Quando a fine anni quaranta del secolo scorso, in America si iniziò un tipo di pittura tipicamente
priva di relazione rappresentativa della realtà. peraltro già ampiamente realizzata da Kandinsky e Malevic a inizio novecento, si affibbiò il nome di espressionismo astratto, che nel continente assunse anche la definizione di Pittura informale. Questo termine risulta però, anche se oggi impiegato, assai fuorviante, in quanto rimanda all'assenza di una forma nell'opera d'arte pittorica.
Ora, se andiamo a considerare nello specifico le opere astratte, da quelle di Pollock a quelle di Still o di Rothko e compagnia, vediamo che la forma è proprio quello che l'opera rappresenta, direi una apoteosi della forma, sia pure non oggettuale, non rappresentativa di oggetti della realtà o della fantasia chimerica, ma pur sempre di forma e forme si tratta.
Non c'è dubbio che una gradazione di colori o una accozzaglia di colori, o addirittura una tela praticamente bianca (ad inizio novecento c'è stato chi ha fatto per primo anche questo), rappresentano comunque deli modi per rappresentare delle forme su un supporto, per quanto di non oggettiva e semplice decifrazione, se esiste una univoca decifrazione e lettura,
Picasso ha composto un quadro divenuto simbolo dell'uso del collage, utilizzando dei fogli di giornale e i futuristi enfatizzavano il ruolo della causalità, del movimento, teorizzavano si potesse scrivere una poesia originale, ritagliando delle parole prese da un giornale e mischiandole in un contenitore, trascritte nell'ordine causale di estrazione, avrebbero formato una composizione sganciata dalla meccanicità e dalla maniera tipica che dominava il mondo letterario e artistico in genere. Di fatto i Futuristi erano anche dei decompositori delle forme oggettuali, solo che non lo facevano con oggetti statici, come i cubisti, ma in movimento.
Già in queste nuove tecniche e concezioni dell'opera d'arte, si vede che di fatto sono gettate tutte le basi per la decostruzione dell'oggettivo, della riproduzione della realtà, della formalità realistica, tanto cara ai materialisti sovietici e mondiali in genere (ricordate le polemiche speciose di Guttuso, dentro le sedi ammuffite di Botteghe Oscure e de L'Unità?, nelle quali il Guttuso si poneva di fronte ai Pollock e ai Warhol con incredibile imbarazzo, imbarazzo che sussisteva anche per maestri ormai conclamati come Kandinski),
Quello che restava e resta è il quadro, il pannello o serie di pannelli, come modo per realizzare l'opera, e con questa modalità si conferisce anche l'aurea dell'opera, quegli elementi intangibili che in qualche modo ci pongono di fronte al quadro come a qualcosa che proviene da un ambiente determinato, con odori e colori, forme e impressioni di lavoro e anche di idee e sentimenti, che ci mettono in comunicazione con il suo realizzatore.
Tutto questo sparisce e si dissolve nel momento in cui spersonalizziamo l'opera, e la collochiamo all'interno di un contesto differente da un quadro appeso ad una parete o un pannello o serie di pannelli comunque predisposti per essere osservati in modo tipico e formale.
Entrando in una delle kermesse di arte visiva di grande rilievo, vediamo gente che suona strumenti, gente che fa movimento espressivo (si insomma dei figuranti che si muovono, danzano o fanno i giullari), e infine ci possiamo trovare davanti a installazioni, performance, happening vari in cui il fruitore diviene spettatore e assiste a una sorta di rappresentazione, di messa in scena.
Ecco che vediamo dei quadrupedi riprodotti in modo iperrealistico, appese per aria, delle tigri dentro acquari, e chi più ne ha più ne metta, oggetti e lavori che trovano un loro senso solo nel contesto spersonalizzante in cui sono esposti e nel significato o meglio nella distratta impressione che riesce a generare nello spettatore, che la guarda con in mano un gelato o un sacchetto di patatine o pop Corn.
Infatti, queste esposizioni che deprivano l'opera d'arte della sua aurea è fatto per rendere il fruitore uno spettatore, che pagando un biglietto si gode uno spettacolo, distrattamente e senza particolari o spesso senza alcuna capacità di lettura critica.
Ecco che la ricerca ad oogni costo di provocare, di shockare lo spettatore, sono ormai un simulacro inutile e vuoto, che avviluppa lo spettatore, ormai assuefatto ad ogni immagine, ad ogni carica di impressionabilitò, annacquata da decenni di copertura e schermatura di immagini, video, foto, che ormai non traumatizzano più nessuno, nemmeno se si mostrano video con fucilazioni di massa, specie se in contesti spersonalizzanti come i grandi hangar delle kermesse di arte contemporanea.
