Art and Emotion

Beauty is an immediate reaction. However, this reaction remains fleeing, transient and fugacious. What is more important is what remains after a few moments, a number of hours, a number of years. It is the reminiscence of what this beauty has performed in us that has metamorphosed us, whereas this beauty might have even disappeared. What I mean to say is that the produced work has no importance whatsoever except as a stepping stone or a springboard, except as a catalyst through which a miscellany of emotions will spring and arise.

We don't remember a symphony, a landscape, a painting, an architectural design, more than we do remember an instance of suffering, thus entirely as a whole. What clings and outlasts is remembrance of those sensations of thrill which arose from it, this established fact wholly integrated in us since then, embedded in our subconscious and which determines the consciousness to be sought, to forever nurture and develop in us the freedom of the individual unconsciousness. This state of osmosis between the real and the virtual constitutes the dialogue which can and must be set and established between the matter created by the artist and the underlying uncreated matter which lies deep within us. I am fully convinced that this outcome is directly proportional to the extent and depth of a work: not to the brilliant elaboration (though it can be part of it at times) of the work but to its mystery. The technical difficulty lying behind a work of art, as opposed to the spiritual or intellectual message it carries, has no virtue whatsoever, except as an indispensable and appropriate support to the message itself. The unfounded and disinterested nature of either will interfere on the other, like a hindrance and a hurdle to the expressiveness of the statement.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  >>