Interview with myself
_________________________________________________________________
Extracts from "Interview with Myself"
During my artistic career I met people of every race, age, and social status, coming from every country. The questions I was asked did not change too much from person to person. This is the summary of the most frequently asked questions and the answers, in the form of an interview.
Interview
(Karlsruhe, 2010)
I:
How could you define yourself?
EM: An artist? (Smiles)
I: How did you start to feel you are an artist?
EM: If you are an artist, you are born as an artist; then it's up to you to follow your nature or to refuse it. You feel it and also other people around you feel it. You know, I made scientific studies because this was “the right thing to do” for my family and, for a certain time, also for me, but I have to admit that my mother was right when she said: “You could have four degrees in science, but you will always be an artist”. I don't want to be romantic, I could use many well known sayings about being an artist, I will keep it simple: for me when you seek beauty everywhere, when you need to live surrounded by beauty, when you seek freedom from ordinary way of life and routine, when you need to create and to express yourself not only for you, but also for the others, and when you try to be everyday better for you and for the others, then you are an artist. You see, at the end I have given a romantic definition! (Smiles)… About being an artist I would suggest a remarkable passage in the “Letters to a young poet” by Rilke, everyone that has doubts about being an artist or not should read it, there you can find a good answer.
...I: You don’t have a classic artistic path isn’t it?
EM: If with “classic” you mean art academy, you are right, I have not a classic artistic path, but I am quite proud of it. The institutions are crystallized in their convictions and it is out of doubt that if you stay inside an institution for many years you start thinking like it, you are obliged… if you don’t say to your teacher what he likes to hear, you will not pass your exam… it is a matter of fact. They will say that first you learn and then you are free to do whatever you like, but then it’s too late, your mind is already forged! If you enter inside a traditional institution you have to make double effort to be yourself, to find your identity and your purpose; it is difficult enough without any additional constraint. But allow me to say that history has many remarkable examples in which the classical artistic path was absolutely not followed. I like to mention Francis Bacon, the greatest painter of the 20th century after Picasso, he hadn’t an academic background at all, but also Picasso left the art academy during the first year: can you imagine?! (Smiles)
I: You spent many years painting human bodies, how did you come to archetypical symbols?
EM:
When I started painting, I mean seriously, with a real intent, I believed that
the human being was the beginning, the center and the end: everything. Without the
human being there is nothing around, at least we cannot perceive what is
around. We are all that we have. For me it was important to investigate the
human nature, to dig inside it… a tree, a flower, a cloud were not so
relevant for me as the human being. First of all I needed to understand how I
work, how people work, how the mankind works… so I painted bodies and faces… to focus on the human nature. I
tried many techniques, but mainly I used to make a collage on canvas that I
covered with sand and then I painted on it: it was like painting on a rough wall of
a cave: like primitive graffiti, but the subject was very contemporary… there
was a lot of sex, of rage, of technology… I couldn’t accept that the society
was going in the wrong direction and I tried to highlight this fact: "shocking by
amplifying". I didn’t realize that in my artworks the solution was not included!
(Smiles) You see the point? I highlighted the problem, but I didn't suggest
the solution!
I: What happened, how did you realize this fact?
EM:
I didn’t realize this fact immediately, but I stopped making exhibitions. It
was unconscious. Today I see the reason: I could not say something to the
audience that was only the problem, my purpose was not complete. Realizing this fact was for me a
silent shock, like being lost in the desert. At that time I was living in Paris, but I was in the
desert, I rarely went out of my flat, I spent my days painting in my room. I
stopped exhibitions, but I never stopped painting… it has been a very intimate
process… The subjects of my paintings changed, and so the technique. I started
painting with oil on wood… always bodies and faces, but I left the rage and the
sex away. The subjects became more and more religious, or mythical I would say,
mythical. Little by little some symbols appeared together with these
mythological characters: a sphere, a moon, a cross… When I arrived in Germany,
I finally achieved the transition from figurative to abstract painting: at that
stage I just removed the bodies and what was left were the symbols. Archetypical
symbols. It was quite easy, if I look at it from above. The
bodies were not enough: they could not be the solution. In the bodies there was
the problem, the solution could not dwell in the physical body, because it is not phisical! I think it’s
quite natural to land on abstract paintings when you are looking for answers
that go beyond the body and life in matter.
I: And the symbols where the solution?