Nessuno ormai deve essere più salvato dallo shock, sia esso costituito da fucilazioni, esecuzioni pubbliche, taglio di teste o deformazioni corporee estreme. Se non uno sbadiglio, si può vedere che la gente prova al massimo un poco di disgusto ma sempre divertito e non convinto.
Per dirla in modo semplice, l'arte visiva è una cosa, altra cosa è chi decide di riempire una tela o un supporto simile, confrontandosi con chi è venuto prima di lui, sia pure con mezzi e tecniche differenti.
Differente da chi usa la computer art o la body art eccetera, che oovviamente sono del tutto incomparabili con i predecessori e anche prive di un valore economico attribuibile con relativa facilità. Quanto puoi pagare per una schermata di computer dove si realizza una sequenza artistica o una frizzatura comunque interessante? Oppure quanto puoi pagare per un lavoro realizzato su una facciata urbana, durante la notte e senza farsi vedere per non essere arrestati?
Arte ed arte, opera ed opera, e ci rendiamo conto che ci sono oggi forme e modalità di realizzare arte visiva che a volte e quasi sempre si riduce a creare solo attenzione, richiamo, senza promuovere una progressione critica del fruitore o spettatore. Per contro, le opere che si realizzano su mezzi tradizionali, sono prese in turbini di continui cambiamenti e avvicendamenti teorici e formali, una sequenza impazzita di continui avvicendamenti di concezioni e modelli, che spesso durano lo spazio di qualche anno per essere poi subito dimenticati e soppiantati da nuovi eroi, sostenuti dai soliti uomini e donne che si pongono come i legittimatori di tali nuove forme e artisti. organizzando kermesse, recensioni, pubblicazioni e insomma, ogni tipo di promozione, spesso con soldi pubblici e non senza interessi personali.
Faccio sempre l'esempio di Francis Bacon, i cui quadri, un centinaio di lavori, raggiungono oggi valori di mercato di milioni di dollari ciascuno, in confronto ai pittori della così definita Transavanguardia, i cui valori, a mio avviso fin troppo valutati, raggiungono, si fa per dire, valori di qualche decina di migliaia di euro. Perché?
Perché Bacon è stato un pittore unico, senza scuole o imitatori o allievi, ha seguito un percorso che lo ha portato a confrontarsi con onestà e coerenza con i pittori del passato e ha realizzato un percorso coerente e di alta qualità di opere uniche e subito riconoscibili come uniche e non imitabili.
Anche Warhol vale milioni, ma i suoi lavori si dirà sono spesso multipli e facilmente imitabili: questo deriva dalla differente tecnica di Warhol, basata su collage, emulsioni, serigrafie e stampe. Insomma, si tratta di lavori originali e coerenti, per quanto riproducibili e copiabili.
Ma Bacon non è comparabile con i valori di Warhol, certamente elevati ma non quanto il primo.
The non objective painting as the limit of the form.
When at the end of the forties of the last century, America began a kind of painting typically
no relation is representative of the reality. which is already widely realized by Kandinsky and Malevich in the early twentieth century, buckled the name of abstract expressionism, which in the mainland also took the definition of informal painting. This term is, however, even if used today, very misleading as it refers to the absence of a form in a work of art of painting.
Now, if we consider specifically the abstract works, from Pollock to those of Still or Rothko and company, we see that the shape is just what the work is, I would say an apotheosis of form, albeit not object, is not representative of objects of reality or fantasy chimerical, but always in shape and forms it.
There is no doubt that a gradation of colors or a jumble of colors, or even a canvas almost white (at the beginning of the twentieth century there were those who did first, too), still represent deli ways to represent the forms of support as far as not objective and simple deciphering, if there exists a unique deciphering and reading,
Picasso has composed a picture became a symbol of the use of collage, using sheets of newspaper and the Futurists emphasized the role of causality, movement, theorized could write an original poem, cutting out the words from a newspaper and mixing them in a container, transcribed in the order causal extraction, would form a composition dropped from mechanical nature and the typical fashion that dominated the literary and artistic world in general. In fact, the Futurists were also decomposers forms object, only that they did not with static objects, like the Cubists, but moving.
