Para ir al articulo objeto de critica en la red: https://www.abc.es/cultura/cultural/abci-contra-desafeccion-arte-contemporaneo-201901300235_noticia.html

Para ir al articulo objeto de critica en la red: https://www.abc.es/cultura/cultural/abci-contra-desafeccion-arte-contemporaneo-201901300235_noticia.html

El Arte Contemporáneo a Examen, una critica de la critica de la desafección del publico por el arte contemporaneo.

El ABC cultural del sábado día 26 de Enero de 2019 trataba en sus paginas centrales entrando un ya viejo debate sobre la desafección del publico hacia buena parte del arte contemporáneo, y lo hacía con tres artículos, dos de ellos bajo la rubrica, “Estamos hartos de todo esto?” y todos bajo un epígrafe general “El Arte contemporáneo a Examen”. Los artículos eran firmados por Nacho Ruiz, Carlos Delgado Mayordomo y Javier García Guardiola. No obstante, es preciso decir antes que nada, que a pesar de ese último epígrafe no es el arte contemporáneo lo que se pone a examen en ellos, sino mas bien la relación entre un publico genérico o mayoritario y las propuestas que a éste se le hacen por los así llamados, agentes culturales). En el texto que sigue hago un análisis critico de uno de estos artículos.


Seguramente de entre ellos, el artículo reciente mejor escrito, tanto por su relevancia, brevedad como por la sin duda buena pluma de su autor, es el de Carlos Delgado Mayordomo. Sin embargo, siendo la calidad técnica del articulo excelente, las deficiencias de fondo me han parecido graves para una estética contemporánea puesta a día. Así pues, ni la informada e incluso erudita exposición del problema pueden disimular la debilidad de la argumentación y la volatilidad de sus conclusiones.

El titulo del articulo, Contra la desafección, determina ya tanto el problema como el propósito del autor; El público en general, o una mayoría de éste si se prefiere no siente un gran interés por el arte contemporáneo, al verse enfrentado con propuestas que como mínimo pueden parecer tomaduras de pelo. Carlos Delgado concede a este público su derecho a su opinión y no es partidario de recurrir a argumentos ad-hominem, es decir, a las comunes y ya triviales descalificaciones esgrimidas contra los desafectos incluso por sus dudas, y que les convierten automáticamente respecto a su apreciación del arte en conservadores o ignorantes o incluso ambos.

Estamos de acuerdo con el autor ahí, y es que no parece una actitud aceptable sino más bien escasamente liberal la de quien sin dilación juzga al público negativamente por su falta de interés, por sus dudas! por el valor de lo que se le propone. ¿O quizá consideraríamos legitimo en cualquier otro ámbito que quien no se siente atraído por una oferta sea por ello considerado por quien se la hace como un tipo rancio o un ignorante? Desde luego, todo error de apreciación es susceptible de ser fruto de un juicio inadecuado y poco informado, pero no por eso deja de corresponder al que propone el hacer la oferta atractiva y persuadir con los medios a su alcance de su interés de la mejor manera posible aceptando que ni aún así cuestiones de fondo pueden hacer todos sus esfuerzos ad hoc infructuosos.

Carlos Delgado abunda en los intentos institucionales, públicos o privados, de hacer aceptable el arte contemporáneo al público mediante los conocidos y viejos intentos de involucrar a éste como co-participe, con resultados que no obstante no han conseguido superar esa recalcitrante desafección, pero en los que según él hay no obstante que insistir. Según Delgado se trataría si de un fracaso educativo, responsabilidad de los mediadores o agentes de la industria cultural y fruto de causas diversas y combinadas, a menudo de las desorientaciones de la critica, sus a veces narrativas excluyentes o la banalidad de los organizadores, comisarios de exposiciones, o incluso con mar de fondo, de la especulación financiera, de los coleccionistas, de la existencia de jerarquías obsoletas, etc. El público no parece pues ser aquí parte operante, aunque como hemos visto antes, aunque no se le tache de conservador o ignorante, puede y debe ser co-participe en la obra de arte, aunque no sabemos si le convence esa labor, lo que no parece sin embargo que pertenezca a su capacidad de decisión que a pesar de todos los esfuerzos no le guste llanamente y a fin de cuentas lo que se le ofrece.

De este modo uno piensa, y se responde; ¿No es ésto lo mismo de siempre? Una forma más bien difusa y ya harto conocida de echar balones fuera ante el fracaso, para seguir dando leña al mono como se dice popularmente hasta que aprenda inglés, pues el problema del arte contemporáneo para hacerse querer viene de lejos, y los desafectos los ha habido siempre, desafectos que casi siempre constituyen una mayoría silenciosa y poco vociferante, más bien silenciosa y que se guarda su gusto e incomprensión no vaya a ofender.

Para Delgado las nuevas practicas ya no tienen entre sus prioridades generar belleza, imitar la realidad o inventar otros universos, sino interpelar vacíos, exclusiones y discrepancias del mundo que nos ha sido legado. Quizá Delgado no quiere creer que esas prioridades a las que es ajena buena parte del Arte contemporáneo siguen siendo las de una mayoría del publico pese a quien pese, y que el cuestionamiento existencial o de la realidad heredada pertenece más al ámbito de la filosofía que al del arte y en cualquier caso si puede venir añadida, en ninguno puede sustituir a éste.

No será que el valor de lo novedoso y lo textual per-se propagado por un buen número de agentes culturales pretende siempre desplazar demasiado bruscamente o incluso un tanto despóticamente al valor de la belleza, del oficio y de la tradición compatible como lo es con lo nuevo pero que se da demasiado raramente, y apenas de hecho en formas memorables. Un arte asi es juzgado un bien demasiado escaso para su uso en nuestras economías de masas y democráticas de rapido consumo, y si moran en el demasiados pocos verdaderos artistas, a estos si se puede se les ignora, pues ponen evidencia a esa misma sociedad. ¿O si se quiere yendo más aun al fondo de la cuestión, pero de otro modo, a la inversa: necesitamos tantos ‘artistas’, o como a veces incluso se presume: somos todos ‘artistas’, es todo ‘arte’? Pocos parecen creerlo así a fin de cuentas, y muchos añadirán sin rubor que aunque relativamente pocos son los artistas que se requieren en una sociedad, eso si cuanto más buenos mejor, y sobretodo más que artistas, si es posible verdaderos poetas en su Arte, de lo que siempre ha habido y parece que habrá una extrema escasez. Pero sobretodo al menos y para empezar, no confundamos los ‘filósofos’, interpretes, agentes contemporáneos del arte con éste. En cualquier caso, sea cual sea la opinión de cada uno, a quien le puede extrañar que el amante de arte quizá por un inherente conservadurismo y amor por la belleza, quizá por instinto o intuición, y para desgracia de gran parte del arte contemporáneo que juzga tal cosas obsoletas se obstina en privilegiar la obra, el objeto y no el texto ni la interpelación del momento que este haga exclusivamente a una realidad siempre efímera y discutible, por tener allí, y no aquí los propios y directos criterios para cualquiera que sea su evaluación.

