House on the bank (for Pierre Bonnard), acrylic, oil, cardboard. Of course it happens that the form, in its schematic aspect, gives rise to a symbolic or figurative aspect; figurative because symbolic or symbolic because figurative, or both at the same time; but this is only a consequence and not a will, a consequence of the need for balance and imbalance in the distribution of masses and colors, that is to say of the quantity of the former in relation to the quantity of the latter in the search for an expression that is not a subjective expressive will. I cannot, beyond this stage, concern myself with subsidiary echoes; so it can for example make one think of a cross, but there was no question of drawing a cross; it can make one think of a house, but there was no question of painting a house; it can make one think of a letter, but there was no question of sending a letter; etc. Here I would like to thank Burkhard @burkharddierks whose comments helped me to clarify this point. In a nutshell, by extrapolating, painting always represents something, this regardless of whether it is figurative or not. On the one hand, as it is the representative of the artist, it represents the artist; on the other hand, more broadly and seen from opposite, it represents the desire of the public, of those who watch it, or not, whether they love it or hate it (there is no particular reason for one to like seeing one's desire represented, to the extent that it can be shocking), it is their desire that it "draws", paints, represents. |