depth of
the 19705, once again in discussions revolving around architecture rather than paint- South America, I a
ing. Although popular art was not at the foreground of the polemics presented José de Mesa on C
earlier, it was nonetheless related to them.85 The same art that for some was labeled books on Solivian

340
mestizo and/or Baroque, could also be considered popular.86 The question of an
educated or elevated versus popular art was brought to bear on the debates over
Baroque art in Latín America by Damián Bayón (1915-1995) among others. He tried
to explain the seemingly incomprehensible combination of a more classical archi-
tectural vocabulary used in ground plans coexisting with Baroque ornamentation
in most Latín American churches by suggesting that there were two modes of
artistic production operating simultaneously: one was the spontaneous mode, which
was his equivalen! to what others called popular, and referred to the ornamental
elements; the other was the élite architecture.87 In a series of now published letters,
he was refuted by Jorge Alberto Manrique who claimed: "No entiendo como en una
misma época, en un mismo lugar, en una misma obra y con los mismos comandataños
puedan darse dos voluntades deformas diferentes y ajenas ...."ss Although Bayón's defini-
tions remain blurry, to be fair, he did not think these two modes should be consid-
ered separately in the way Manrique was contesting.89 Bayón was trying to find
alternative ways of discussing so-called Baroque art. The available correspondence
as well as various articles reveal that ultimately Bayón, like Manrique, Gutiérrez,
and even Gasparini, was avid for new ways to discuss the Baroque, a term that
Bayón especially preferred not to use at all.9° The spirit that informed many of
these discussions, and that ultimately led us to where we are today, is perhaps best
captured by one of the closing statements in a letter that Bayón wrote to
Manrique: "Inventemos otras categorías de pensamiento."91
•
Conclusión
Time has answered the wishes of many of the historians noted in this essay. New
ways of thinking are in place, and the art history of colonial Latín America rests on
solid academic ground. The professionalízation that earlier historians craved for its
transformational powers is more widespread than ever before.92 But more than the
alleged neutrality of academic approaches, it is the methodological consistency of
the scholarship of the last fifty years that has contributed to changing the field. The
great monographs spanning from around 1950 to the early 19805 delivered docu-
mentation, much needed iHustrations, and valuable information on artists and
monuments. In so far as they addressed art in distinct periods and places, they pro-
vided the depth of knowledge that invited future generations to delve further. For
South America, I am thinking of works like those produced by Teresa Gisbert and
José de Mesa on Cuzco School painting (1962 and enlarged in 1982), as well as their
books on Bolivian sculpture and architecture; Alfredo Boulton's books on colonial

34i
 art and especially painting in Venezuela (1973); Héctor Schenone's work on icon- NOTES
ography and colonial art in the Río de la Plata región; Francisco Gil Tovar and
1 The conference wa
C. Arbeláez Camacho's El arte colonial en Colombia (1968); Rubén Vargas Ugarte's Pennsylvania and d
dictionary of South American colonial artists (1947); or José Gabriel Navarro's even 2 Throughout this es
reader with additio
earlier books on Ecuadorian art; many others, and the parallel and even more
as interesting biogr
abundant bibliography that exists for the viceroyalty of New Spain. These texts (XVI-XVIII) (Bueno
were undoubtedly products of their time—like all texts—and thus, some of their 3 M. Revüla, El arte a
and 6. Revilla discu
methodological frameworks have been criticized and abandoned. However, no one arte en México: Auto
doubts their relevance today. It lies not only in their usefulness for checking data, duction to this volu

finding a document, and providing a sound overview of major developments, but 4 As early as 1948, El
terial and the metb
also in a more profound way. These texts and their authors forged a transition from "Painting in Colon
a field wrought with anxieties over its identity to one that simply had a lot of Museum of Art, 20
5 T. DaCosta Kaufin
