Nevertheless, to understand fully the reach of this precept, we must
re-conciliate with the universal value that culture has; a value
that has been already lately destroyed, crumbled away by a dull
distinguishing of senseless rules, fragmented in the ghetto of
useless roles, while it ought to be entirely rooted into the
contemporary dynamics of the productive processes. It is in this way
that the aspirations of mankind can be positively alimented, feeding
and nourishing the spirit of all we contemporary human beings that
live in this planet and move across it.
Therefore (so then), why art?
Wanting or not, an artist expresses always his spirit towards his
emotions, thoughts, feelings and, matters. He bears this knowledge
inside himself, more or less aware of it. It is part of his
condition, it is something ingrained in his state of being.
artist investigate to bring to light something that it is hidden to
the normal sight, as an eye – as pure physic sensor – can’t see. In
few words, the artist always tries – or look for – a way to see more
concentrate through things and reality, inside the things, for the
reality. And also for he himself the destination of his work is
To question himself about what the public can
understand, digest, appreciate or feel the most- therefore capable
of conducing the single fruiter to a more profound reflection, it is
undoubtedly a post-modernist action, maybe even a bit spoilt if not
Nevertheless, are the artists themselves that – everyone
with his own peculiar language and way of expression – are capable
to face individually these kinds of problematic and subjects,
talking of their worries, allowing their works to exist as results
of these thoughts, although in many different ways.
The soul of an artist can still do a lot for him: it can push him to
choose which direction to take, or how to adapt his work and himself
to the most various and different situations, or, again, to
trans-form. To transform in something else the mistakes, the broken
dreams, the unsatisfied aspirations.
The complexity of contemporary art leads us to consider a
fundamental, determining factor that it seemed to be more and more
unavoidable: the specificity given by curatorial choices, in other
words the “vision d’ensamble” (analytic and punctual) that allows to
relate the work of one – or more than one – artist to a particular
space and, a particular situation, as it is vital to contextualize
to stimulate, to diffuse to contaminate , this in order to make art
the most comprehensible to fruiters inside a specific framework,
trying to give evidence to a soul of art which is different from
what was in the past, probably more powerful and clear in its own
aims. An art that emerges because of the fusion of the pars
construens with collective intervention.
It is the context, the framework that allows art to open itself to
new territories of investigation and then overcome its partial
vision of the world. It is always the context that, in a certain
sense, allows art to find its position in this world.
To look for a
mutuality, for a symbiotic relation – with a precise feedback, not
necessarily only economic – between art and enterprises it is
undoubtedly a way to perceive and follow. In the same moment that
art enters and belongs to such a context, it obviously contaminates
while being contaminated as well, it dismembers and recomposes
itself in a continuous process without loosing its own identity.
Today, the deficiency that many operations (projects) sui generis
have, is inside the idea of finding a unity at any costs, therefore
neglecting possible openings to new, unknown developments, as the
one of being able to perceive a possible sense of things that it can
also be beauty beyond aesthetics, value beyond ethic itself.