Art and poetry

I often hear contemporary artist that, in order to explain the ridde of contemporary art to the laymen, liken their work to music. Music doesn’t represents things (with a few exception such as “Le Quattro Stagioni” by Vivaldi), and yet it conveys emotions. But I think that this likening is somewhat ill conceived. Contemproary art does represents things – actually, it imitates things so well that it usually present the thing that should be represented itself! Kounelli’s horses is so good an imitation of 12 horses that the horses … are actual horses in a staple! Morevoer, the feelings that arise from a piece of art are probably more mental than the very direct emotions raisen by music. Bach is very mathematical, and yet it is full of passion; the deep pleasure I feel when I look a performance of Rikriit Tirvanja is almost completely intellectual. This intellectual side of art is not new to contemporary art: Mona Lisa is nice to contemplate, but becomes terribly involving only after understanding.

In my opinion, a better likening would be with poetry. Poetry is basically grounded in metaphor, and it seems to me that the same can be said of contemporary art. When Damien Hirst arranges hundreds of pills on glass shelves he makes a metaphor; when Jeff Koons puts his electric hoovers on a pedestal he is doing an hyperbole (another rhetoric figure). Metaphor ethymologically means transport, and Duchamp’s ready made are “transported” from their original context into a new environemt. Art of the first half of the XXth century is still mimetic, although it is the mimesis of the not representable (Kandinskyj tries to represent spiritual entities, Malevic the fourth dimension), art of the second half of the XXth century is metaphoric. It is perhaps a coincidence, but many – well informed and by no way conservative – don’t like it and found it … rhetorhic, giving unjustly the fault to the market of art.

Metaphor is a short circuit, that flashes reality and illuminates – hopefully – the hidden meanings of things. The subject of classical art is truth, the subject of poetry and contemporary art are experience. The difference is not big, but important.

Leonardo and Malevic

There is a strange consonance between "Mona Lisa" and Malevic's suprematism: both are holograms. More generally. Leonardo was so ahead of his tome (and so misunderstood) to be a man of XXth century. He considered himself an artist, an intellectual, a creative man, like us today, not certainly a craftsman such as was the concept in the XVIth century. Moreover, his main interest was perhaps to find a way to escape from the bidimensionality of the painting, a typical XXth century topic that was not fully perceived in the XVIth century.

Futurism

Fascists usually hit the point of problems, but, being unconsequential never are able to solve them; in order to go to the bottom of problems, they should be progressive, and they are not.

An example is Futurism. Futurists acutely understood that the acceleration of modern life changes oure perception of world; they tried to represent this in their paintings, but they failed. Shapes hurry and run, but are basically static – when you try to freeze an istant of a movement, it usually appears freezed, as in photography. Look at "La Città che Sale" by Boccioni; it tries to represent acceleration, but is instead static; the "Triumph of Galatea", that only suggest movement, is much more dramatically dynamic. The problem to represent the disintegration of perception due to speed was resolved by cubists, and that of representing dynamicity by Malevic, with a much more radical rethinking of pantry. Perhaps, nonetheless, a successful futurist exists, Marinetti; he opened many lines of research – the use of nonconvetional matters, the performance etc. – that are at the very base of contemporary art after World War II.