history to write. By means of their personal Communications and collaborative Reinos: Identidades c
efforts, they also began to build the trans-national bridges that helped establish a 6 C. Bargellini, "Los
larger field of study one that was not just about colonial art in México, Perú or Architecture in Me
7 M. Cabanas Bravo,
Ecuador, but about the larger questions that involved the Spanish American español en los siglos ]
viceroyalties. They paved the way for the kinds of issues that occupy the field 8 J. Moreno Villa, Lo
today, and that even extend into how early modern Europe is itself reconceptual- 9 Although she does
art historical literal
ized through a more global or transatlantic lens. Through their dedication and way nationalistic a
sheer academic seriousness then, these authors set the stage for new formulations 10 His earlier book, Le
of persistent questions and the entry of new ones. Moreno Villa coiné
the work of indigei
In this essay I have taken the opportunity to remember the past, summon
u For this generation
some key figures and texts I have always been drawn to, and represent some de la historia, vol. V
"Modernismo, Mo<
heated episodes of the historiography which I have often read about and also
Mexican art at this
heard recounted as part of our discipline's oral history. As I stated in the introduc- México: although i
a continuing prese
tion, this essay is not a comprehensive assessment of who did what and what was
Una visión del arte y
most important. Ñor is it a sufficiently thorough dissection of the múltiple 12 Most of the survey
elements that have shaped the historiography and which undoubtedly require Latín America. An<
1969), as weü as his
more extensive treatment. It is my personal attempt to begin to answer the tion, an Argentine'
question "Where do we go from here?" with another one that logically precedes in M. J. Buschiazzo
panded versión app
it: "Where have we come from?" In so far as it remembers many teachers in the (Buenos Aires, 1961
field, it is also a tribute to my own mentor as well, Jonathan Brown. 13 Castedo was using
Oaxtepec (Morelos
of Texas, in which
americano," Arte y
14 See the 1966 bibliog
2001, vol. 5, pp. 265-
americano," Anales

342
NOTES

1 The conference was organized by the McNeil Center for Early American Studies at the University of
Pennsylvania and directed by Nancy Farriss and Antonio Peros.
2 Throughout this essay I have included the dates of the writers cited in an attempt to facilítate the
reader with additional insight into the chronology of the historiography. Many of these dates, as well
as interesting biographies, are found in R. Gutiérrez, Historiografía iberoamericana: Arte y arquitectura
(XVI-XVIII) (Buenos Aires, 2004).
3 M. Revilla, El arte en México en la época Antigua y durante el gobierno virreinal (México City, 1893), pp. 33
and 6. Revilla discussed in J. Gutiérrez Haces, "El término 'estilo' en la historiografía del arte," in El
arte en México: Autores, Temas, Problemas, ed. Rita Eder (México City, 2001), pp. 113-23; see also the intro-
duction to this volume by R. Eder, and the essay by A. Velásquez Guadarrama.
4 As early as 1948, Elizabeth Wilder and Robert C. Smith addressed the issue of the diversity of the ma-
terial and the methodological implications of this. Their comments are noted in C. Bargellini,
"Painting in Colonial Latín America," in The Arts in Latín America, 1492-1820, exh. cat. (Philadelphia
Museum of Art, 2006), pp. 322-23.
5 T. DaCosta Kaufmann, "Pintura de Reinos: A Global View of the Cultural Field," in Pintura de los
Reinos: Identidades compartidas, ed. J. Gutiérrez Haces (México City, 2008), vol. i, pp. 87-135.
6 C. Bargellini, "Los estudios de la arquitectura novohispana: los avalares de 'Spanish Colonial
Architecture in México,'" in Eder 2001, pp. 194-216.
7 M. Cabanas Bravo, "José Moreno Villa, un historiador de arte sin márgenes," in Historiografía del arte
español en los siglos XlXy XX (Madrid, 1995), pp. 381-96.
8 J. Moreno Villa, Lo mexicano en las artes plásticas (México City, 1948), p. 9.
9 Although she does not deal with Moreno Villa, J. Gutiérrez Haces provides a thorough analysis of the
art historical literature in México produced in the first two decades of the twentieth century and the
way nationalistic currents influenced many of these texts. See Gutiérrez Haces 2001, pp. 90-193.