EM:
I cannot say that symbols are “the solution”, but they are one solution; they
are a great help. You know, to point out the problems is not a solution, and to
solve our problems we have to focus more on our inner world. Money, sex, violence…
we are enough aware that they exist and that they are a problem… but repeating
and repeating this concept will not give us the solution. On the contrary, if the human being
starts questioning himself from the inside, maybe he will change, he will not
give so much importance to these corrupted qualities of society. The symbols are
a catalyst for the inner questioning; they are related to our most intimate
part that we have mostly forgotten. They act more on the unconscious part of
the man, the mind has no power on them, and you cannot be dishonest with yourself
in front of the symbols (Smiles).
I: You say that your artworks are a sort of alchemical process; can you explain this for those who are not familiar with alchemy?
EM: Well, about alchemy everything has already been said, but if I have to simplify, the best known goal of alchemy is the transmutation of common metals into gold. This process is achieved after a long manipulation of the rough substances, hundreds or thousands of times… I take this principle and I use it in my artworks. The work starts with matter in its original state: stones, sands, earths… then I work on them, they become a tool to realize my creation. This rough matter is disposed on the canvas following sacred geometries and creating archetypical symbols. Matter is very low on the path of evolution, symbols are very high. Matter is very impure, symbols and geometries are very pure. When I start a painting the way in which I work is very rough: I use my hands, big brushes, big spatulas, and the work is very roughly done… then come the colors, the definition of the geometries… at this stage the work becomes more refined. In the final stage, in some cases, I even use tweezers to dispose small stones exactly where I want, or very small brushes to obtain the details I need. Also in my technique there is a sort of evolution: from rough to sublime… (Smiles)
...
I: You have lived in Reggio Emilia, Milan, St. Tropez, and Paris; now you live in Karlsruhe. Is there an influence of the place on your paintings?
EM:
Well, who can say that? I mean, who knows what I would have painted if instead of
living in Paris I would have lived in
I: What is art for you?
EM: Good question… what is art… If I should use only one word I would say that art is “evolution”, art “must” be evolution. For me if there is no evolution everything is useless. Maybe I am too much pragmatic and too few poetic, but it is like this. The goal of humanity should be being better, everyday better, and also every human being should try to die better than he was born, but it's not always the case. Every new born baby is pure, and then with time, often, his soul is corrupted by this hard life. We learn many things during our lives, but most of the time is just information, our souls do not evolve, on the contrary they involve, we become cynic, greedy, egoistic and so on… art should push people on the right way and I still believe that this is a powerful way to do it.
I: Could we say that art is creation?
EM: Art can be many things; it depends on the point of view. Art for me should be about all evolution, but of course if you don’t create you cannot communicate principles of evolution: everything is related. We have been created, this is why we have to create. But of course there are many forms of creation. You can create cars, babies, paintings, food… every creation has a reason to be, nevertheless some creations are more important than others and some creations cannot be done by everyone.
I: Could you give me an example?
EM: Let’s consider a car factory. If Mr. Smith quits his position as design engineer, Mr. Jones will take his position and the consumer will not remark any difference in the final product: it will always be a Mercedes or a Ferrari or whatever you like... In art it's different: if you change Picasso with Matisse you will immediately recognize the difference (Smiles). Every artist is unique and this is what counts for me: the feeling to do something unique. I like to think that there are things that only I am able to do, things that are fulfilled by my essence.
I: Is this the reason why you paint?
EM: I paint for myself and for the audience. I think it would be very dishonest to say that an artist is painting only for himself. I mean, even if the artist is closed in a jail or lost on a desert island, inside him, in the deepest region of his soul, there is always the belief that one day someone will see what he has done. I am pretty sure that if an artist would be the last man on the earth, being aware of this fact, he would never find the force or the motivation to create.
I: Maybe for an extraterrestrial civilisation?
EM: If we admit that an extraterrestrial civilisation can exist, yes, this could be a good reason, a great reason I would say! What I want to say is that the purpose, in the creative act, is outside the artist, is in the audience, human or extraterrestrial… whatever you like… without audience, an artist has no role.
I: So the artist should be grateful to the audience?
EM: Absolutely, the audience is the sparkle that lights the fire of creation, the artist has the fuel. Even if artists are often unfair with the audience, the audience has a basic role in the path of creation and should not be blamed even if it doesn’t appreciate, even if it doesn’t understand…
...I: Which is your message?
