Page 7 - TOP 10 CONTEMPORARY ARTISTS - Volume 5

interpretation that renders it existent to one entrapped inside cultural habitats continuously
of its possible aspects.Therefore, it is possible
to configure the faculty of interpretative
freedom with the creative participation of the
viewer, who is capable of establishing a sort of
creative dialogue of the artwork he is viewing:
sometimes this dialogue is determined by the
viewer himself, at other tunes it is determined
by the inner intensity of the artwork itself.
Consequently, it appears that only “simplicity”
(intended as a lack of affectation) is the value
to be pursued; but how can this simplicity
be possible, if nowadays art is surrounded
by scenery of an extremely complex and
differentiated reality, where eclecticism of the
contemporary thought is dominant? Art cannot
avoid observing and referring to its own time,
because to evoke other possible or imaginary
worlds is a form of mystification. Therefore,
at this point, the six memoranda for the third
millennium on which Calvino wrote about in
his “American Lessons” just few years ago -
Luminosity, Quickness, Exactitude, Visibility,
Multiplicity, Consistency - must be duly kept in
mind. If we want to improve and develop our
culture, perhaps we should pursue this way.
However, it is also logical that artists mustn’t
deliberately look back on history: they should
be conscious that the most important thing to
do is to go over once again history’s space-
temporal contest. Conflicts, contradictions,
dystonias, in one word the continues failures of
contemporary art, follow the fact that today art
seems to have the chance of realizing “possible
utopias”, while, to the contrary, all it does is
put mankind in front of its ordinary condition,
continuously covering it with the fictitious veil of
fiction. Enticed in this factious process, art not
only mystifies reality, but also itself as it belongs
to reality. Inevitably, both authors and public
become participants, protagonists who have lost
all trace of innocent behavior because they are
mutable and discordant. Today human behaviors
are induced, as needs are artificial. This is the
historical condition of today’s mankind. This is
the new mechanism of its cultural production.
If we ask for conditions (and concepts!) of such
lost freedoms, we stray from the point (and at
that same point we will arrive) of not accepting
reality, that reality that man compromises
with, and corrupts day by day. Inside this
reality, human potentialities are strongly
reduced, while values are only dictated by the
individualistic, particular deformities of taste,
and the unrefined uniformity of fashions. It is a
reality that our comprehension has difficulties
of holding: a reality often indecipherable, most
of all because man obtusely continues to be
an accomplice, a slave, a victim of his own
greed: he doesn’t research what he should be
searching for. If it is true that mankind moves
towards a culture of “becoming” and not of
“being”, we have to understand that “becoming”
doesn’t coincide with “having”. In the culture
of “having” we would look like just temporal
dwarves, deprived from each sense of “existing”;
if, instead, we were to choose the culture of
“being”, we would still have some hope in simply
confirming ourselves as Men and Women. To
be objective, honest, sincere, it doesn’t cost
so much. However, a part from this personal
consideration, I believe that art, nowadays, must
look for continuity, progressive shifting, gradual
transformation, and active integration, adopting
languages capable of sintomatica]ly and
semantically re-conducing mankind toward the
present experience of “today”. If the artificious
and artificial needs of contemporary man will
cause artists to be more open and reflect on
how serious the problem of the “artificiuos”
is, only then can art be considered once again
as an “anticipation” of what will be tomorrow,
giving us
©World Of Art Contemporary Art Magazine