10 His earlier book, La escultura colonial mexicana (México City, 1942), also dealt with this theme. In it,
Moreno Villa coined the Náhuatl term tequitqui to describe sixteenth-century Mexican sculpture and
the work of indigenous craftsmen.
11 For this generation, see J. A. Manrique, "La Historia del Arte en México" [1991], in Una visión del arte y
de la historia, vol. V (México City, 2001), pp. 315-17. More on the Mexican historiography in R. Eder,
"Modernismo, Modernidad, Modernización," in Eder 2001, p. 341 n. 3. The rising interest in colonial
Mexican art at this time should also be contextualized within the climate of neo-colonialism in
México: although it was strongest in the early decades of the twentieth century, Manrique considers it
a continuing presence until the 19503: J. A. Manrique, "México se quiere otra vez barroco" [1994], in
Una visión del arte y de la historia, vol. V (México City, 2001), pp. 77-87.
12 Most of the survey histories to treat the art of both viceroyalties in this period were written outside
Latín America. Another example is P. Kelemen's Art of the Atnericas, Ancient and Hispanic (New York,
1969), as well as his Baroque and Rococó in Latín America (New York, 1951). On the other hand, an excep-
tion, an Argentine historian with an eye set on the colonial architecture of both viceroyalties, is found
in M. J. Buschiazzo, Estudios de Arquitectura Colonial Hispano Americana (Buenos Aires, 1944). An ex-
panded versión appeared years later: M. J. Buschiazzo, Historia de la arquitectura colonial en Iberoamérica
(Buenos Aires, 1961).
13 Castedo was using this polarity in his summary of the round table discussion of the 1971 symposium at
Oaxtepec (Morelos), organized by the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and the University
of Texas, in which methodological issues were discussed. L. Castedo, "Sobre el arte 'mestizo' hispano-
americano," Arte y arqueología 3 and 4 (La Paz, 1975), pp. 51-53.
14 See the 1966 bibliographic article by J. A. Manrique, "Historia de las Artes Plásticas" [1966], in Manrique
2001, vol. 5, pp. 265-99. For South America, see D. Bayón, "Hacia un Nuevo enfoque del arte colonial sud-
americano," Anales del Instituto de Arte Americano e Investigaciones Estéticas 23 (Buenos Aires, 1970), pp. 13-27.

343
 15 On architects as historians of colonial art in Latín America, see R. Gutiérrez, "Notas sobre la historio- earlier discussion oi
grafía del arte y la arquitectura colonial americana," Historiografía iberoamericana. Arte y arquitectura 2/XCII (1957), p. 163
(XVI-XVIII) (Buenos Aires, 2004), p. 25. 34 Both an exhibition (
16 Bayón 1970, pp. 13-18. Also see the correspondence between Gasparini and Bayón in the late 19605, and cat. (Rome, Istituto
the latter's idea of writing a book on new approaches to colonial art: S. Ariztondo, Correspondencia Americano (Rome, i;
recibida, ed. Damián Bayón (Granada, 2.000), p. 204. In another letter in this volume, Santiago Sebastián 35 At the same time, C
expresses the same need for new perspectives, p. 244. The desired book Bayón envisions became his ated with the Baroq
Sociedad y arquitectura colonial sudamericana. Una lectura polémica (Barcelona, 1974). the exhibition held:
17 Gutiérrez 2004, pp. 16-17. Also on Mexican cultural nationalism from the 19205 to the 19605, see Eder as a supreme examj
2001, pp. 346-50. The nationalistic currency of the Mexican historiography of the 19305 and 19405 can Barocca Latino-Am
also be compared to that of Europe in the early twentieth century: see DaCosta Kaufmann 2008. 1980), pp. 18-19.