Already in these new techniques and concepts of the artwork, you can see that in fact they are all laid the groundwork for the deconstruction of the objective, the reproduction of reality, the formalities realistic, so dear to the materialistic Soviet and world in general (remember the controversy specious Guttuso, moldy inside the premises of the Dark Shops and the Unit ?, in which the Guttuso was placed in front of Pollock and Warhol with incredible embarrassment, embarrassment that there was also for teachers now acclaimed as Kandinsky)
What remained and remains is the picture, the panel or series of panels, so as to carry out the work, and in this way also gives you the aura of the work, those intangible elements that somehow put us in front of the framework as something that comes from a determined, with smells and colors, shapes and impressions of work and also of ideas and feelings, that put us in communication with its creator.
All this disappears and dissolves when spersonalizziamo the work, and we place it within a context different from a picture hung on a wall or a panel or series of panels arranged to be still observed in typical fashion and formal.
Going into one of the festival's visual art of great importance, we see people playing instruments, people making expressive movement (is short of the figures that move, dance or do jesters), and finally we find ourselves in front of installations, performances, various happenings in which the viewer becomes a spectator and witness a sort of representation, of staging.
Here we see quadrupeds reproduced hyperrealistic, hung in the air, the tigers in aquariums, and so on and so forth, objects and works that find their meaning only in the context in which they are exposed and depersonalizing the meaning or better in distracted impression that can generate in the viewer, who watches her holding an ice cream or a bag of chips or pop Corn.
In fact, these shows that deprive the artwork of his aura is done to make the viewer a spectator, that paying a ticket you can enjoy a show, casually and without special or often without any critical reading skills.
Here is that the search for Aan cost provoke, to shock the viewer, are now a simulacrum useless and empty, that envelops the viewer, now addicted to every image, every office of impressionabilitò, watered down by decades of covering and shielding of images, videos, photos, which now no longer traumatize anyone, even if you show videos with mass shootings, especially in contexts such as large hangar depersonalizing the festival of contemporary art.
No one now has to be saved from the shock, whether it consists of shootings, public executions, cutting heads or extreme bodily deformations. If not a yawn, you can see that people try at most a little disgust but always amused and unconvinced.
To put it simply, visual art is one thing, another thing is who decides to fill a canvas or similar support, dealing with those who came before him, albeit with different media and techniques.
Different from those who use the computer art or body art, etc., that oovviamente are completely incomparable with the predecessors and even without an economic value attributable with relative ease. How much can you pay for a computer screen where it produces a sequence artistic or frizzatura still interesting? Or how much you can pay for a work created on a urban facade, overnight and without being seen not to be arrested?
Art and art, work and work, and we realize that there are now forms and methods of achieving visual art that at times and almost always comes down to only create attention, recall, without promoting a progressive critique of the user or viewer. By contrast, the works that are produced upon traditional means, are taken into whirlwinds of constant changes and alternations theoretical and formal, a crazy sequence of continuous rotations of concepts and models, which often last the space of a few years and then be immediately forgotten and supplanted by new heroes, supported by the usual men and women who stand as the legitimizing of these new forms and artists. organizing the event, reviews, publications, and in short, any kind of promotion, often with public money and not without interest.
I always do the example of Francis Bacon, whose paintings, one hundred works, now attains market values of millions of dollars each, compared to the painters of the so-called Trans, the values of which, in my opinion too evaluated, reach , so to speak, the values of a few tens of thousands of euro. Why?
Why Bacon was a painter only, no schools or students or imitators, has followed a path that led him to confront with honesty and consistency with the painters of the past and has achieved a consistent and high quality of unique and immediately recognizable as unique and inimitable.
Even Warhol is worth millions, but his work will be discussed are often multiple and easily imitated: this comes from different technique Warhol, based on collage, emulsions, screen prints and posters. In short, it is original work and consistent, as reproducible and copyable.
But Bacon is not comparable with the values of Warhol, certainly high, but not as much as the first one.
The non objective painting as the limit of the form.
When at the end of the forties of the last century, America began a kind of painting typically
no relation is representative of the reality. which is already widely realized by Kandinsky and Malevich in the early twentieth century, buckled the name of abstract expressionism, which in the mainland also took the definition of informal painting. This term is, however, even if used today, very misleading as it refers to the absence of a form in a work of art of painting.
Now, if we consider specifically the abstract works, from Pollock to those of Still or Rothko and company, we see that the shape is just what the work is, I would say an apotheosis of form, albeit not object, is not representative of objects of reality or fantasy chimerical, but always in shape and forms it.