Por lo demás, Delgado parece ignorar que los intentos de involucrar al publico existen y han existido desde la Antigüedad, sino desde siempre, ignora o pasa de largo sin duda también por brevedad, la historia efectiva del arte, pues el teatro antiguo o el de Shakespeare, o el taller del artista clásico y medieval implicaban a la ciudadanía, al publico, al comprador, al mecenas, y al coleccionista y a todos los estamentos de la sociedad de un modo u otro, y lo hacían de modos tan diversos que quizá harían palidecer a mucho auto proclamado agente cultural o gestor de la industria de arte contemporáneo en su presunción de ser fundamental como polo de atracción de un público contemporáneo.

Desde luego, tampoco sirve de mucho echar la culpa a todos los agentes culturales de un modo tan genérico y poco determinado, para de dejar luego la cosa ahí. Delgado escribe muy bien y en eso estriba su peligro, y su texto nos deja al final igual sino peor que estábamos. Según Delgado parece que hay que explicar mejor, que involucrar mas, que eliminar, ya sea aquí defectos jerárquicos, aquí defectos de un sistema especulativo, o allá prácticas excluyentes. En definitiva, que mejorar se puede mejorar mucho la industria cultural, pero quien lo puede hacer, y como, eso no parece saberlo o quererlo saber nadie con demasiada exactitud. Uno se pregunta ¿Es una industria liberal o no lo es la del arte? Sinceramente yo así lo espero, pues también soy parte de ella, y por tanto las recetas si las hay para llevarlas a cabo han de ser cosa de un verdadero libre mercado, no de más reformas educativas y nuevas pedagogías escolares, en general espurias, cuando no, doctrinarias o fraudulentas, ni por supuesto se solucionan los defectos de una industria, sea ésta cual sea, intentado reformar al hombre, al desafecto recalcitrante, que insiste en su desafección por ese arte contemporáneo.

En definitiva, no seria mejor reconocer de una vez por todas, como un verdadero liberal, no solo que el público esta harto, (-lo cual incluso se ignoraba hasta no hace tanto, y quizá se quiera por seguir en estas trece, volver a ignorar-), sino que además lo esta en general con mucha razón, y la mayoría de las propuestas contemporáneas son sí, eso, exactamente, una inconsciente o indecente tomadura de pelo, falta de genio y de talento, o si se prefiere algo menos cruel, carecen de calidad o solidez, de oficio, y son resultado banal de un simple pero efectivo marketing o de métodos de mercadotecnia vacíos de mucho sentido y contenido por mucho texto curricular e interpretativo que se les añada. Pero no obstante, y como el mundo de los tontos no siendo finito parece eso si inabarcable, representan un negocio lucrativo con muchos agentes sin interés vocacional alguno pero no obstante fuertemente involucrados en calidad del ofertantes y sobretodo mediadores de un producto que apenas precisa de criterios de evaluación que no sean esotéricos, o cuando no, de integrantes interesados en el estar ahí por el estar ahí, pues el mundo del Arte tiene no se puede negar su glamour.

Pero no, Delgado no menciona que el publico opina de hecho simplemente no yendo a galerías que de hecho están tan a menudo desiertas, mientras no obstante llena museos de modo masivo y desordenado para ver algunas exposiciones monográficas de autores reconocidos o visita con frecuencia las colecciones permanentes de los grandes museos, es decir que el interés por el arte existe y es notorio, masivo a menudo, y surge de una mezcla de un interés del publico con la capacidad de convocatoria y sus medios efectivos de difusión para atraerla a veces en grandes, desmesurados números.

La solución del enigma que yace en esta ambigüedad del autor viene en la ultima parte de su excelente articulo, Vías de Mediación. Aquí para empezar Delgado entrega ya el alma diciendo algo que no por haber oído millones de veces deja de ser falso: “No existe para el Arte una única verdad”.

Es decir, traducido quizá a un modo mas franco y sincero; Nosotros agentes culturales, en los que podremos incluir claro algunos artistas afectos y tan contmporaneos como nosotros, somos diferentes, pues quizá en otras actividades y disciplinas si, la verdad exista y sea una, es decir se pueda ejercer con algún interés y resultados el criterio, y valorar, estimar, aplicar verdaderos juicios a nuestra valoración del objeto artístico, aquí en el Arte eso no es posible. Pues bien, entonces solo podemos responder, de que vale hablar y pretender un análisis, si todo esta sujeto en ese mundo del arte contemporáneo a verdades variables, a la arbitrariedad, y de que quejarse si esa arbitrariedad es fundamentalmente lo que crea la desafección de un publico que no se acomoda a ella, que por decirlo vulgarmente no traga por medio de discursos.

O quizá es que no he entendido o interpretado bien la frase? ¿Se quiere decir tal vez que el arte produce propuestas que son sistemas en cierta medida autónomos, abiertos, de una lógica propia, ajena a la realidad, algo que incluso siendo verdad, impide que juzgarlos desde fuera es decir desde nuestra realidad mas general, de seres en el mundo de constitución biológica, histórica y social les hará justicia? ¿Que la belleza no es un criterio real aunque intangible como la verdad? ¿Es eso posible y es asumible, o solo nos hemos liado en una red de palabras y oraciones y citas que suenan bastante bien, y que por eso mismo parecen convincentes?

¿No juzgamos todo desde el exterior, desde alguna perspectiva, uno desde el otro, y tampoco en una linea mas intelectual acaso no ha servido Gödel para nada? Claro que no existe una única verdad, la verdad es una esencia y no un existencial, y es en su esencia un valor de referencia general al que se apunta en los juicios como lo es la Justicia, o la Belleza, no algo que se obtiene y se retiene, no es un hecho gracias a lo cual valoramos y medimos el valor de lo real, sino un a priori ideal que nos faculta y al que apuntamos apoyándonos en lo que nos viene dado y tenemos, o acaso hemos olvidado o quizá refutado totalmente todo Kant. La vida tal y como se nos da y el arte como su interpretación ideal cuando adquiere su valor prescinde naturalmente de todo texto suplementario, pues es la obra de arte que merece este nombre siempre superior a sus modelos interpretativos puntuales y los trasciende.

Evidentemente, el post-estructuralismo sigue en Carlos Delgado aun muy vivo, aunque éste sea ya más bien un viejo conocido cada vez menos creíble para engañar con su retorica lingüística incombustible a todos los que no somos tan susceptibles a su discurso. Si el Arte parece haber salido a veces mas bien librado que la ciencia de la postmodernidad, solo lo ha sido gracias al activo colaboracionismo de sus agentes, a la facilidades que nos ofrece su relativismo como absoluto, pero con ello el arte ha perdido parte de su autonomía y trascendencia, merced a propuestas que son discursos y textos muy elaborados sobre contenidos demasiado a menudo de muy escaso o ningún valor estético y artístico, y a menudo totalmente no lo olvidemos faltos de toda seriedad filosófica. El texto es todo, la realidad nada, desgraciadamente para los desafectos y por mucho que les pese a éstos. Sin embargo y desgraciadamente para Delgado, el texto puede estar muy bien escrito, pero también puede no contener ni apuntar a ninguna realidad, sino mas bien a una amplia y conocida retorica en cuyo vacío dialéctico se impide más bien toda salida y toda solución al problema que plantea.