18 For example, at least as early as the 19605, if not earlier, Francisco de la Maza in México was calling for 36 Most of his presentí
an end to nationalistic interpretations of history; J. Cuadriello, "El afán intelectual de Francisco de la Gasparini, "Space, I
Maza: temas, imágenes, y textos," in Eder 2001, p. 239. América, barroco y ai
19 Castedo 1975, p. 39. 37 For his use of provi
20 K. Cordero Reiman, "Lecturas de forma, formas de lectura: las aportaciones teóricas de George 38 Gasparini 1980, pp.:
Kubler y el estudio del arte en México," in Eder 2001, pp. 68-72. 39 See, for example, th
21 An early assessment of the debate in M. J. Buschiazzo, "El Problema del Arte Mestizo," Anales del plays in his 1972 mo
Instituto de Arte Americano e Investigaciones Estéticas 22 (Buenos Aires, 1969), pp. 84-102: also Castedo 40 J. A. Manrique, "La
1975, PP- 39-66. A more recent discussion in Ramón Mújica Pinilla, "Arte e identidad: las raíces cultura- pp. 213-19. Even Gu
les del barroco peruano," in El barroco peruano (Lima, 2002), pp. 1-4. Also DaCosta Kaufmann 2008. Baroque art, has re(
22 M. Noel, Fundamentos para una estética nacional (Buenos Aires, 1926). ical revisión in the f
23 Mújica Pinilla 2002, p. i. My translation. 41 Manrique [1980] 20c
24 For tequitqui, see note 10 above. C. Reyes-Valerio, Arte indo-cristiano: escultura del siglo XVI en México 42 He has published se
(México City, 1978). las Pampas, ed. R. G
volume Arquitectura
25 J. de Mesa and T. Gisbert, "El estilo mestizo en la arquitectura virreinal boliviana," Khana IV (1955),
pp. 9-26. 43 Gutiérrez 1997, p. 15
26 Part of the controversy was also played out through the questionnaire that Gasparini sent out to vari- 44 Ibid., p. 14.
ous scholars in the field addressing the issue of mestizo and Baroque art. See G. Gasparini, "Encuesta 45 M. Toussaint, "Apo
sobre la significación de la arquitectura barroca hispano-americana," Boletín del Centro de Investigaciones Investigaciones Estétii
Históricas y Estéticas 1 (Caracas, 1964), pp. 9-42. 46 J. Fernández, "El pe
27 G. Kubler, "Indianism, Mestizaje, and Indigenismo as Classical, Medieval, and Modern Traditions in Investigaciones Estétit
Latín America," in Studies in Ancient American and European Art: The Coilected Essays of George Kubler, ed. 47 García Sáiz notes th
Thomas F. Reese (New Haven and London, 1985), pp. 75-80. 19608 following the
28 José de Mesa and Teresa Gisbert, "Determinantes del llamado estilo mestizo y sus alcances en Sáiz and J. Gutierre;
América: Breve consideración del termino," Actas y memorias del XXXVII Congreso Internacional de p. 2,6.
Americanistas, vol. III, Buenos Aires, 1968. 48 An early applicatior
29 Mújica Pinilla 2002, p. 3. Others, like Buschiazzo, considered the extremist usages of mestizo to be 1969, p. 98.
dangerous and called for greater responsibility in how it was applied: Buschiazzo 1969, pp. 84-102. 49 Although not a cent
30 S. Gruzinski, The Mestizo Mind (New York, 2002). graph (p. 27, for exa
31 Iberoamérica mestiza, encuentro de pueblos y culturas, exh. cat. (Madrid, 2003). The idea of mestizaje pre- cations such as Arqu
sented in the exhibition was largely inspired by the work of Miguel León-Portilla: "Mestizaje cultural y proved to be a usen:
étnico en México," América indígena XXIII (1963), pp. 183-99. art had no doubt ch
the outcome as Latí
32 As in Hiroshige Okada's "Inverted Exoticism? Monkeys, Parrots, and Mermaids in Andean Colonial
Art," in The Virgin, Saints, and Angels. South American Paintings 1600-1823 from tne Thoma Collection, ed. 50 Even though he ulti
Suzanne Stratton-Pruitt (Milán, 2006), pp. 67-79. has also recognized
Iberian Spain, and n
33 Defining this Baroque was also a central issue in the 1964 Latín Americanist conference held in Seville:
(New Haven, 1991),
see Actas y memorias. Congreso Internacional de Americanistas XXXVI, vol. 4 (Seville, 1966). For an even
New World: Mexican

344
 earlier discussion of the issue see W Palm, "Introducción al arte colonial," Cuadernos de América
2/XCII (1957), p. 163. Also Castedo 1975, p. 52.
