5 - MARCH - 2003

One day when I felt brave and wanted to clear up some doubts I got ready to answer some questions which go round in my head in no order whenever I hear the word ‘Art’. The first thing that draws my attention is the fact that we live in an age in which texts, publications, circles and experts discussing art appear by the thousand, so I think of another word: ‘Paradox’. The more people talk about Art, the more confused we are about what it means: Is everything Art ? Why not ? Who sets the limits ? In the age of freedom people are not free to define Art because a definition implies setting limits and everyone, every expert, has an interest in some limits; people working for an avant-garde, ultra-modern publication will be interested in a definition which tends towards everything goes, criticizing figuring as obsolete and will want to be so progressive that they would even swap heaven for hell provided that something changes and would defend a can of paint thrown blindly as long as it gets sold even though in their heart they are dying to hang a Rembrandt in their house. The defender of the interests of a collection of 18th or 19th century paintings would tell us that that was real art, that the craft has disappeared today etc.
All this is small café talk since Painting has been defined by word and deed for30 centuries. But the real paradox in all this is that we have been convinced that the public needs a guide to see a painting, we learn about painting by ear, so if we hear that a painting is very good we think it is and if we can, we pay for the artist’s signature. The same thing happens if a work has been attributed to a famous painter: we put it in the place of honour but if we discover later that it wasn’t by him it moves down a category and may end up in the basement, so, Can a marvellous work become bad in a second? Do we want the work or the fetichism of the signature ? Is a drawing by Rembrandt worth the same as his dirty palette? It is today because we are tourists not travellers of Art. More paradoxes: for many years we have been bombarded with the advantages of originality, we have been told that Picasso is the most original but he said that his art was inspired by art.

More paradoxes: we are given reasons why a painter produces a work in one way or another and then sold the idea that art is not rational. We are told that teachers are not necessary, that they contaminate, that nobody does better than the teacher and yet many times an artist has been looked down on for not being recommended by a gallery owner or critic. Is the artist free? Who would give a chance to an artist who wasn’t an admirer of Picasso? Their work would be judged before being exhibited.