César Morión

Madrid

(30st January 2019)


Love between a man and a bird, as shown in Heidelberg, Galerie YilliY. 2016.

Love between a man and a bird, as shown in Heidelberg, Galerie YilliY. 2016.

The Vitality of Great Art


The idea of a Art seems naturally opposed to the idea of Life and as such has been almost invariably understood in our european culture, but that formal opposition is not as distinct and uncontroversial as it has been often seen by the tradition of moral philosophy inititated by Socrates, and loaded as it was with the bias of its moral focus in the analysis of concepts.

For a long time the terms of Culture and Nature have been given as somehow equal terms in weight and in quite a frontal and permanent opposition, However, these two ideas correspond to realities that are not equal, much less in factual opposition, but as I will sustain here they are given in superposition and continuity, and that cannot be otherwise, despite the renewed attempts to equalize and confront them. The last important attempt being notoriously and most paradoxically the work of a biologist, the well know author and publicist Richard Dawkins, that makes up the preposterous idea of a meme as essentially and functionally opposed to the gene.

The aim of this text is to draft a general explanation of the so called vitality that the best art of the past seems often to have in comparasion with a good deal of art of our closest actual present. A question that someone has put to me not long ago and so pushed me to this attempt to clarify it. In fact, not all art of the past shows the same vitality, and quite a lot of art of a recent past and our nowadays present seems to have great strenght and vitality as well, but the question remains interesting and valid if we reformulate it as I have done in the title of this article.

It is my general view, one that I do not think as being just a personal opinion, that nature occupies the general basis and necessary platform of every form of culture, from which culture may grow from. This general platform of nature is unavoidable and unreplaceble, and the attempts to subvert their relative importance, which may conform the history of ideas of philosophy and science in Europe at least are short lived, and become at last a sheer lingering rethoric despite the enthusiasm sometimes they almost always arose.

Indeed the basis of all our human intents, nature, is not as the radical advocates of progress and civilization claim increassingly under human control. Alhough control is what culture and civilization naturally pursue all along and prizes most as its most cheered aim what we achieve is a general improvement of our conditions of life by technicals means that is far from being universal, but that nonetheless does not imply a real direction and autonomy but just a better use of our ressources. When we think carefully, we recognise the improvements that science and technology have brought about to our lives in terms of material comfort and technological achievement, but we have also to aknowledge without being for that called pessimists or cynical that not many things of fundamental importance are from the beginning to the end of our lives under our personal control, and what is most it seems that most often the human attempts to control too much, curtailing the natural developments of things have unfortunately most often than not desastrous and unpredicted consequences. Technology offers indeed proof of its own capability to make our lives better but only under a quite wise use and clearly always between permanent natural limits.

The continuity between nature and culture when not disregarded is nonetheless tacitly or even expressedly opposed by all forms of idealism, now cultural idealism is social engineering and the assumption we can modify nature, ours and why not nature itself. Being able to forget the relative disproportion of importance of each, nature and culture, or unable to extract the logical consequences is identical to ignore that nature is a necessary condition of any culture, real or possible, and not the other way round, and culture is only a tiny and interested contribution to its relative perfectioning, as it is seen by we human beings all along history and with all our differences of interest and capacity.

The idea of artificial inteligence and the cybernetic developments that might make of us a sort of cyborgs in what may be already a very near future should not make us to forget that though our biological stand might be less important in the future, there will always remain a material platform, -whatever its particular matter is-, for our ideas, and so, that culture and spirt do not exist neither seem can exist in a material vacuum.

Art represents the manifest reality of a culture and in many regards parallels philosophy in its relation to hard science. This means that on a deeper level bellow that of technology we will find art, and correspondingly on a profund stratum of science we might find natural philosophy, if we dive deeper we will find always Nature at last as we touch hard rock, in the case of human beings as much as with animals, instinct and not civilization keep obviously the hardest and deepest strata of our being.

This of course does not mean that those aspects of culture, art, technology, sciene and philosophy do not coexist and yuxtapose in various ways, and they actually do in our contemporary societies as they most sureley did in the past. Neither they (science and technology) invariably imply a progress in every respect and circumstance to their older partners (philosophy and art). Science obviously afford a much more perfect understanding in every separate field of knowledge, but to the price of a diregard of the importance and relevance of the deepest and most essential questions about nature and our relation to it, or in other words of the interpretation and proposed meaning and sense of the whole . Something similar happens with technology that offers tremendous effciency and effectiveness in all its general applications to the price of losing focus on each, togehter with the versatility and some freedom of imagination as well as the finest adaptation to their materials that is connatural to all crafts and provides the partiular beauty and singularity of its effects.

If Art keeps any vitality it is mainly because it can collect from its source; nature and instict, some of its vital features, perfectioning them very often for the standards of beauty of a given culture, but without losing the effect that only nature provides, even when it forges its true force, that which will make a work endure through time.

Of course in this connection, the artist that can truly produce a piece of art full of force and vitality requires the passion consustantial to such task, but again not passion alone can produce what nature do with perfection and ease and for the not believer entirely blindly, so a close understanding of nature ways and a sound philosophy are required to make the artist’s trick work, it has to awake the sleepy brain of the viewer and provoke a factual effect of reality.

We often see and talk of the pieces of the past as ageing well or bad, no matter whether it might be a book, or a movie, a painting or a piece of sculptur, though not in every case the link of art with nature permits the same universal evaluation of all forms of art, and the relative disattachment of a field from the natural world usually implies important reserves. Architecture for instance disappears so often as an art and that is due in many cases to its fundamental practical utility and the standard tecnological requirements that force beauty to rank third in importance. Indeed the aim of architecture is to provide refuge from nature and it is often in a too brutal though hardly ever necessary oppostion to it. Nonetheless, it might shine as a great art when those primal requirements do not obstruct the natural continuity with nature and the equilibrium predominates. However, in every case, we can extend the value of art to many technical achievements as the Futurist movement clearly saw, so engeneering can often and without contradiction be considered as the most marvelous art, and it is not surprise that we admire the beauty of a weapon or of an aircraft.

Generally speaking, need and utility have not necessarily and at all a negative impact on the Arts, but they do when utility is short-sighted and does not leave room for a more ample vision making of it the uniform expression of a predefined technic.

That is why as much as the artist understand nature requirements and learn to exploit the intrinsic qualities of its materials and to take good advantage of them, as bigger it grows his capacity to grow in perfection, but it will be always instict what lies underneath and afford its vitality. Art is never ornament, or as Adolf Loos put it; Ornament is the crime of art, as a basic functionality crowned with decoration does not make art at all, so despite the outdated cathegories of the fine arts, they are just useful to keep a useful reservoir for many a historian of Art.

Art is rather capable of a profound symbiosis that makes with the less possible change the most perfect the qualities that offers nature for our human ends. Those ends grow naturally more independent of nature in the fine arts that have the least material function as it is the case of poetry or music, also of painting and sculpture ( especially once these last fine arts have lost the requirement of being representative), but obviously the functional ends do not ever disappear of any art, a painting and a piece of music are part of the human need of spiritual comfort in regard to nature, though their utility and function is not of the same order than that we have seen in Architecture and engineering and is not easily measurable.