34 Both an exhibition catalogue and symposium papers were published: Barocco Latino Americano, exh.
cat. (Rome, Istituto Ítalo-Latino Americano, 1980); and Simposio internazionale sul Barocco Latino-
Americano (Rome, 1982 and 1984).
35 At the same time, Gasparini had no doubts that certain aspects and ideas that were commonly associ-
ated with the Baroque found fertile ground in Latín America. In the catalogue essay that accompanied
the exhibition held in conjunction with the Román symposium, he discussed Latín American retablos
as a supreme example of the Baroque concept of an art of persuasión. G. Gasparini, "L'Archítettura
Barocca Latino-Americana, una persuasiva retorica provinciale," in Barocco Latino Americano (Rome,
1980), pp. 18-19.
36 Most of his presentation in Rome was based on earlier work. Among other texts, see: Graziano
Gasparini, "Space, Baroque and Indians," Arácneas 23, no. 4 (April 1971), pp. s-i8-s-2i; also G. Gasparini,
América, barroco y arquitectura (Caracas, 1972), pp. 18-28.
37 For his use of provincial, see Gasparini 1972, p. 23.
38 Gasparini 1980, pp. 15-19; Gasparini 1972, p. 18.
39 See, for example, the peculiar role that photography, especially of contemporary indigenous peoples,
plays in his 1972 monograph.
40 J. A. Manrique, "La formación de la arquitectura barroca americana" [1980], in Manrique 2001, vol. 5,
pp. 213-19. Even Gutiérrez, who opposed Gasparini's stance against the viability of a Latín American
Baroque art, has recently conceded that Gasparini was responsible for having instigated a methodolog-
ical revisión in the field: Gutiérrez 2004, p. 29.
41 Manrique [1980] 2001, p. 214.
42 He has published several books supporting this theme, including: Barroco Iberoamericano. De los Andes a
las Pampas, ed. R. Gutiérrez (Milán, 1997); also, closer to the dates of these debates, the monumental
volume Arquitectura y urbanismo en Iberoamérica (Madrid, 1983).
43 Gutiérrez 1997, p. 15.
44 Ibid., p. 14.
45 M. Toussaint, "Apología del arte barroco en América," Anales del Instituto de Arte Americano e
Investigaciones Estéticas 9 (1956), pp. 17 and 19 respectively.
46 J. Fernández, "El pensamiento estético de Manuel Toussaint," Anales del Instituto de Arte Americano e
Investigaciones Estéticas 25 (1957), pp. 14-18.
47 García Sáiz notes the impact of Toussaint's 1934 methodological model on art historical practice of the
19605 following the publication of his book. See "La pintura virreinal y la historia del arte" in C. García
Sáiz andj. Gutiérrez Haces, eds, Tradición, estilo, o escuela en la pintura iberoamericana, México, 2000,
p. 26.
48 An early application of acculturation theory for the art history of Spanish America, in Buschiazzo
1969, p. 98-
49 Although not a central term to his discussion, Gasparini mentions acculturation in his 1972 mono-
graph (p. 27, for example). Ramón Gutiérrez adopted the corrective term of transculturation in publi-
cations such as Arquitectura colonial. Teoría y Praxis, Resistencia (Argentina, 1980). For Gutiérrez, it also
preved to be a useful means of defending a Latín American Baroque art. Because European Baroque
art had no doubt changed in the process of local acculturation, there was no question that describing
the outcome as Latín American Baroque was legitímate.
