According to the exhibition’s curators, their interest in the myth of the Hispanic arose from understanding that it was not only more deceitful and pathetic that other national identity myths such as Francophony, Italianism or Pan-Germanism, but -so the catalogue states- was also the only one that continues to this day, thanks to having been given an “esthetic thrust” that became a State policy: the baroque. “Whereas in Germany, England or France viewing national identity as a “manifest destiny” in the world came to an end […] the Hispanic, or the Hispanic world, is presented under “essentialist” characteristics that are so deeply rooted that the continuance of the Baroque has remained virtually unchanged to this day”. In the light of the current strengthening of national populism in Europe (through Perussuomalaiset - True Finns, Le Pen’s Front Nacional in France, etc.) and Obama’s continued liberal Messianism in the United States, what we see is a different picture: a myriad of national myths and political-aesthetic identitarian styles perfectly alive. Thus, it seems very difficult to accept that the negative exceptionality (the flawed cultural and political style) of La Hispanidad in the range of national and supranational myths derived from colonialism, imperialism or mercantile capitalism stems from the entrenchment of its essentialist identity, its untouched continuity over time, or the naturalization of the baroque as a survival strategy: elements that no doubt exist but are insufficient to convince us that there is a sole baroque operating like a sterile, unproductive and deceitful metonymy, useful only in the measure that it can help us distinguish and bring down the myth of the Hispanic.

A closer look shows that there is not just one but a number of myths regarding the Hispanic, each different and serving opposing interests, coexisting with other supposedly exceptional nationalisms (such as the Mexican or the French), coming to light when they are needed, and remaining hidden when they are redundant. Above all, myths on the Hispanic have learned not to depend on or even “sequester” the baroque while dealing with other myths, such as the supposed incompatibility between the Spanish and Latin American temperaments and political-economic rationalism. As far as 1927, Gongora’s baroque style was stigmatized as a national defect in the Hispanic world, it must be remembered. A neoclassicist phobia of what is known from that time as Gongorism or euphuism promoted a sort criollo intellectual attitude: to be afraid of lacking clarity and moderation; to be afraid of express entangled ideas as a result of the horrori vacui. That’s why in our view a more accurate distinction between lo hispano and la hispanidad in both sides of the Atlantic and a non-totalizing view of the diverse baroques are required. Casticism, Spanishism, Hispanism, Latin Americanism, Hispanic Americanism, among other-isms that exist in this regard may share a fictional territory and a political program for progress, but do not hold the same meaning for all national States, intellectual elites or the societies that we can call Hispanic. Ultimately for a Chicano from Los Angeles and a Catalan from Granollers policies concerning the Hispanic image simply do not bear comparison.