The relation of a poem to nature is as fundamental as it is the building of a house, but their aspects and constrains are entirely different, the poet builds with words, the suprem cultural inherited artifact, that nonetheless is equivalent in its funcion to the bricks or stones of the arhitect. The result is a house only for the spirit not for the material body, so in that respect pure arts are less encompasing, but provide a profounder focus and aim. In every case, the superlative artist knows how to establish an harmony between nature and mind when neither nature nor our need to extract the best of it for us loses in the combination. The force of great art, its vitality is always in intimate relation and knowledge of it. How to achieve that is the secret of the Artist, a secret that I do not think he may be prone or even often capable to reveal, each using his own means and capacty. However and if roughly, the philosophical background and conditions that make the vitaliy of art a rare reality have been, I hope at least clarified to some degree.

The aesthetic grows on the ethic, beauty on morality, the joy of art on a previous need to avoid physical pain. Once our more evident neccesities are satisfied we search and long for pleasure, and pleasure grows in refinement and extension as long as a culture improves its symbiosis with an overwhelming mother nature. The opposite, an ‘art’ too arrogant of its own value that is against and contrary to nature is only a form of aesthetical suicide, or utterly futile when indifferent or not receptive to it, an art that can hardly reach any durabiltiy and whatever it may be its intrinsic technical perfection if it is disattached from a natural piety and awe towards nature, it will appear invariably false, and short lived.

César Morión

Madrid

(21st January 2019)





Two decomposing lovers under the moon-III (Detail)

The Genius of Art

The idea of Genius is one of those ideas that as much as it is controversial, even for many conceiveble empty talk, nonetheless endures and remains as a reference, because it points, wanted or not, to some pinacle of human achievement. In this text, I just try to examine in a very general way, almost roughly, what we apparently understand for Genius, and so with what good or bad reasons do so.

It seems to me, that the first problem of the concept and idea of Genius may concern to its definition, and the second to its aknowledgement. However, if the reception decides what genius is and what is not, we will be probably forced to invert that order. Whatever the order is, those two questions seem to require an answer that encompasses both and do it somehow at the same time. On the other hand we may give answer to other questions that are incidental and apparently secondary, but that can enlighten the main ones.

I think that Genius is not the name we give to that at the top of a scale of an increasing quality in one specific field. In fact, seems not to be a question at all of degree, and nonetheless we talk about different degrees of Genius, which is rather amusing and paradoxical.

There are also fields in which does not matter how good one is we will not speak about Genius or geniality, for instance a pilot, or a plumber, a shop-keeper or a clerk are activities at which one may be formidable in the task, but the will rather not be recognised the quality of being a Genius, not at least in and for the strict activity, though perhaps as a private and different individual. So the first conventions of what Genius must be or cannot be appears to be too evident.

It is out of the question that in one form or another and despite our mainly intuitive use of the concept Genius as something rather outside the norm and what is more, above it, we will find hard not to name as such what is believed to be the best one in any field, the best painter, and the best writer, the best scientist or chess player of the human history and so on. At the same time, we coloquially use the term for many individuals that show an exceptional capacity in any field without being best in any. So it seems that we should conclude from that the idea of Genius is not entirely out of a continuous of achivement, and from the second that is neither limited to some fields or dependent of the degree of simple improvement in any of those. There is so obviously something that quite defies our comprehension and leaves everything as undefined and untouched as before. Genius is paradoxical, it belongs to a scale as the top, and not quite, and is proper of some activities and only of them and not really.

But truly, the idea that Genius can be defined and tied up by a definition should from the first time have found our reluctancy, not our acquiescence. It is precisely that what Genius is, and so the difficulty of its definition may most naturally follow from it. Because if Genius is on the top, it does not mean that being at the top one is a Genius. And because if a man can reach geniality in anything that might mean Genius belong to no particular activity as we know it by its own norms, but to the very nature of men and humanity that apply his wits to them.

One can play with the idea that Genius is that quality of anyone who does not commit mistakes, errors, sins, and so on. In the words of James Joyce; “A man of genius makes no mistakes. his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery”. A sentence with which I am quite in agreement. However, the analisys require to be a bit more expansive and explanatory just to support the same, this is to recognise that not falling in error is rather part of a pasive praxeology than on a very active and adventurous one, and indeed one cannot deny that our idea of Genius has that ingredient of risk and adventure and lack of perfectly defined standards insert in itself. We can so hardly consider a Genius the mere error free individual, because he resolves problems according to the best established patterns and gives the best answers to them. Genius is not the opposite of error. Neither it seems to be in that same logical cathegory at all, and it is exaclty because of that that Joyce aphorism is perfectly valid.

This drives us to consider that certain activities in which our intelect functions solving problems to which there is already known solutions is not exerting geniality and cannot, but merely proves inteligence, good knowledge and capacity to solve them. In this particular sense, most activities have a responsive side in which comprehend and accommodate proves our talents and smartness, and other in which we jump further leaving all behind, and it is in that in which we are playing our Genius if we have any.

Consequently, it is not strange that the Arts have been the field in which the work of Genius have most often fell and be felt heavily. Although, there have been also good talk of Genius in the sciences, it seems it has never been so ample and widely appropiated and understood as it is in the realm of Art, and so it happens to be a fact that only a few figures of the sciences comparatively are considered as such true Geniuses. All the same has happened to Politics and the military realms if in still fast decreasing degrees. The Sciences provided that their activity develops in a community and is the work of a community that increases progressively the acumen and amount of intelligence on the world surrounding us have precisely for that reason not being so inclined to otorgue the supreme appelative to a great number of excelence in their different fields and truly calling genius to the great innovators imposes a form of contradiction to what is the fundamental aim of science, progress and the continuous accumulation of knowledge y the hard and colaboration of a wide community. Something that applies also to politics and in the highest degree to the military, though here the detractors as much as the prosaic sides of these activity necessarily mingled with action that often cause pain and horror diminish if not the pomp and glory the temptation to attribute Genius to those involved despite the good number and factual credit given by inconditional supporters for which the evil consequences of these activities amounts to a matter of no vital importance.

Indeed, Art is not understood as a communal or community activity as the crafts really were and in a way still are. Even when craftmanship may be still one of the most important ingredients of good art, it is one in which the individual spirit has and must have free course though limited by its medium, and guided or rebuked by a tradition. It is not by convention or the commnads of a diacronical social reality, a tradition, that the artist aspires to break through it to go further afield, but by its Genius.

Here, we are now obliged to clarify still more the social and logical aspect of Genius, because societies often show the pride of their great men in a way that gives clear evidence of a misunderstanding between a logical and consistent idea of Geniality and the sociological one that shows itself in its reception.