50 Even though he ultimately opts for other ways of discussing art historical processes, Jonathan Brown
has also recognized the usefulness of acculturation for rethinking ideas of artistic interchange in
Iberian Spain, and more recently in Spanish America: J. Brown, The Golden Age of Painting in Spain
(New Haven, 1991), p. vii; and "Introduction: Spanish Painting and New Spanish Painting," in Painting a
New World: Mexican Art and Life, exh. cat. (Denver Museum of Art, 2004), pp. 17-23.

345
 51 J. Cuadriello 2001, p. 224. De la Maza is also often credited with producing one of the first iconographic "Inter/disciplinarity
studies for a work of Mexican art, the chapel of the Rosary in the convent-church of Santo Domingo in 65 Fortunately sculptu
Puebla, published in Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 23 (1955). The significance of this for on sculpture sponso
the development of the Mexican historiography is that the impact of Panofsky crystallized much later, Autónoma de Méxi
when his works were finally translated into Spanish and thus read more widely in Latin America, start- revista/índex.html.
ing in 1972. See Obras escondas. Francisco de la Maza, ed. E. Vargas Lugo (México City, 1992), p. 31.
66 Some do not even h
52 J. Fernández, El Retablo de los Reyes. Estética del arte en Nueva España (México City, 1959). Although not 1960).
an art historian, Edmundo O'Gorman's writings on colonial history were also tremendously impor-
tant for future interdisciplinary approaches of the art history of colonial New Spain. Among other 67 Castedo 1975, p. 42. C
works, La Invención de América (México City, 1958); and Destierro de Sombras: luz en el origen de la imagen phy include the then
de culto de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe del Tepeyac (México City, 1986). tablished museums

53 Although the issue merits deeper study, Hauser's influence in Latin America is mentioned by 68 The implications of
Gutiérrez 2004, p. 33. Hauser had an early impact in Latin America and Iberian Spain, among other rea- colonial hispanoam
sons, because the Spanish edition of his Historia Social de la literature y el arte was published in Madrid Gutiérrez (Madrid,
in 1957, and subsequently went through numerous editions; just the opposite of Panofsky who was 69 Moreno Villa 1948, p
translated much later (see note 50 here). 70 For example, for Ne
54 As a student of Fierre Francastel (1900-1970), Bayón was one of the leading supporters of this ap- (México City, 1995);
proach, especially in Bayón 1974. José Juárez: recursos y
55 For example, Gutiérrez 1980. 71 Most of these have
56 His early works on Latin American art appeared as articles in various Latin American journals. For others: New World O
example, S. Sebastián, "Fuentes iconográficas del programa de Atotonilco," Arte y arqueología 5-6 (La José Juárez (México C
Paz, 1978), pp. 181-84. Some of his later books synthesized and expanded upon earlier iconographic 1521-1821 (Denver Ar
studies, most notably: El barroco iberoamericano: mensaje iconográfico (Madrid, 1990); and Iconografía e ico- 72 Such as the introduc
nología del arte novohispano (México City, 1992). Sebastián did much to promote the methodology of tura iberoamericana,
iconography in Spain as well; in 1972, he founded the Journal Traza y Baza. Cuadernos hispanos de sim- Poder de los Colares. D
bología. Arte y literatura, the first scholarly publication dedicated to the study of iconography and em- Aires, 2005): and P. V
blems in Spain. España (México City
57 As in, S. Sebastián, Contrarreforma y Barroco: lecturas iconográficas e iconolágicas (Madrid, 1981). 73 M. Toussaint, Pintun
58 Although he went on to develop a thesis for how some of the iconographies of colonial art related to 74 Toussaint 1990, p. i6<
art frorn the Middle Ages in Europe, Francisco Stastny's work was important for validating the local 75 M. Toussaint, Arte co
choices and contexts, just like Sebastián's. Some of his writings on iconography include: F. Stastny "La
76 The only inference t
Universidad como claustro, vergel y árbol de la ciencia: una invención iconográfica en la Universidad
lighting Toussaint's
del Cusco," Antropológica 2 (1985), pp. 105-67; and "Síntomas medievales en el 'barroco Americano,'"
suggest and praise th
Documento de trabajo 63, Serie Historia del Arte i (Lima, 1993).
