49 1/4 x 49 1/4 in
The Possibility of Nature
by Stefano Castelli
The concept of nature has for some time now - and by force of
circumstances - come to be both indirect and mediated. Not only as
the result of the difficulty of coming to terms with "authentic" nature
due to a process of urbanisation which is by now more than
consolidated but also because the concept has come to form part of
that category of commonplaces of 'postcard images', either of false
exotic travels or else as a photo feature. And this process naturally
forms part of the general decline in values suffered by the concept of
reality which is increasingly more difficult to grasp and distinguish
from simulation as the result of the virtualisation and digitalising of
the world.
And so also in the artistic field the idea of nature has suffered an
analogous destiny. Both because the "reasons" in their own right - the
classical subjects - are no longer actual and also because the artist's
commitment-cum-involvement is addressed to the condemnation of
the expropriation of nature rather than to its mere description.
Without choosing univocal solutions or extreme forms of
deconstruction, reexamining "traditional" means without recourse to
any habitual form of realism, Sue Arrowsmith and Matteo Montani
both concern themselves with the idea of nature. The interior dynamics
of their works follow different paths which only partially come
together in the meeting point of this exhibition. Sue Arrowsmith uses
nature as an iconographic cue to then analyse, question and "open" it
in a context that goes beyond the initial reference. Matteo Montani,
instead, "undoes" the figurative reference in such a way that the work
is able to be approached from different starting points. In his case, in
fact, one can think of a figure that is intensified almost to the extent of
abstraction, or elseidentify in his work forms that are not referential and that 'coagulate'
to the point of suggesting the random or chance idea of a figure.
Both artists gracefully destabilise the viewer, inside plainly apparent
traits hiding others. Above all in the new works which use sheet metal,
for the English artist the concepts of grace, harmony and preciosity are
the condition and way for a vision that embodies parts of what is
unclear, not decorative, not realistic and not merely of a
"photographic" nature. As regards the Roman artist, his "pictorial
effects" are hooks on which the vision can hold on to which lead,
however, to something else: filterings, gestuality and dilution really
don't conquer the scene but instead make way for an image sui generis
which, moreover, is not an "image" in the complete sense of the term.
In the works by Sue Arrowsmith the figure is not presented as such.
In part it hides itself, as if "backlit", like a phantasmic presence. The
works seen from close-up render what is not visible as important as
what is shown. The figure remains suspended between idealism and
concreteness. Everything considered, what is not directly visible
underlines the role as protagonist taken on by the human eye, of that
of the viewer of the work. The variation - and therefore the repetition
- of the natural motifs furnish another fixed point which permits the
creation of peculiar atmospheres: what is generated is a sort of
algorithm that nevertheless leaves considerable room for the random
dimension.
In her own words: "All the paintings of this exhibition were obtained
from the same tree, photographed again and again in different periods
of the year. The images were then projected on a prepared surface. I
simply use nature and plants as a pictorial cue. In this way I can let the
marks generated by my brushstroke express themselves, and so
experimenting the 'reassurance' given by the forms and by the
resemblance between them. Sheet metal has become an important
element: the painting shines on the surface, brilliant and earthy. I'm
fascinated by the light and space given by the contrast of forms in
positive and negative. My work is never immobile. It's characterised
by movements midway between the visible and the invisible, between
sharpness and being out of focus".In the works by Matteo Montani the painting is instead liquid,
undulatory and "seismographic". Everything is played out in the space
between fullness and instability in a paradoxical static movement. The
possibility that here we have to do with landscapes is a sensation which
is at one and the same time concrete and impossible to remove, but
also never completely overt. The composition is studied in its details
although it presents itself to the eye as if still being defined.
Irrespective of the apparent randomness, also here there 'reigns' the
idea of a sort of matrix, of an underlying system which can reproduce
and regenerate itself, giving life to new forms (hypothetically inside
the same painting or concretely in the successive ones). The work is at
the same time a concluded conformation and the trace of something
that remains concealed to which one doesn't have access but the
presence of which makes itself felt like an afterthought. In short, what
is investigated is the "possibility of a figure".
As Montani explains: "During recent years my work has
progressively moved towards a vision that can more strictly be
associated with the landscape. The "procedural" aspect of my painting
has become accentuated. The vision reaches out to an eye on the world
and not on painting in itself. I'm interested that new signs and new
pictorial solutions can lead the eye to coincide with an interiorised
image of the world while, at the same time, 'looking out' on the world.
In the landscape in these most recent works we have the fusion of the
material and the immaterial dimension of the image, recomposing the
rupture that separates them".
Earlier in this text I touched on the question of the unattainability of
reality, of its disappearance in a tangle of the concrete and the virtual.
If the works by the two artists do not directly deal with digital
aesthetics one can nevertheless extract from them a comment
regarding the randomness of the image and of representation (the
difficult distinction between figure and abstraction, and their mixing
in the works by both artists is a symptom of this). In fact, it's as if the
images proposed by them were "transmitted" from a distance to the
viewer. In consequence, both artists investigate the moment in which
the manifestation of the figure is still a potentiality.
Obviously enough pictorial language cannot forget the context
(cultural, ideological and technological). By way of the question ofoptics in Montani and of the eye in Arrowsmith, the human being is
indirectly called into play. Mankind's absence, however, poses
questions. Is there still a relationship of interdependence between
mankind and its environment? Is the independence of nature still
actual; does it still carry out its cycle and is real, it realises itself
notwithstanding whatever kind of mediation? And, in abstracting
ourselves from the present and looking at "eternal" questions, is it
really possible to distinguish between nature and culture, does the
object of vision exist independently with regards to the human eye?
The works by these two artists are - everything considered - the
representations of "middle grounds", not vague but alternatives to the
consolidated definitions and to the functionality of a certain and
definitive cataloguing of things.