A society often identifies with its great men, despite the fact that Genius can hardly be representative of it or any society by its mere definition. What distinguish the individual from its social basis, which moreover, often amounts to a life confrontation as hagiographers usually depict it, can obviously hardly be representative of that society. Obviously, societies through their propagandistic tools pursue to benefit from the individual merit through aknowledgement and in this pursuit are capable to modify an initial negative appraisal of what they in many cases fought against with earnest to a general and unanimous praise. The commoon and inherent need to build icon ans idols no matter how misconstred or contradictory find always its way as it seems to be a psyhological feature of humanity to need patrons and models.

The reality is rather that the genius of the history of any society share obviously with their time and place conditions and values, or as it is said are “sons of its time”, but at the same time, afford a view or contribution that is alien to it manifestly, one that will become nonetheless accepted later on and considered retrospectively as great or as revolutionary, in sum as the product of their Genius.

In fact, the contribution of Genius is simply to see better or before, sometimes both, sometimes just to be able to expose and make explicit some combinations that were long before logicly possible and adecuate, but socially and generally still conventionally unaceptable or deprived ot ressources to be shown as workable or of any effect. Most often the Genius was not even up and tuned with the direction of the last evolutions on their field but eventually in harmony with the earthly powers that usually opt for prolonguing a status quo, but found that they could no do with it any more.

It is not sheer vision but also the capability or the luck to make those earthly powers to favour that vision for their own interest what will make at last thisl form of Genius shine at last. Therefore intelligence, sustained work, a certain boldness and enterpreneurial attiude without a suffcient dosis of accompaning luck will bury the greatest potential Genius for ever, or what is neither of great consolation may discover him too late after dead.

All in all, there is always remaining the doubt of the right evaluation of geniality, if a society rejects its children as a genius and the next generation acclaim them as the pinacle of its culture and civilization, time does not stop, so we remain hanging of a continuous reassesmente of our valuations. Time is nonetheless no the medium of Genius, not the tool for its measure, but as we all know, only inmortality, and so we seem nonetheless to measure geniality for its duration in time, for its lasting effect, its being still there as part of our estimation, when the fact of a long lasting record is always equally far from the idea of eternity that a short one, if eventually as it may well happens it will be seen and considered as fatal error.

At last it is only in the Arts where truth is equal to the work of art itself, just because we have only one reality, so in contrast to science or the liberal professions it makes and lives in its own world, one that is nonetheless real but undiminshed, not being in play and competition with an alien one, so the idea of Genius seems sometimes so appropiate, less contradictory, and more obviously wholy, because it is perhaps only in the Arts where the individual and the whole world are made by a paralelism and not a contrast equivalent, and it is only how greatly it is deployed that matters and exposes clean its divine character. The same that happens with truth, or justice, Genius remains one more human aspiration, that the arts recreate to is full possiblities, where its truth is attained at the price of no real consequence.


César Morión.

Madrid,

(January, 17th of 2019)














Is it real love? Collage over a collage. 2018

Is it real love? Collage over a collage. 2018

The erotic and the aesthete

Erotism is the overcoming of obstacles”

Karl Kraus


As an artist and as a painter I find a substantial difference between the standards of my work and those of its reception. The questions that people put me on and about as a painter did at the very beginning surprised me very much, but nowadays they only make more conspicuous the severe breach between the artistic activity and its assumed function for a public, any public as far as it is not also an artist.

I could shortly put it in this way: What is art for the artist and what is for the non artist? The viewer, the art lover or amateur, but also, the critic, the collector, the gallerist and so on.

Indeed the differences are radical, not just substantial as those that distnguish all the diverse fields of human activity in which the receptor as much as the actor dwells. I will center on this main division, that can be well developed through a metaphorical comparasion of two ideal fields of the pshyque of which we have an inmediate experience. Those two fields are that of the erotic experience and that of the aesthetic one.

It is my view that between those ideal terms the artist moves mainly from and in a sphere of erotism towards all others, and the non artist predominantly, when interested in the arts, within that of the aesthete and too often unfortunately without projection towards the other. But of course, those two types (the erotic and the aesthete) because of an ordinary use and misuse of words can easily become a source of misunderstandings. Perhaps it was Karl Kraus, the austrian polygraph, who to my knowledge has shown the most perceptive comprehension of their opposed qualities, they constitute indeed a typology, and so it is useful to comment on some insights beatifully expressed through some of his aphorisms.

To begin with and as Karl Kraus puts it: “there is no equivalent pleasure to the euphoria coming from intelectual creation, and there is no comparable sadness to that that overwhelm the artist once he conclude his work.”

It is true that dedication to the arts presupose an urge, which in some respects is just as any other, however, it is an urge that obviously no every human share in equal degree, and for most people do not bear much importance beyond curiosity and perhap a nostalgy for a forgotten dreamy childhood. Moreoever, as it happens with most human activities the artist´s work is not limited to an acquired skill in its craft, though it is necessary for any good artist technic and talent in his medium. However, the artist work as an urge raises from a deeper source to which all his activity is addressed and whose nature is constitutional rather than a simple part of the talent and craftmanship he may posses. If there is nothing exceptional in the art as craftmanship, something that could not be learnt with consistent and routine work, the artist as such has nontheless an attitude towards his work that satisfying or not external needs is part of a personal search rather than driven by the hope of external accomplishment. In consequence the artist is so not to be confused with the technical worker and his craftmanship, though they are most necessary in his quest, neither with the enterpreneur that see in his work a way as any other of making a living.

On the other side of the bridge, as a viewer, as a reader or listener, the consumption of art may vary very much in regard to the qualities and capacities of the consumer of art and the form taken by that consumption. Art requires a public though it is not at all times present, and not all parts of a public are evenly apt and equal for the task of art digestion, we can distinguish between publics by their different aptitudes and ways of reception. Publics are composed by individuals and here it is where the level of some leading criticism relative to experience and imagination might o might not raise high the general level, to a close though not identical sphere with the artist in the happiest cases. The lack of any of those qualities in a public is more fatal for a meaningful comunication between both than the intrinsic poverty of any piece of work, as Marcel Duchamp clearly proved with his objects trouvés. In the best case, from the aesthetic contemplation to the full eroticism of the artistic activity there are indeed innumerable degrees though always remains standing this radical breach.

No matter how much we nowadays wish to blurr the borders and rise everyone as an artist, as it is often said, as a ‘potential artist’, - that wishfull rethoric that make of all us potential somethings; potentical criminals or potentials scientists, potential genius and art lovers, something that is as undeniable as much as of no consequence,- an strategy that works in fact a disguised way to pull down the few real ones to the low level of an overwhelming unartistic majority.

Corresponding to those two poles, those of producer and consumer of art, which are potential part of any individual, though distribituted in very different proportion, the erotic function linked to the creative stand as well to the receptive one corresponde the aesthetic can help to understand the gap.

Indeed there are degrees in most things and so those functions and stands admit all kind of nuances and distinctions. We can also play in some cases, especially the artist with both functions in our daily life, but this should not allow to confuse or silence the inequalities resulting from them or the degree in which we participate of each. Many of the mistakes and false interpretations are resulting from this uneven exchange between those two worlds, which in a profound sense live within their own universe. The artist is commited to eros by his daily activity, where his public respond with an aesthetic stand to his work. This profound barrier between both worlds impose a bias on all proper understanding of an artisti activity. By the way, it is also the reason why artists understand each other in a way that the aesthete, even the professional critic find not his own.