him. Fernández was
59 T. Gisbert, Iconografía y mitos indígenas en el arte (La Paz, 1980). Gisbert and Mesa's interest in iconogra- ing Toussaint shorth
phy predates this work and was already occupying their attention in the previous decade: see the pro-
77 Today, eighteenth-ce
logue to J. de Mesa and T. Gisbert, Historia de la Pintura Cuzqueña (Lima, 1982).
The dominant paintf
60 C. García Sáiz, "El arte colonial peruano y la bibliografía especializada de una década: 1980-1990," tion of the Maravilla
Revista Andina, Ano 9 / no. i (1991), p. 121. heralded as some of
61 Gutiérrez himself recently wrote that the debates of the 1980 symposium in Rome were largely sterile. 78 Toussaint 1990, p. ig(
Gutiérrez 2004, p. 39.
79 R. Kagan with the ce
62 C. Dean and D. Liebsohn, "Hybridity and its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Haven, 2000).
Spanish America," Colonial Latin American Review 1 2 / 1 (2003), pp. 5-36.
80 Three exhibitions wf
63 For example, Serge Gruzinski, La Guerra de las imágenes: de Cristóbal Colón a "Blade Runner" (1492-2019) de Arte, 1999, 2000, £
(México City, 1995).
81 Dones y promesas: 500
64 Interdisciplinary connections—although obviously not called this way then—were there from the
82 Due to its early asso<
very beginnings of art historical writings in Latin America. One need only recall how many of the
of Race in Eighteenth-
earlier historians were coming to this material from other professions or áreas of knowledge. This
development warrants greater analysis than is possible here in terms of its relationship to the wider 83 This transformation
changes in art history, as well as postmodern definitions of interdisciplinarity. See the articles in "Interdisciplinarity a

346
 "Inter/disciplinarity: A Range of Critical Perspectives," Art Bulletin 77, no. 4 (1995), pp. 534-52.
65 Fortunately, sculpture is beginning to draw more attention. See, for example, the new online Journal
on sculpture sponsored by the Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas of the Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México: Encrucijada at http://www.esteticas.unam.mx/cactividades/actividades/
revista / index.html.
66 Some do not even have a section on painting: J. G. Navarro, El arte en la provincia de Quito (México City,
1960).
67 Castedo 1975, p. 42. Other explanations for the paucity of studies on painting in the earlier historiogra-
phy include the then poor state of conservation of colonial paintings and general absence of well-es-
tablished museums of colonial art.
68 The implications of this tendency in C. García Sáiz, "Aproximaciones conceptuales sobre la pintura
colonial hispanoamericana," in Pintura, Escultura y Artes Útiles en Iberoamérica, 1300-1825, ed. Ramón
Gutiérrez (Madrid, 1995), pp. 94-96.
69 Moreno Villa 1948, p. 32.
70 For example, for New Spain, G. Tovar de Teresa, Miguel Cabrera, pintor de cámara de la reina celestial
(México City, 1995); J. Gutiérrez Haces et al., Cristóbal de Villalpando (México City, 1997); and N. Sigaut,
José Juárez: recursos y discursos del arte de pintar (México City, 2002).
71 Most of these have been on painting from New Spain rather than the viceroyalty of Perú. Among
others: New World Orders: Casta Painting and Colonial Latín America (New York, Americas Society 1996);
José Juárez (México City, Museo Nacional de Arte, 2002): Painting a New World. Mexican Art and Life,
1521-1821 (Denver Art Museum, 2004).
