Gallery A and Gallery B: “From where I come … maybe … I don’t’ know”
STEVEN BALDI – DANILO CORREALE – CHARLES MAYTON – PETER LIVERSIDGE
DAVID JABLONOWSKI – ANTHONY PEARSON – VALERIE SNOBECK
CATHY WILKES – ERIK WYSOCAN
From 29 March to 3 May 2013
An image can often be obscure or impenetrable to the natural investigation deriving from a curiosity which is activatesd exactly because an immediate interpretation is resisted. This is also valid for the objects constituting the image, which formally could embrace all types of mediums: painting, sculpture, photography or installation. The resistance to penetration has its own reason and is often implicitly linked to the analysis and research process which are an integral part of the work and to the quantity of data it contains.
The ability of synthesis of information is a distinguishing point and derives from aptitudes that each artist applies in the formalization of the final image. In the same way it also becomes a result of personal experiences and thoughts linked to real life. The final expression of this process is most sensed with a high degree of sincerity and intellectual honesty, which determine the form and the artist’s degree of sensibility. It is equally true though, that art cannot do without fascination, which is an integral part of it, and at times is sensed only if the content of the object of investigation does not appear immediately.
Sometimes the formal definition can be abstract and the nature of the investigation very distant from its origin, or the result of continuous investigative elaborations. All this determines that the interest heads naturally to the constitutive process producing the final form of the work and that the choice of materials and language is appropriate to address the information representing it. For which reason why a form or a material is preferred over another, or why curiosity pushes us to observe some things and to ignore others does not have a single answer.
But what is sure is that curiosity is linked to an evolution of our mind and to a constant educational path of our aesthetic and ethic sense, to a continuous interpretation of models expressed by other artists and compared to each other also in virtue of a historical interpretation. It is also true that new paths are undertaken and sometimes irresolution and non-perception of the end of the road are the gist of it that determines the final result. What appears evident is the object and many times it can be alien to the original emotional and rational push which generated it, but however available to connections open to other objects and to multiple interpreting readings in the eyes of the observer.