What is in short that eroticism of the arts? In the terms well known used by Freud, the unhinged creativity of a great artist is described as a deviation or sublimation of fundamental biological impulses, being the sexual a main actor. Not indeed a theory Kraus or myself will share. The reason for this disgreement is that the distinction between sex and erotism is not a superfical one, but very substantial. A distinction that transforms a common and ordinary sexuality and its finality into something rather different and exceptional. In fact, it is no wonder that all sound eroticism finds the sexual attributes inhibiting rather that attractive, and cannot limit itself to particular sexual qualities but to the very source of any attraction, eros.

The sexual man says: ¡Enough will be if it is a woman! The erotic man says: God willing it was a woman!“

The quest of an artist is personal and lives of and by its fountain, personality, because art is a mere part of that fight that all common life is, but is experienced and conciously expressed, so despite all its power to create or the capacity to understanding the reasons of social norms, an artist is fundamentally unconventional and so an anti social being, for whom to the common struggle of life is only a platform on which he plays with the imaginary and real obstacles of his own.

While the ideal erotic lives and experience within himself, the aesthete adquires patterns of what is beautiful, that can be expanded by experience and information to an ever more comprehensive view, but his sources are external and alien, no integral part of himself. He, the aesthete is and works on a procustian bed, adjusting what cannot be discarded, squaring what challenges good taste, a taste that always looks for external approval and is often helpless by anomalies. The aesthete may feel disturbed where the erotic is thrilled and spur on a novelty. The former will use all his means to shield and square anomalies, and upon need, may act ignoring them, after laughing and bluntly rejecting them, and finally, if no other possibility is left, assuming them entuhusiastically in an enlarged frame that shows how he rather has never had an organic pattern of his own.

On the contrary erotism assumes the aknowledgement of the conventionality of all patterns of judgement and so proceed against it, looking for a solidity of his own, and unconsciously knowing that it migh not hold too long. There is then an originally negative attitude, which from its nihilistic platform share also the greatest enthusiam for all forms of honest search, error and trial, so if and when the nihilism becomes under a reasonable control, work becames a true source of comfort as a form of progress.

“The aesthetic defects are the obstacles that make possible to prove the braveness of Eros. Only women and aesthetes draw a critical face”

The aesthetism of a public is no doubt a inferior form of enjoying art to the eroticism of the creation, but there are always multiple levels between and below. It is hard to rise and easy to fall lowestr from the top.

I often experience a sense of pity when I see people crowding museums with no genuine interest in the intrinsic aspects of art, publics that are pulled in the museum by a search for the social aspects of an event or a show, and will rather examine first the label describing a painting than it. Moreover, publics that falsely enlighted by one of the availabe multiple guides or talking museum gadgets is to be invariably and doubtfully illuminated on aspects most of them extra artistic, in the anecdotical, and historical, in the mythical and spurious details. Those non artistic concerns take most often the place of what could relevant, the qualities of the piece, technical or visual, so seeing them one almost fall in despair.

But far still from the distant observation and exam of the rare, refined and even sophistacated aesthete as much as of the erudite historian of art stays the artist. The artist in his particular race against obstacles may or may not overcome them, and the piece of work proves or denies his succes. But there are remaining two attitudes, one that follow rule and one that makes new ones, and more comprehensive. One satisfied by standard beauty and other in permanent search of the mysteries of it, because the artists presuposes, if partially, the aesthete but does not remain in it as one of them, which will be the same that letting common rule and aesthetic criteria to be an unsurmountable obstacle to his quest. Rules exist because they are proposed as a usefull set of guides and norms to avoid the common and well known defect, and so achieve a normative and accepted standard of beauty, a recognisable equilibrium, but they also impide any step forward, therefore there are a greatest value and a more profound insatisfaction in all forms of discovery. Value is at the end the aim of all our human action. The aesthete is grateful for creation, but not his author. The artist, unsatisfied, unhappy and even resentful in his erotic world of aspirations may fall into a fatal nihilism or reach what requests eros, a most personal and complete success.

César Morión

Madrid,

(November, 17th of 2018)

Luxembourg. January 2016.

Luxembourg. January 2016.

Painting is a dirty business”

Notwithstanding the famous sentence by Stendhal, that Art is a promise of happiness, the process of painting is and probably will always be a dirty business.

It is yes ironically that I say it, but not for that I believe it less true. It is dirty and it is so literally but also figuratively. Therefore, what may be a promise in its conclusion is nontheless and necessarily most of the time in its process, a dirty, and also tricky, often unpromising, hard, absorving and for all it together sincerely quite an incomprehensible activity for the common ordinary individual. This last qualitiy of painting I include it in the list as a conclusion provided how much and how often I experienced that explaining this business of painting is so often ineffectual for those who have not a personal and considerable experience of it.

Nowadays that ART would like to be considered by many as an integral part of all possible human activities, and therefore involved in ways of expression that not long ago will be thought having little to do with it, -something which by the way must be said is the result of our societies and a consequence of our forms of democracy-, it seems difficult for a painter to talk about his activity as something exclusive or almost exclusive of his work as an artist.

Although I am in accordance with a lassez-faire policy in all economical affairs and therefore also in and for the reception of arts, I will disagree with the democratic view of its production that assumes that everyone has the same equipment to enjoy and produce it.

 Who would not want to find beauty in everything and natural artists in every person and corner? In fact, creativity is not as some ideologies want us to believe a widely and equally spread quality of every human being. Rather, it is quite normal and more expectable to face hopeless situations, where people is in fact not even interested or simply receptive to creation or even its discussion. Despite so common exclamations or signs of admiration that respond to social standards and the frequent use of such expressions as "be creative!"  I experience once and again that very few people are really and truly interested in arts to give it more than lip service, especially with painting. The final proof of it is how few individuals buy art for the sake of it. Collectors of art are rare, and the great prices reached have most to do with investment than with a pure appreciation of the qualities of a piece. While the most valuable artists with rare exceptions have lived often in considerable difficulties, to be acclaimed as genial after death, common people keep in a great percentage the same bad and cheap decoration, which may include considerable expensive paintings, that all times more or less mechanichaly provides. This does not mean of course that a hard-up artist is good because of the poverty in which he might find himself. Again, great art now or then is a rare thing that only by its historical acumulation and display might make us think abundant and easy to access.

The standards of what was called fine art, traditionally and most naturally were and still are -if not so obviously-, impregnated with old aristocratic values. Beauty is not found everywhere and at any time, it takes a certain amount of effort to find it, and much more indeed to make it. Of course there have always been a number of people that want and search for beauty relentlessly. Something that seem to be hard to grasp by a portion of the most lefty part of our postmodern world and is dispatched and considered as irrelevant or even as a reprehensible aspect of the uses of the past or censored as elitism. The thing is elitism is an has have a fundamental importance for any form of beauty  in any time. Who promotes and protect the arts provides with it the outcome of what we will get each time and so great art cannot be provided by people impoverished spiritually and economically. In one occassion a woman asked me why there are not any more artists like those great ones of the past, refering of course as is usual to Michaelangelo or Boticelli. It was a naive but enlightening question that offers too many possible aspects for a single answer, though one could briefly dispatch it saying the world of today does not have the same public, than that of the Renaissance.

