2007 GIANLUCA MARZIANI – Supremacy of the eye visionaria – galleria marazzani Visconti terzi arte
At first an overall view, then the focusing of the whole field of vision, then a “vision “ which is in agreement with the details of the individual choice : think for a moment about our relationship with the word and you’ll understand that our VITAL SELECTION , when facing all the forms surrounding us, can be summarized in this three stage journey. Each moment ,as it is a natural, ,is not made of closed rules , but it possesses millions of different nuances and subjective variables that create multiplicity of “ visual theories “ which make Cinema , Videos and Paintings , and in parallel, the intercourse of every human being with objects, people, plants and animals infinite. The HUMAN EYE , that small object set in twos ( apart from some contemporary “ Ciclops”), made of a strange substance which is neither pure solidity nor liquid form, is the principal propulsor of life and progress. The eye is the starting point for the different human and technological progress; to the eye we owe the selection which , by sending data to the brain, remains a formative element even during the cerebral dynamics. The VISIO belong to the Man more than anything else , and makes him “ different” from vegetables and animals ( never superior, anthropocentrism doesn’t demonstrate human intelligence). Let’s how consider how much conscience a dog or a leaf possess, how the intelligence cohabits with the plants and the animals of the Earth, how much perfection rules a universe in which we live together with other galactic civilization inaccessible to us: inside such a superior mechanism, only the vision makes our reason functional and gives us an autonomous strength which the other not human beings do to possess. It is only in this way that we can elaborate new words inside the ones that already exist: by supplying a real propulsion to send data to the brain which them subsequent complete form ( yet still something which returns to our eyes and then back to the world).PAINTING……….
The task of the Cinema , and for innumerable decades, of that Painting which can imagine and built everything, has been to synthesize this supremacy of the eye. The Cinema undermines, rebuilds and synthesizer the world, but it has some limitations which are congenital both to its field of vision and to its technological exploration; Painting, on the contrary, having only the surface on which it is born as its limitation, is able to imagine every variable in the same way as our mind makes the concept of individual freedom concrete. Cinema and Painting , and I would add Photography as a form of connection between those two languages, have then given life to Videos ( the television as a private formula deriving from the public formula of the Cinema) , Computer( action and interaction on the dynamic formula of the TV video, adding to it the dynamics of the human body conversing with sight), Advertising and Graphics( both Armando Testa and David Carson owe a lot to this century’s avantguards ), Fashions( an endless quotation of elements from Art History , both in a direct and subliminal way). A ramification of languages which inevitably returns to the archetypal formula of Painting , always ready to gather up the different threads towards the ideal terminations of that EYE in endless changing action.
Fast forward….Giotto, Orson Welles, Peter greenway, Ugo Mulas, Piero della Francesca, Michelangelo, Michelangelo Antonioni, Leonardo, Pontormo, Veronese, Caravaggio, Derek Jarman, Stanley Kubrik, Irvin Penn, Goya, Maya Deren, Man Ray, Velazquez, Quentin Tarantino, Andy Warhol, David Lynch, Gerard Richter, William Burroughs, Edward Hopper, Jean Luc Godard, Hal Hartley , Mantegna , Rosso Fiorentino, Robert Altman, Tina Modotti, Marcel Duchamp, Ed Ruscha, Roy Lichtenstein, Alfred Hitchcock, Francis Bacon, Claude Monet, Sharunas Bartas…rewind.
Names upon names which have acted “ having their eye think , using it in a form where the shot is completely autonomous from the world it wants to represent. The ability of the great figurative art, if you think it over, is in highlighting a single fragment, working in it order to make it hold the highest degree of imaginable power. All those names are our memory , the form a necessary education, a complete subject to have every single linguistic archetype generate, today and tomorrow, new linguistic archetypes. We do not invent, but owing to circumstances beyond our control, e have to reinvent sight through the numerous “ visual theories “ that we know: using ne glance combinations is at this point equivalent to an invention, not so simple metabolizing revisitations. Because of such a rule I am interested, among my contemporary artists, in those who know the multifarious past sights and can formulate a new vision able to make hundreds of “ visual theories” penetrate our time.
The eye is an organ our body , made of brain and blood, with a system of its own which needs muscles to give strength to the images it has chosen , and bones sustain the framings; the eye throbs with its heart which is the soul of the images: it wanders around the world as a stomach which must eat to live…..and then it dies leaving something, just in the same way as a human body leaves some fragments of memory which can be used again.