There is no doubt that a gradation of colors or a jumble of colors, or even a canvas almost white (at the beginning of the twentieth century there were those who did first, too), still represent deli ways to represent the forms of support as far as not objective and simple deciphering, if there exists a unique deciphering and reading,
Picasso has composed a picture became a symbol of the use of collage, using sheets of newspaper and the Futurists emphasized the role of causality, movement, theorized could write an original poem, cutting out the words from a newspaper and mixing them in a container, transcribed in the order causal extraction, would form a composition dropped from mechanical nature and the typical fashion that dominated the literary and artistic world in general. In fact, the Futurists were also decomposers forms object, only that they did not with static objects, like the Cubists, but moving.
Already in these new techniques and concepts of the artwork, you can see that in fact they are all laid the groundwork for the deconstruction of the objective, the reproduction of reality, the formalities realistic, so dear to the materialistic Soviet and world in general (remember the controversy specious Guttuso, moldy inside the premises of the Dark Shops and the Unit ?, in which the Guttuso was placed in front of Pollock and Warhol with incredible embarrassment, embarrassment that there was also for teachers now acclaimed as Kandinsky)
What remained and remains is the picture, the panel or series of panels, so as to carry out the work, and in this way also gives you the aura of the work, those intangible elements that somehow put us in front of the framework as something that comes from a determined, with smells and colors, shapes and impressions of work and also of ideas and feelings, that put us in communication with its creator.
All this disappears and dissolves when spersonalizziamo the work, and we place it within a context different from a picture hung on a wall or a panel or series of panels arranged to be still observed in typical fashion and formal.
Going into one of the festival's visual art of great importance, we see people playing instruments, people making expressive movement (is short of the figures that move, dance or do jesters), and finally we find ourselves in front of installations, performances, various happenings in which the viewer becomes a spectator and witness a sort of representation, of staging.
Here we see quadrupeds reproduced hyperrealistic, hung in the air, the tigers in aquariums, and so on and so forth, objects and works that find their meaning only in the context in which they are exposed and depersonalizing the meaning or better in distracted impression that can generate in the viewer, who watches her holding an ice cream or a bag of chips or pop Corn.
In fact, these shows that deprive the artwork of his aura is done to make the viewer a spectator, that paying a ticket you can enjoy a show, casually and without special or often without any critical reading skills.
Here is that the search for Aan cost provoke, to shock the viewer, are now a simulacrum useless and empty, that envelops the viewer, now addicted to every image, every office of impressionabilitò, watered down by decades of covering and shielding of images, videos, photos, which now no longer traumatize anyone, even if you show videos with mass shootings, especially in contexts such as large hangar depersonalizing the festival of contemporary art.
No one now has to be saved from the shock, whether it consists of shootings, public executions, cutting heads or extreme bodily deformations. If not a yawn, you can see that people try at most a little disgust but always amused and unconvinced.
To put it simply, visual art is one thing, another thing is who decides to fill a canvas or similar support, dealing with those who came before him, albeit with different media and techniques.
Different from those who use the computer art or body art, etc., that oovviamente are completely incomparable with the predecessors and even without an economic value attributable with relative ease. How much can you pay for a computer screen where it produces a sequence artistic or frizzatura still interesting? Or how much you can pay for a work created on a urban facade, overnight and without being seen not to be arrested?
Art and art, work and work, and we realize that there are now forms and methods of achieving visual art that at times and almost always comes down to only create attention, recall, without promoting a progressive critique of the user or viewer. By contrast, the works that are produced upon traditional means, are taken into whirlwinds of constant changes and alternations theoretical and formal, a crazy sequence of continuous rotations of concepts and models, which often last the space of a few years and then be immediately forgotten and supplanted by new heroes, supported by the usual men and women who stand as the legitimizing of these new forms and artists. organizing the event, reviews, publications, and in short, any kind of promotion, often with public money and not without interest.
I always do the example of Francis Bacon, whose paintings, one hundred works, now attains market values of millions of dollars each, compared to the painters of the so-called Trans, the values of which, in my opinion too evaluated, reach , so to speak, the values of a few tens of thousands of euro. Why?
Why Bacon was a painter only, no schools or students or imitators, has followed a path that led him to confront with honesty and consistency with the painters of the past and has achieved a consistent and high quality of unique and immediately recognizable as unique and inimitable.
Even Warhol is worth millions, but his work will be discussed are often multiple and easily imitated: this comes from different technique Warhol, based on collage, emulsions, screen prints and posters. In short, it is original work and consistent, as reproducible and copyable.
But Bacon is not comparable with the values of Warhol, certainly high, but not as much as the first one.