Nevertheless, I get often surprised for how most people feel quite bewildered and taken aback in the world of arts. A mayority have difficulties to have a personal and critical appreciation of what they see, their own appretiation of course, not necessarily must it be too informed or very intellectual at all. Most often, the result is to rest on secure and already tested fields of knowledge that some recognised artists and especially their advocats represent. A well educated as well and more important, a critical eye is indeed a very rare thing to encounter.

The Fine arts require a good degree of craftmanship, even when that craftmanship in its classical conception can be disposed of doing things that have nothing to do with what art has traditionally being doing in the past. In fact, this broadening of spheres of action is a gain of the last hundred and fifty years, and so artists has now a freedom of action that surpasses academic traditional technics and forms of representation..

However, the interferance of other fields like the big media and especially politics with art and artists could also be considerably detrimental. An artist can protest, can be left wing or right wing, and can be as critical and defiant as he wants to, but as a painter he paints, and it is wheteher he gets with the brushes of his fingers or the technic of his choice something of interest what makes the fundamental point, not the political affiliation or the social tendency behind it.

We live in consequence in a situation where advantages of a gained freedom are turned if not checked to be also an obstacle to the artist that takes work seriously. Craftmanship is a part of the quest, one's own technic is as important as the subject matter, and both cannot live off just from the rent of the past, neither from too easy licences and technological ressources of the present. We may actually be keeping rather than the advantages, the worse defects of these two worlds, that of the past with its old vices and easy manierisms, and that of our present with its fake freedom where all can be arbitrarily mingled and blended.

However, I do not see any essential antagonism between tradition and modernity and so I find advantages provided by both hardly incompatible. With this I mean I am not concerned with forms of art that belong excluisvely to a time, and moment. Abstraction and Figurativism, Realism and Hiperrealism beyond their categorizing value and historical interest are all quite spurious concepts for the painter I am, and being of limited significance, they can only become redundant if pursued fanatically. One can use them as launching approaches to any idea of a painting, as I can use a mental image or a photography, if at a different level, I do not feel obliged by any of them. Nonetheless this does not make of me an ecclectic in the usual acception of the word, but much less than it, makes me a fanatic.

There are problems to understand art that come from the side of the critics, historians of art and aesthetes, not from the part of the artist in his activity. As I studied philosophy myself I can see how easy it is to fall into the traps of a nice or recurring phrasing or in the use of alien lingüistic paradigms to explain what an artist and a painter face in his work.

Style for instance is itself a borrowed word from the area of lingüistics with which the painter has been forced to live. Of course one can consider the brush 'touch', the colouring and line form, the ticts of a man working as equivalent to his style, but it should be kept in mind that a painter can adapt to the subject matter and the surface in ways in which no lingüistic paradigm has much to say. The painter does not use in his work a language with grammar rules that only a community of speakers can understand, but his medium is accessible and open to anyone with eyes and a brain. I obviously do not share the common view defended by many that without language there is no thought. I think painting is a proof for the contrary in every sense, despite thinking seems to identify with its lingüistic articulation. Images are not to be understood as a sentence is and I do not believe in their verbal explanations at all as an adecuate or sufficient substitute. If they were, then indeed painting would be spurious and redundant, and it is clearly rather the opposite, that in front of a great piece of painting words usually are.

The inadecuacy of style as a term used in painting can be seen also when we deal with artists like Picasso, Ernst or Duchamp that affirmed in a diversity of works their personal explorations. Something which does not make the traces and imprint of their personalities disapppair either. The art critics solve these discrepancies talking of different styles or calling for a new name, periods, epochs, etc, something that Art historians like very much with their inherent fixation on cronology, but that has only a circumstantial importance for the appretiation of a piece of work and the quest of the artist.

In my personal case, the question of a period or epoch seems to me even more irrelevant than the idea of a style. This is so for different reasons, I like experiment, but I am far from opposing or objecting traditional art, something that offers not difficulty when one appreciate that the best tradition is and was quite experimental, though aware of the risks that all experiments entail.

There are moreover ways of working as mine that preclude periods or epochs if not totally at least partially. I am a waiting artist and work in series, and so old ideas become new, and new ones may be by a prompt realization of their lack of interest discarded. As a painter I work as may anybody else trying to organize my time as well as I can, but as an artist I work with disregard for it, as I am faithfull to the required solitude of my work and the far from obvious idea that time has in that regard no existence, out of the social sphere, even if it is always threatening me as an artist as much as as a man.

 

 

César Morión

Madrid,

( March 14th of 2018.)

 

 

 

 

The TV-watcher III

The TV-watcher III

 

Dos Criticas en Español y una réplica:

CÉSAR MORIÓN
por José Miguel Utande (Escultor)


La dificultad de presentar la obra de un colega es siempre superior a la crítica que los profesionales de la crítica hacen redundando, a veces, en evidencias que solo el creador sabe descifrar y que la mayoría de los casos, llevándolo al lienzo, son trozos de la existencia que el autor quiere salvar del naufragio cotidiano y es ahí donde pierde el control de la obra, porque ya vive por sí sola, dentro de las dos dimensiones donde las ha introducido, aunque en el caso de César adopta a veces la tercera dimensión y el resultado es unas esculturas de pequeño formato donde los personajes reinan en si mismos.
El primer contacto que tuve con la obra de César Morión , fue , como siempre suceden los acontecimientos importantes, a deshoras y en la atmósfera sagrada de un bar, allí estaban sus cuadros desafiando la mediocridad. Mujeres que huían por el fondo del cuadro, personajes que suplantaban la acción del observador para ser ellos mismos los que desde su ironía te observaban, de ahí la atmósfera oscura donde César pone a vivir sus personajes; sus mujeres en poses sugerentes que a pesar de sus genitalidad te clavan el sarcasmo y la sátira que luego he vito repetida en otros trabajos de este pintor. Ya en la soledad de su estudio caes en la cuenta de que aunque la belleza sea relativa y sometida a los vaivenes de la moda, los usos y las costumbres emerge casi a codazos entre los montones de cuadros que allí reposan.
Algo que me inquietó también, es el tratamiento de los personajes en sus retratos . César no los plasma, los crea, a los conocidos por el gran público los hace hablar su propio idioma con un discurso de profunda coherencia plástica, y a los desconocidos los presenta una vez más en una pirueta irónica que los conforma tornándose en brutales y caóticos cuando los boxeadores crean con su acción un mundo del que no podemos formar parte a lo más como espectadores abrumados por su contundente composición.
Me siento complacido cuando puedo hablar del “gran arte”, de un trabajo sólido en continua transición hacia mundos que se elevan – como decía- de lo cotidiano y no se quedan a las puertas del bar o del templo esperando que algo les ocurra porque su existencia es su triunfo. Es aquí donde se descubre la carga emocional que trufa los conocimientos que César Morión ha ido almacenando en este difícil deambular por la vida y créame no son pocos.
Es pues así que escribo estas líneas con sana envidia de este artista donde he querido que mis emociones primen sobre el análisis de la obra, sobre la técnica o la elección de los colores y los temas porque tengo la intuición que la obra de César es su propia vida.

