At Art Basel 2025, Almeida & Dale presents highlights from the trajectory of a rural laborer who became a painter. Over five decades of his career, José Antonio da Silva (1909–1996) built a vast and varied body of work, one of paintings marked by an independent and informed artistic attitude, shaped mostly by his rural life experience. Silva painted corn, cotton, and coffee plantations; cattle herds, farmers, and workers driving livestock or working in the fields. He also portrayed the transformation of the landscape during a time of increasing urbanization in the region where he lived. He created numerous landscapes centered on the destruction of nature through burning and deforestation—changes that signaled, for some, progress, and for others, the end of an idealized past.

The selection of works, dated between 1950 and 1988, showcases the thematic variety of Silva’s work, as well as his artistic inventiveness and the dynamism of his painting. Amid the rural landscapes, there are also paintings of flower vases—a theme that, along with still lifes, represents a significant part of his production—as well as scenes of labor and leisure in the countryside. Notable examples of his great compositional ability include O trabalho no Engenho [The Work at the Sugar Mill], 1954, and Operação de coração [Heart Surgery], 1968, works in which Silva composes scenes full of movement and vibrancy. Throughout the selection, the dramatic nature of his painting stands out, oscillating between humor and tragedy. Silva painted popular festivities, circuses, dances, and starry nights, but also depicted the hardships of rural life—drought, death, and destruction.

These works are representative of a period when the artist had already gained public recognition, with his work included in major group exhibitions such as the São Paulo Biennial and the Venice Biennale, in which he participated in several editions. Celebrated today as one of the most authentic and influential Brazilian painters, Silva was criticized during his career, especially due to his detachment from the academic art world, which often led to him being labeled a “primitive painter.” This label was rejected by both the artist and many art critics who defended the artistic value of his work, emphasizing his nonconformity with the dominant artistic culture of his time.