EM: I do not know if we can call it a message, I try to detour the attention of the audience from the outer world to the inner world and to push them to investigate some parts of their being that they have forgotten. The archetypical symbols have this power; they awake the lost consciousness. When the consciousness is activated, then every one finds the message he needs to find. My paintings are like a catalyst for inner questioning.
I: Which is you creative process?
EM: I am proud to say that I don't wake up in the morning shouting that I had a dream or that a smart idea came up in my mind and that I will make a painting on it. It doesn’t work like this… My work is based on a well defined purpose and I cannot leave my imagination free to go wherever it likes. I decide to work on a certain theme and to do this I have to work with specific symbols, colours, and materials; there is always a project behind.
...
I: What is more important: the technique or the content?
EM: Technique is like style in literature, take for example Joyce, he created the stream of consciousness because he had a specific purpose: he wanted to express the mechanism of the inner dialogue. He wanted to go there and to go there he needed this particular style; it was not just a funny idea to do something different or to change the tradition. The style was subordinate to the purpose and to the content. It was not just an empty idea. In art it should be the same: an empty idea doesn’t go anywhere and it is useless. It can only wake up the curiosity for a while, but it will be quickly forgotten.
...I: What do you think of contemporary art?
EM: Well… nowadays quite the whole contemporary art is just a smart or a nice idea come up in the mind of a person, I don’t want to call him “an artist” and repeated several times in different variants. Repeated hundreds, thousands of times, during an entire lifetime: there is no evolution! There is no language enough flexible to express different concepts, to communicate with the audience! Most of the artworks do not force you to investigate and to question yourself, because only with self questioning there is evolution, without questions there is no answer and without answer there is no evolution: we remain what we are. Most of the art today is more like TV programmes. When you watch TV you are completely absorbed by a huge quantity of astonishing images, violence, sex… but also nice documentaries about nature, crime stories, love stories… but at the end we forget everything and we are just tired and bored, looking for something new… TV is done not to encourage thinking, but to stop the thinking process, to relax and have streams of emotions, fake emotions… it is a sleeping effect hidden behind a chaotic mix of astonishing images. There is a big difference between knowledge and information. Nowadays we are over-informed, but the knowledge is going abruptly down. This kind of art teaches nothing.
...I: You often speak about nice or smart idea in a negative way, can you better explain your position?
EM: Yes, actually I am a bit bored by this trend in which everyday we assit to the promotion of a young artist that comes up with a nice or a smart idea. I could invent hundreds of nice ideas to be repeated in series to astonish the audience. Quite everyone is able to do this if he only thinks a little bit in that direction. I do not want to be vulgar; with vulgarity it would be even easier to give you some examples… well… this kind of art is based only on one idea, only one, and repeated and repeated... It is not a language with which you can communicate. This is the big difference! Imagine if the Bible was composed by 2000 pages in which is written: “First God made heaven and earth, first God made heaven and earth, first God made heaven and earth…” it can be a good idea, it is very important to know that “First God made heaven and earth”, but where is evolution?! Once, I think, is enough! (Smiles)
...I: Which artist do you admire the most?
EM: Guess!
I: Picasso?
EM: Right. (Smiles) How people cannot like Picasso? It’s like religion: if you believe in god there is only one God (Smiles), but seriously speaking, I admire Picasso more for the person than for the artist. Maybe he was only lucky, we will never know… but it is out of question that he imposed his style to the entire world; and for a human being this is a lot. For a painter it is even more. Today with TV and hyper-efficient media it's easy to become worldwide known if you are a singer or an actor, more difficult if you are a writer, even more if you are a painter, but it is still possible. Picasso became Picasso, a myth, in a period where the media were not so powerful and for me this is a titanic enterprise for a single man.
...I: Do you have a dream?
EM: well, fortunately in my life I still have many dreams, maybe they are not dreams, but simply things I would like to do, but it will take too much time to talk about them. This is what pushes me to wake up in the morning, without them I will sleep all the day! (Smiles)
 | Pocket Book ENRICO MAGNANI Interview with Myself - A short conversation about art Lulu Press English Edition with a foreword by poetess Florence Issac; 21 B&W pictures illustrate Enrico Magnani's artistical path from figurative to abstract paintings _____________________________________ Buy the Interview in Pocket Book  or download it in pdf format
|
____________________________________________________________
Copyright © Enrico Magnani 1996-2012- All rights reserved
Contact: mail@enricomagnani-art.com
