- The right
- What does it mean to create?
- As artists, why do we remain silent about our choices?
The right
In matters of creation, I do not claim that there would exist right or wrong postures that I could demonstrate; This right (gesture, color, line...) I am looking for is only so for me, and only at the moment when it shows, and perhaps also for somebody's with similar resonances. This right is the trace of a fragile and ephemeral correspondence between what I feel, what I am aware of and what I trace. When this alignment occurs, it is a silent detonation, a dazzle from within. It is for this rare moment that I go on creating.To create?
The dictionary tells me (selected pieces):From the latin creare, to give being, existence, life to […]; to draw from nothingness.
Existence
Which is, starting from something else.
To exist: to be, from somthing, to be by the fact of differentiating oneself from the origin.
When creating, the first gesture is oneself. Then the form, the texture acquire their own life.
There is no longer one, there are two. The one who creates, and the medium on which he creates. And since there are two, there is dialogue.
This new being emanating from something else, is it precisely this dialogue? Is it the artist, is it the work?
It's all of this at the same time.
As much as it's obvious that the artist transforms the medium on which he works, the work also transforms the artist.
As far as I'm concerned, my painting is questionning me at every moment, it asks me to take a stand: am I right? Do I paint only formal, learned, decorous shapes?
Beyond the physical trace on paper, the internal trace left by this dialogue accompanies me.
Tirer du néant
Dans une acception religieuse: Faire, formerThese words have the greatest effect on me ...
I see the void, the depths, the abyss. I bend over and feel dizzy.
Do we pretend, we artists, to draw our images from nothing? Certainly, basically. I guess part of the jubilation that drives us when we create is to feel not divine, but really God creating… Or is it the other way around? Wouldn't religious imagery be simply an anthropomorphic construction, a transposition of human experience, including that which consists in creating?
Other writings (translation coming):
As artists, why do we remain silent about our choices?
Let's not deny that in order to create, our actions are essentially based on assumptions: principles, concepts.
The field of creation is so vast that we never stop restricting it, limiting it in a way to avoid getting lost. Otherwise, what would be the function of schools, movements, groups of artists, manifestos?
We restrict ourselves to a few techniques, to some elements of formal representation, to a pair of prejudices regarding our relationship to representation, to ranges of tones and colors, lights, games of volumes, space; we have our gestures; we like to smooth or sculpt, trim or assemble; we put our body, affect, or intellect into it; we talk about ourselves, about society, about the art trade; we have established our relationship with other means of expression, such as written word, performance, sound; we show ourselves or hide, while often believing that we are doing the opposite.
In all cases we make choices. In a single piece, or even sometimes in a lifetime, we never use the full range of possibilities in the realm of creation.
These choices, we do not talk about them. This time does not encourage us to do so.
There were other times, when artists gathered in movements brandished manifestos.
Nowadays, it doesn't occur anymore. As if claiming an impact on creation was jeopardizing its legitimacy. So we do it in secret, faced with the impossibility of creating without first making these choices.Other writings (translation coming):