BY WAY OF AN EPILOGUE
1. Subjectivity Objectivized
I increasingly believe that the great difference between animals and men is that the former belong to the same order as the plant and mineral world, while the latter can also make reality fiction, and therefore they can simultaneously belong to another reality, which allegedly represents the first, especially based on language. The only main difference in origin between lies and literature is intention. Regarding image, after the development of digital media, not even photography is valid as proof or testimony. To manipulate image is the same as lying or create artistically, depending on the case. Through the name of things we have concepts. What words bring are not things but concepts. This establishes a dichotomy between the thing in itself and its concept, which is captured in the name or in an image, for the latter can operate as a “naming” word. The namer christens a thing with a name or an image.
The artist consciously becomes aware of something that is inherent to human beings: being in a fiction. Why? To christen things by giving another image of them. This means to re-conceptualize. To go back to conceiving things filling the empty spaces in their relationships, and between them and oneself. And why? Because man, from a sensory point of view, just knows them in his relationship with them, be they material or abstract. Scientific knowledge is possible as far as man can achieve having overcome all subjectivity. But the artist, in the fictional field, only knows of the thing (understood as any element referenced for his task) when he re-invents it through a new label that he gives it through the artistic medium of his choice.
In order to do this, subjectivity and objectivity are merged, and projected in a travel-fiction that lasts as long as the work of art is being executed. The artist should take it as his task to do something that is implicit in the human condition: to fictionalize reality. By doing so, he chooses to move to a fictional reality which is on top of the natural reality. But man commonly calls “reality” the institutional construction that he, as a social subject, has created, even if it is nothing but fiction. Therefore, the celebrated “realism” of certain politicians is nothing but an ability to move through a fictional system. “Every realism is an illusion,” said Guy de Maupassant. As far as I am concerned, I feel reality and fiction are constantly interacting and in constant mutation. In the same way as the photographer captures the exact moment of that which he wants to grasp through image, I intend to hold on to a fleeting second that reflects the entanglement of this chaotic complexity I am immersed in. And this chaos does not belong to the mere physical world, but to the interrelation of that world with the fictional world built by men.
2. Incoherent Coherence
My coherence resides on what I ignore and what I seek. My incoherence, in what (as a primitive being) I attempt to grasp so that I can understand something by trying different roads. This is my coherent incoherence: a bag full of a multiplicity of several things does not cease being a full object; but if you take an x-ray of its contents, you will see a myriad of different objects. To me, painting is to x-ray what is inside, which is nothing but an MRI of what is outside. Except for the case that the subject is outside nature; in that case I will feel the MRI of inside merged with my inside of urban man. Theorizing, for me, is to become aware of the x-rays or the MRI.
Because of this, my theoretical thinking is structured around five statements that I believe are key to acknowledging a cognitive method based on the inversion of the thing, and to allow us to understand language not as a closed system of codified knowledge, but as the very adventure of man’s spirit. These five statements are repeated in several of my writings, but “milked” differently according to the specific issue to be addressed: “Language is the being there of the spirit” (Hegel); “I am another. If copper wakes up a clarion it is not its fault’ (Arthur Rimbaud); “…to make the external internal, the internal external, to make nature thought, and thought nature—this is the mystery of genius in the fine arts” (Samuel Coleridge); “Poetry attempts to express with words what those words cannot express” (Aldo Pellegrini); “The works of the spirit only exist as deeds” (Paul Valéry). These statements reside in me as convictions. When I read these thoughts, so well formulated, I simply agreed they were true: they preside over not only my theoretical conception but also my artistic endeavors.
3. “I Believe in Chaos”
“I believe in chaos” means: I am interested in the eternal transformation of life. And this, for a static art form such as painting, is a challenge. But in complex and fast times such as these we are living, I believe it is necessary to acknowledge chaos in order to achieve today’s imago mundi.