Paintings, drawings and sculptures from the early 1970’s meet laughing figures that do not generate empathy in the beholder; sarcastic, they reduce him, even when caught in situation of connivance with another, mirror-like, painted one.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

In the second half of the 1970’s, with extension to the early 1980’s, the painting, the water color and the engraving interpreted the painting of São Paulo in the 1930-1940’s. Thus, the analysis of bodies, portrait, still life, prevails as the study of light and space in interiors; water colors of landscapes cannot be omitted here.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Drawings and paintings evidence the luminous palette that resonates continuous or discontinuous areas of pure color. The husks are summoned, detaching themselves from the bodies’ shapes, subordinating them with structures sufficient to themselves. This production has 1983 as its focus.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

As a consequence of the building with husks and of the extension of the chromatic range, there are paintings from the second half of the 1980’s, that in a thicker matter, introduce the oblique vision of beings and their places. Landscapes, interiors, human figures, are profiled.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

A longer length, extended to the second half of the 1980’s and to the 1990’s, is characteristic of the separation between matter and figure. Untied, each one may follow its own path, which, however, does not occur due to their mutual solidarity.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

In the early 1990’s, the paintings, resting on different supports, reinforce the driving dimension operating in the Untying works. The laughter, here, is the discharge before works that may include extra-pictorial elements, recovering Dadaistic traces of the 1970’s.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The set of paintings from 1994 marks the triumph of drives in the dual play of looking and being looked, as not only something from the canvas stares the beholder, but it also draws his look. The beholder’s look is not entirely dissociated from the view of figures, except in the paintings in which nothing or much is discernible, successively: In the visual indiscernible, the painting launches the suspicion that the beholder is being stared from somewhere.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The broad repertoire of paintings encompassed by the end of 1990’s and the 2000’s brings a set of paintings that share the figurative and figural portrait of the indiscernible. Though some portraits play with the figural, the indiscernible is what haunts the beholder, that either envisions nothing or does it successively, becoming himself in the condition of beheld, though aggressively.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

In the early 2000’s, the painting of heads is kept, as well as their modeling. The aggressive nature of figures is more declared in the painting than in the homologue modeling, in rictus that strike the beholder. Concerning the difference of aggressive nature’s effects, it should be considered that the modeling is made with a more contained gesture than painting.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The charachterial dimension starts to be considered by Cabral. The aggressive nature develops not only in the plan of figure identification, but also in its character, exposed as comical in the overload of traces highlighting stinginess.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

More than the inglorious ones, the farcical characters walk in couples or in parties. Figures used in drama intermissions, the farcical characters are swelled as luncheon, even when they are resolved by lines, as their inflation is more a personification of bovine presumption than of any physical feature.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•