versione italiana

The interpretation and more generally, the perception of artworks (paintings, sculptures, installations, etc.) passes through the vision and the persistence of the gaze, which, too, wants to be educated!
I think that the mental ellipse comes into play now without ever abandoning the vision dynamics as an active part of this circularity. It seems appropriate here to cite Marleau-Ponty:
"Now perhaps we have a better sense of how much is contained in that little word "see". Seeing is not a certain mode of thought or presence to self; it is the means given me for being absent from myself, for being present from within at the fission of Being only at the end of which do I close up into myself".

There is great loneliness in those who use the Internet, infinite numbers which make us feel unimportant.
Haste, distraction, illiterate gazes, frames of mind married to frivolous curiosity, just numbers.
The computer screen makes it impossible to decipher that touch of tenderness, obsession or suffering which is implied in the picture and which lives within the texture of a Bacon or a Giacometti painting.


Art feeds on a complexity and mystery that reflect our individual intricacy. Thus, it is a problematic, difficult, sometimes distressing exchange, yet that is the only possible way to enjoy it

Visiting the diverse shows of contemporary art, in exhibitions or on Internet websites, more and more frequently we run across places of despairing frigidity. Places which propose their unquestionability, which are absolutely self-referential, just impersonal realities.


Are we sure that those who organize, who set up art exhibitions, those who work in the field of journalism, or write about art really perceive the physiological dimension of art making, of representing and embodying a fulfilling and silent hermeneutic activity?
The culture of artists is also and above all, the culture of the art studio/laboratory.


We should remember that art making is a heuristic process, that is, an experience of persistent contact with and verifying the suitability of the materials used with the creative idea and impulse behind the artwork.
Here, I consider enlightening and wonderful the analysis which Didi-Huberman makes of Duchamp's art in "La ressemblence par contact": "it is never disembodied or simply "psychological": he raises the question of the contact, that is the dialectical relation between the contact and the distance (a relation which is at the heart of the notion of infra-thin)".
Didi-Huberman insists on this: "his art is not made of pure "ideas", "sentences" or "axioms", he poses the question of the material, that is the dialectical relation between the interplay of hypotheses and the limits of materials…"