72 Such as the introductory essays in Gutiérrez 1995; and more recently, Tradición, estilo, o escuda en la pin-
tura iberoamericana, eds. C. García Sáiz andj. Gutiérrez Haces (México City, 2000); G. Siracusano, El
Poder de los Colores. De la material a lo simbólico en las prácticas culturales andinas, s. XVI-XVIII (Buenos
Aires, 2005): and P. Mués Orts, La libertad del pincel. Los discursos sobre la nobleza de la pintura en Nueva
España (México City, 2008).
73 M. Toussaint, Pintura Colonial en México, ed. Xavier Moyssén (1965; México City, 1990).
74 Toussaint 1990, p. 166.
75 M. Toussaint, Arte colonial en México (1948; México City, 1983), p. 170.
76 The only inference that I have found of this tensión is in an article by Justino Fernández. While high-
lighting Toussaint's interest in the Baroque as an expression of Mexican identity, Fernández seems to
suggest and praise that, at the same time, he tried to avoid from drowning the critic and historian in
him. Fernández was Toussaint's disciple and this article was written in a special volume commemorat-
ing Toussaint shortly after his death in 1955. Fernández 1957, p. 14.
77 Today, eighteenth-century Mexican painting is celebrated in exhibitions, monographs, and articles.
The dominant painters of the period, Miguel Cabrera and his cohorts, often referred to as the génera-
tion of the Maravilla Americana after the title of a book Cabrera wrote on the Virgin of Guadalupe, are
heralded as some of the best colonial painters.
78 Toussaint 1990, p. 196.
79 R. Kagan with the collaboration of F. Manas, Urban Images of the Hispanic World, 1493-1793 (New
Haven, 2000).
80 Three exhibitions were celebrated in the series Los pinceles de la Historia (México City, Museo Nacional
de Arte, 1999, 2000, and 2003).
81 Dones y promesas: ¡oo años de arte ofrenda (exvotos mexicanos) (México City, 1996).
82 Due to its early associations with ethnography rather than art history. I. Katzew, Casta Painting: Images
of Race in Eighteenth-Century México (New Haven and London, 2004), p. 6.
83 This transformation is related to the rise of visual studies as defined by: W J. T. Mitchell,
"Interdisciplinarity and Visual Culture," Art Bulletin 77, no. 4 (1995), pp. 541-44.

347

••
 84 F. Cossío del Pomar, Arte del Perú Colonial (Buenos Aires and México City, 1959), pp. 207-09.
85 G. Gasparini, "Análisis crítico de las definiciones 'arquitectura popular' y 'arquitectura mestiza,'"
Boletín del Centro de Investigaciones Históricas y Estéticas 3 (Caracas, 1965), pp. 51-66.
86 Yet another parameter of classiflcation that entered into discussion, but was not really taken up at the
time, was Walter Palm's idea of imperial art as the necessary means to contextualize the popular
versus élite dichotomy of colonial art. Palm 1957, pp. 165-67.
87 He had been promoting this thesis since the late 19503 and it appears recurrently in his writings. See for
example, D. Bayón, "The Many Faces of Colonial Art," Americas 23, no. 4 (1971), pp. 8-15-17; also, Bayón
1974.
88 J. A. Manrique, "Polémica Bayón-Manrique" [1971], in Manrique 2001, vol. i, p. 51. Bayón was also con-
testedby Gasparini 1971, p. s-2o.
89 Bayón 1970, pp. 21-22; Bayón 1974, pp. 12-13.
90 In fact, Bayón distrusted the use of the word "style" in itself: Bayón 1970, pp. 24-26; Bayón 1974, p. 12.
91 Manrique [1971] 2001, vol. i, p. 55.
92 The 1992 syrnposium held to honor Toussaint at the Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas was in part a
celebration of the ways in which he facilitated the professionalization of art history in México: Manuel
Toussaint. Su proyección en la historia del arte mexicano (México City, 1992), p. 145.

348