AN EYE IN PARTICULAR……
Among the pictorial eyes that. At least in Italy, keep all these characteristics intact, I can see FRANCESCA TULLI …She Works in Rome and, for several years she has been reflecting in terms of “eye” and “framing” inside her painting. Her works, moreover, enclose Cinema and Photography inside the same pictorial journey , keeping the two “ arts of filming” as active parts of a canvas which is more adherent to that ideal of PICTORIAL FILMING. Tulli’ s journey develops through domestic interiors, inside some houses we know nothing about : we discover fragments of life only through objects, lamps, chairs, tables, window foreshortenings towards night cities, rugs, chandeliers, wrought glass bottles and walking-sticks in a floor container, door, curtains ,frames, pieces of furniture…The house becomes an incredibly varied and unexpected world, which is always different because the framings od the artist are never banal and passive.
Tulli wanders around the rooms with a camera always at the ready, she takes pictures from every corner , gets on chairs and ladders in order to find distorted angle-shots, lies on the floor and gets on shooting , bends her head and modifies the angles of photographic image. It is an athletic tour inside the house to make ordinary and “invisible” things recover a state of object energy which reactivates their power of living elements, endowed with a meaningful form and with an aesthetic heart and a moral of their own.
As I as saying before, the “supremacy of the eye” allows us to outrage the sluggishness of the world and to make it visible again, giving back life to things of which , with our vision , we are creators and the primary supporters. After those shots the photographs become a new entity, a further sign that the “ supremacy of the eye” can built chains of other meanings, new parts to the vision already set motions. The materials of Francesca Tulli pass to the pictorial phase , the one of the different layers of oil on the canvas ( or possibly board) : the brush, now, converses with the mental freedom which is already building inside our brain, a world often impossible but that can be made real inside us.
The photograph had already invented a new state of things for itself, the painting starts now from that stage and works on it, never choosing any iperrealistic hint but remaining manual in the disrupting power of oil painting. The superimposition of layers makes the objects chosen distant, and puts them in a “ watery “ state which immobilizes things without taking strength away from them; looking through the painting we become are of the partiality that can concentrate strength in the fragment, of the act of compressing in a perimeter a single domestic portion. There are never human presences but only references to them through domestic details: nonetheless you can feel people, they seem only some centimetres outside the shot, very near the silence of that world which is half way between the “ noir” and intrusion in somebody privacy.
Tulli ’ eye works properly because it enters an ideal camera made of colors and brush : the painting remains valuable painting but it reasons it the sensitive mechanics of a human camera, which is mo9re conscious that its real lens is the eye of the person holding it. The use of colours contributes to help the “ pictorial sense” of this glance: atmospheres which are half way between the black-and- white and a warm colouring, on to tracks which remain faithful to the Cinema, but in particular forms of clear pictorial pulsation and alert vision. The Black-and-white loves the contrasts and certain tonal variables , with a sense of the light which has a drive and the detailed rigour of Robert Bresson and Irving Penn; The colour , on the contrary, keeps between yellows and oranges which are never acid, between noble reds and bursts of refined light browns, like the ones Carlo Di Palma likes when he illuminates the meddle-class interiors of Woody Allen.
Tulli’s two chromatic levels mix up on two pictorial paths which experiment numerous pictures sizes , exactly for new surface cut which are in syntony with her multifarious framing. We find small ( or medium small) square works which seem serial flashes, which are beautiful alone, but also in a long series almost as if we were in a computer opening quick are repeated close- ups; then there is the opposite of this: vertical and narrow pieces, as thin as mysterious fissures which stand out, solitary, on the white of the walls. It really seems as if a sudden fissure is cut on the wall, inside a foreshortening filming the noisy silence of a room; numerous are the medium size and rectangular paintings, a size which allows the objects the fair effects of space: they correspond, in practice, to the standard of the most widespread photography , the one which in its being medium size, condensed everything without compressing or expanding too much; at last I recall the panoramic size, mostly the horizontal rectangular ones, real environmental screens which give places and angles of vision the greatest semantic ambiguity.
Size, colours , framing and angles of vison represent, for the Roman artist, a moral consciousness of the “supremacy of the eye “ . The vison can continuously modify the word, make a subjective body which each of us structures; the picture , and now I would say Francesca Tulli’s one, makes an exact synthesis of the architectures that each of us imagines, dreams, writes or narrates.
This invaluable “ supremacy of the eye” allows us to open path of intellect, to rip the black towards street maps of the new communication, of the progress which starts from new vision towards a possible future.
Look at Tulli’s paintings where only some areas receive a stronger and more concentrated light , as if the eye were further showing its supremacy as a glance formulator, as a natural re-assembler of the initial objectivity.The eye selects , rejects and modifies, aims at personality of its own: it possesses that VITAL SELECTION I was talking about at the beginning of this text, making us part of a three stage journey facing the things of the word. In these paintings od the artist’s ( only one painting has a detail of the body and introduce to the future change) there are not people inside the shot because every subject is an impending eye belonging to every work: the SUPREMACY OF THE EYE belong to the pictures and silently makes them living organisms od the contemporary vision.