Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

Details, photo: István Bíró
scena
exprimæ trecerea (øi deosebirea) dintre o lumea a imaginii øi una a textului. 3 Pentru
un artist popular, lumea prinde viaflæ øi se explicæ prin ceea ce el prelucreazæ.
Relaflia lui cu forma construitæ este una imediatæ, realitatea vine înspre artist pe mæsuræ
ce el stræpunge materialul în care lucreazæ øi în mæsura în care burghiul pætrunde
materialul sau pila rotunjeøte o formæ prezentæ în obiectul meøteøugarului; în cazul
sæu nu este vorba despre fabricæri pre-conceptualizate, de materializæri ale unor
decizii asumate intelectual într-o formæ cauzalæ (ce devine formæ criticæ), ci cæutarea
sa este aceea de a oferi o imagine prin care lumea sæ devinæ mai simplæ, mai caldæ,
mai apropiatæ, explicabilæ øi, implicit, explicitæ.
De partea cealaltæ, în arta contemporanæ, artistul lucreazæ în realitate, cu formele
øi modulafliile ei, iar demersul sæu este unul interogativ, referenflial. Arta contemporanæ
instituie un joc intertextual purtat într-un spafliu intracultural. Scopul artistului
nu este acela de a explica realitatea: ea este deja datæ øi el este deja prezent, înscris
în ea. Ceea ce el urmæreøte sæ sublinieze sînt niøte stæri de fapt ale constituirii sociopolitice
sau artistice existente, adresînd, de cele mai multe ori, asupra lor, întrebæri
care deschid un spafliu pentru dialog.
Încæ din titlul proiectului, Concurrency, Dénes Miklósi pune faflæ în faflæ aceste douæ
forme de raportare artisticæ. În acest spafliu de oglindire reciprocæ intervin întrebærile
pe care o astfel de abordare le ridicæ: în ce mæsuræ existæ o competiflie între cele
douæ demersuri artistice? Cum putem defini calitativ valoarea fiecærui artist øi în ce
mæsuræ existæ o deosebire calitativæ în experienfla artisticæ specificæ fiecærui demers?
Ce relaflie existæ pe piaflæ între cele douæ forme de manifestare øi de experienflæ artisticæ?
Sau care este rolul pregætirii instituflionale în definirea viitorului artist øi în ce mæsuræ
este ea primordialæ pentru încadrarea cuiva în sfera artisticæ?
Note:
1. Ei fac parte dintr-o organizaflie localæ, Uniunea Sculptorilor în Lemn din Scaunul Odorhei, care, la rîndul ei,
e afiliatæ unei bresle naflionale, Uniunea Artiøtilor Populari Maghiari din România.
2. Studiile øtiinflifice asupra percepfliei vizuale au arætat cæ ea alterneazæ între imaginile diferite pe care fiecare
ochi le vede. Fragmente concurente din cele douæ imagini produc un compozit instabil, amintind de mozaic.
Fenomenul cunoscut drept rivalitate binocularæ poate fi înfleles ca un eøec evident în privinfla cooperærii
dintre cei doi ochi. (N. red.)
3. Cf. Villém Flusser, Pentru o filosofie a fotografiei. Texte despre fotografie, traducere de Aurel Codoban, Cluj,
Idea Design & Print, 2003.
Dénes Miklósi’s project thus proves to be a self-referential confession
(a self-reflection), a story that simultaneously raises a series of questions
regarding the art’s condition, the place of the artist, the quality
of being an artist, the difference between the artisan and the artist
as institution, or regarding the existence of the work of art on a specialized
market.
The difference between the two artistic modalities taken on – the artisanal
and the institutional one – could be expressed in the terms by
which the Czech thinker Villém Flusser expresses the transition from
(and the distinction between the two) a world of the image to a
world of the text. 3 For a folk artist, the world comes to life and is
explained through what he manufactures. His relation to the constructed
form is an immediate one; the reality comes into contact
with the artist as he thrust through the material that he is processing
and insofar as the gimlet pierces the material, or as the file smoothes
a form present in the craftsman’s object; in his case, it is not about
pre-conceptualized fabrications, about materializations of some intellectually
assumed decisions into a causal form (which becomes a critical
form), but his aim is that of offering an image through which the
world becomes simpler, warmer, closer, explainable and, implicitly,
explicit.
On the other side, in contemporary art, the artist works in the reality,
with its forms and modulations, and his approach is an interrogative,
referential one. Contemporary art sets up an intertextual play carried
out in an intracultural space. The artist’s purpose is not that of
explaining reality: since it is already given and he is already present,
inscribed in it. What he drives at emphasizing is some states of affairs
of the existent socio-political or artistic establishment, about which,
most of the times, he asks questions that open a space for dialogue.
Ever since the project’s title, Concurrency, Dénes Miklósi confronts
these two forms of artistic positioning. In this space of mutual mirroring,
the questions raised by such a manoeuvre are intervening:
to which extent is there a competition between the two artistic
approaches? How can we qualitatively define the value of each artist
and to which extent is there a qualitative distinction between the
artistic experiences specific to every approach? What is the relation
between the two forms of artistic manifestation and experience on
the market? Or what is the role that the institutional training plays in
the definition of the future artist and to what extent is it primordial
for somebody’s inclusion in the artistic sphere?
Translated by Andreea Lazær
Notes:
1. They sit in for a local organization, the Union of Wood Carvers from
the Seat of Odorhei, which, in turn, is affiliated to a national craft, the
Union of Folk Hungarian Artists in Romania.
2. The scientific studies on visual perception have showed that it alternates
the different images that each eye sees. The concurrent fragments
of the two images produce an unstable compound, reminding
of a mosaic. The phenomenon known as retinal rivalry can be understood
as an obvious failure regarding the cooperation between the two
eyes. (Ed. n.)
3. Cf. Villém Flusser, Pentru o filosofie a fotografiei. Texte despre fotografie,
translated by Aurel Codoban, Cluj, Idea Design & Print, 2003.
65