 

 

Metáfora del lenguaje.

Por VIicente Villarrocha

Si acordamos, de entrada, que la pintura es un lenguaje (con demasiados “diccionarios”, ciertamente), los metalenguajes que su práctica activo-creativa posibilita nos puede llevar a un abismo icónico de simas insondables. O no tan profundos si la actitud receptiva tiene un ángulo de visión que, solo para entendernos, podríamos denominar “de amplitud”. La pintura es también uno de los “oficios activos” que han determinado, de forma inequívoca la práctica del Arte (con mayúscula). La pintura de César Morión, encarada desde estas dos premisas, genera signos suficientes tanto para una “lectura formal” como para una interpretación de sus “formas visuales” (valga la redundancia). Y me explico: si por un lado reúne “climas sugerentes” suficientes (ya saben: ironía en juego con los personajes representados, situaciones intensas sin aparente trascendencia, atmósferas de distorsión, etc.) en una praxis que recorre en cuatro zancadas la distancia que estableceremos entre un expresionismo conceptual y una estrategia posmoderna; por otro da la “imagen” de un pintor romántico, de los situados entre el absurdo y la pasión (que no deja de ser lo mismo, según se mire). La pintura de César Morión es -y por favor no malinterpreten- un lugar común. Es decir, “de todos”, donde la vigencia de la magia de la representación, del melodrama (porqué no), de la fascinación por un ilustrado relato de complicidad en el que la estructura se construye a través de formas visuales narrativas. Y es, al tiempo, un recorrido por los territorios que la misma pintura ha ido delimitando (trazando, sería más exacto, pero ya sabemos como tanto los denominados “estilos” como los historiografíados “ismos” han abierto y cerrado “tempos” estéticos o sencillamente “gustos” a la moda). Podríamos, llegados a este punto, diferenciar entre una pintura “poética” y una “retórica” y tratar de situar ambas actitudes, naturalmente, en el ámbito del oficio (luego voy con eso) de la visión “pictórica” como simulacro. Y el reto que les propongo es juntar, a la vista de estas obras, ambas características en una suerte de equilibrismo que hace de la redundancia “opción”. Se puede intentar dirigir la mirada a la estética (de difícil precisión) o hacia la conveniencia del gesto, la creatividad o el “proyecto personal”, tres encuadres (o mecanismos de contexto) utilizados con envidiable desparpajo por Morión. Si me atrevo a utilizar eso del “desparpajo” es en la seguridad de encontrarnos siempre mediatizados por algún código, símbolo o sistema estrictamente codificado. Estoy hablando de pintura, de un pintor de ahora, que se atreve y se arriesga a mostrar su trabajo en una relación comunicativa con el espectador (en estos tiempos, digo) como intentando arañar (Felipe Benítez Reyes, dixit) “en el cristal del tiempo un espejismo”. Y ahora, como amenazaba antes, vamos a mirar desde el “oficio”. Vamos a escrutar, con la necesaria distancia, la aventura de ignorar los contornos con un supuesto candor iconoclasta; vamos a enfrentar los escorzos con la extrañeza del que esta fuera del “encuadre”; vamos, en fin, a reconocer una “maniera” de hacer pintura (ahora mismo, insisto) donde encontrar aromas y formas de “ lo que ha “aprehendido” Morión para construir sus metáforas pintadas o, mejor dicho, sus poéticas y retóricas pictóricas (aires y estructuras que van de Kandinsky a Munch; de Picasso o Bacon, pasando por Freud a la añadida complicidad del retratado…), aunque, en muchas obras de Morión, amén de la destreza y la suavidad gestual, del turbulento virtuosismo que nos oferta, habría que hablar también del séptimo arte. Pero esto es otra historia, otra metáfora visual del lenguaje que el pintor atesora.

 

 

Crìtica a la Crítica.

Por César Morión

 

"Si acordamos, de entrada, que la pintura es un lenguaje (con demasiados “diccionarios”, ciertamente), los metalenguajes que su práctica activo-creativa posibilita nos puede llevar a un abismo icónico de simas insondables. O no tan profundos si la actitud receptiva tiene un ángulo de visión que, solo para entendernos, podríamos denominar “de amplitud”.

Con este párrafo iniciaba Villarocha su texto, al cual le agradezco enormemente su favorable y bien articulada critica, máxime pues gracias a ella me permito hacer unas puntualizaciones a partir del párrafo que cito arriba, pues ésto es, es decir lo que expresa el párrafo - así planteado- lo que yo no acordaría nunca, y me explico... 

Tal y como yo lo veo, la pintura es inmediata, y en ese sentido no es un lenguaje equiparable como se hace a menudo por no decir de un modo generalizado, a los lenguajes verbales, a los que uno ademas ya siempre se refiere por activa o pasiva cuando habla de lenguaje y metáfora, y que refieren a un mundo de objetos, que tienen referentes que no son idénticos a sus significados ni a sus significantes, y que están mas allá de ese lenguaje.-no olvidemos vivimos aún bajo la sombra del Estructuralismo y Post-Estructuralismo, que ha hecho del lenguaje entendido como cédigo de signos en el sentido de Saussare un paradigma universal para absolutamente todo, y del lingüista un entendido por serlo en el lenguaje, también cómo no, en todo lo demás. Lo cual constituye un nefasto equivoco.

La pintura como también la música y otros modos de expresión artística trascienden el lenguaje tout court, no representa otra realidad en un lenguaje codificado, sino una realidad inmediata cuyo soporte es universal e innato, esa realidad que es tan real como la que damos por real, pero construida como independiente en su esencia, que no requiere de traducción sino de atención, el cuadro, la imagen vista frente a nosotros es todo, significante, significados y encierra dentro sus referentes, es esto en lo que reside su total diferencia, su ser inmediata, su ser no se da por un medio diferente de transmisión, el pintor crea en la obra también el código si es que este fuese necesario.

 Cuando se piensa que un cuadro cuenta algo, una historia, se pueden decir con ello muchas cosas, pero aquí ya no se lo ve como cuadro, por su fuerza visual, por su efecto emotivo inmediato, por sus cualidades plásticas, o incluso sencillamente por su tamaño, y empieza a abrirse camino la literatura, incluso pintores que rehuían con vehemencia esta posibilidad en su pintura han sido objeto preferido de esa literatura, literatura del sufrimiento, del mal, de la violencia, o del erotismo, etc, lo cual es evidentemente mas que posible y por tanto se da como una tendencia fácil, muy corriente en el espectador y en el critico, no tanto en el admirador genuino de la obra.

 Sea el cuadro que sea, las meninas, la mujer en camisa de Picasso, una retrato de Giacometti, de Piero de la Franchezca o de Balthus, su valor artístico estriba en su resolución de problemas propios a sus premisas artísticas, y nada más. La literatura que contienen es un regalo sobrante a la galería, (quizá nunca mejor dicho), nunca la obra. De no ser así nos bastaría el relato.