“Consciousness is the stage, the only stage, to be precise, where everything happening in the universe is performed, a comprehensive container, outside which nothing exists”¹ That is what the Austrian physicist and mathematician Erwin Schrödinger , who won the Nobel Prize in 1933 for his crucial contribution to quantum mechanics studies, used to affirm. One of the most distinguished scholars, a pioneer in studying consciousness, was the American neurophysiologist and psychologist Benjamin Libet, author of the theory of the “Conscious Mental Field” (CMF) , which made a distinction between the brain activity, considered an elementary function, and the mental activity, valued as much more complex.
According to Libet, consciousness (or mind field) is not a defined function; it is instead something that emerges thanks to a series of adjustments and re-definition processes that fill up the holes of the brain activity, giving consistence, for example, to the perception of spaces, shapes and colours. Basically, the conscious mental field cannot be reduced to a simple neural process neither it can be described as a merely physical event. During a series of studies, in 1985, Libet showed how the personal experience of will comes right after a pre-conscious or even unconscious choice. Any action, any simple motoric act, comes after an unconscious neural decision. In other words, it takes a fraction of a second to a single human being to be aware of his own action. This discovery brought the academics to ask themselves about the exact location of decisions making, the true headquarter of actions. As known, the brain produces an intense activity, cerebral waves create a magnetic and electric field, but also, as a result, a morphemic field. Libet called mental field the morphemic field of the mental activities, to define the way personal experiences arise among the functions of the brain.
Rupert Sheldrake, a British biologist, who invented the theory of Morphemic Resonance that introduced the idea of a non-mechanical universe, needs to be involved to comprehend what the mind field really is. According to Sheldrake, each member of a species draws the experiences of his ancestors from a collective memory. The most revolutionary aspect of his idea is the assertion that memories do not lie in the brain itself, but in a field of information, somehow similar to remote archive systems such as Cloud, accessible to every human being. This morphemic field interacts with the brains and the neural systems of each member of the species, by imposing schemes and structures to those processes otherwise chaotic and undefined. Without being too specific, it’s enough to know that the mind field ( or morphemic) can help us understand how each individual has access to a superior quantity of information, compared to the ones he can accumulate himself through sensorial experiences, during an entire life.
As a matter of fact , throughout the times, art has always related itself to philosophy and science, in a complex knot of mutual influences. For instance, we can observe how the results of the most recent researches on the mental field and on the concept on “non-locality” quantum, actually affect the way contemporary painting distances itself from a mere depiction of reality as much as from the representation of purely abstract concepts. The two opposite foundations of Nineteenth Century Painting, Abstract and Figuration, have left some space to the birth of a hybrid language, born from the interpolation between the two models. This language is visually defined by incongruous narrations, simultaneous representations, dissociations between subjects and meanings, deformations of anatomy, perspective, and of the time-space perception. The simultaneity of the narrative episodes that nullify the continuity of the story, but also the constant redefinition of the space concept through the acquisition of multiple points of view, mirrors the potential dimension of the mind field, which is determined by the inference of many individuals. The breech of traditional schemes in depicting space and time, actually typical of every visual expression of the twentieth Century, acquires a major role in contemporary painting. Simultaneity is a feature of the mind field, where present, past and future information coexist. The physic and theorist Amit Goswami affirms that the “non-local quantum”, the one that distinguishes subatomic particles, also happens between brains. According to Sheldrake as well, the morphemic field keeps the memory of the species, in order to register any information and at the same time let them evolve thanks to present experiences.
A look to Neo Rauch painting can help explaining this concept by images. In the fundamental paintings of the Neue Leipziger Schule, the visual narration appears segmented in different episodes that do not allow a logic reconstruction of the events. The space is incongruous; locations fade into one another, with no continuity, while historical time is confused and fragmented.
This depiction model rapidly diffused across Europe, influencing many contemporary painters , from Daniel Pitin to David Schnell, from Martin Kobe to Tilo Baumgaertel, to Justin Mortimer and Adrian Ghenie, just to mention a few. What combines them all, no matter the stylistic differences, is indeed the discontinuity of the narration, the overlapping of images and the tendency to leave some parts of the painting unfinished, as if it was an open story, constantly becoming. This operating approach leaves the narrative content to a secondary level, focusing instead on the formal analysis of representation processes.
For example, a similar conception can be found in Paolo De Biasi’s painting, as he affirms, “even if a painting is enclosed in a perimeter, his borders are paradoxically infinite”. The artwork is, to the artist, the result of a discovering process that not only involves the individual dimension, but also the field of collective imagery. The sources are multiple and virtually unending, they can include images drawn from personal memories, from dreams and unconscious projections, from the web and even from other artists. De Biasi’s painting generates from the intersection between the stream of consciousness and a sea wide amount of information and it is distinguished by a juxtaposition of apparently senseless images.
The representation happens within an undefined space, lacking sure references, within a fluid and simultaneous timely dimension, built after the compositional approach typical of the surrealistic collage technique. De Biasi takes cognizance of the impossibility of producing a unique (and identifying) vision of reality, which is nowadays too complex and fragmented, leaving to the observer the task of detecting relationships and connections among the figures. What really arises from his research, which is ambiguously suspended between abstract schemes and figurative models, is the idea of an uncatchable contemporaneity, “no more synthesizable nor limited” to a single point of view. All the subject has to do is select images from the menu of his mind field, trying to give back a most holographic vision of the existential complexity, to the observer.
Even Annalisa Fulvi’s artworks result from the combination and juxtaposition of estranged elements. The artist focuses on the evolution of the urban and natural landscape, revealing the presence of constantly changing locations and spaces. Fulvi does not limit herself to documenting effective changes, but she also takes in consideration those that are virtually possible, opening her representation field to the potential developments of architectural structures and natural shapes. Her painting, based on the accumulation of abstract hatches and realistic elements, geometrical patterns and iconic signs, is the result of an accurate study of the space, derived from the observation of reality and from the analysis of the cultural structures reality is made of. Drawing by Zygmunt Bauman the idea of a liquid society , mobile and in constant evolution, Annalisa Fulvi tries to catch the uncertain disposition of existence through a painting that seizes the sudden and contradictory aspects of contemporary reality. It gives back the vision of an unaccomplished and ambiguous space, built on the juxtaposition of unstable elements and structures, such as trellis, scaffoldings and signs that underline their uncertain and random essence. The changes in the landscape therefore become an excuse to reflect on the elements that affect, often unwittingly, people’s behaviour. The rise of new construction sites effectively brings an untreatable imbalance in the natural tissue, which nullifies the architectural premises of bringing a rational order to the chaos of shapes.
In Dario Maglionico’s painting the space, the domestic one in particular, is close to the traditional mimetic and prospective depiction of reality. On the other hand, the individual subjects are undefined, out of focus. They acquire a ghostly appearance. In the series Reificazioni, the house, permanent centre of gravity of the individual, becomes a transition place, a crossing space, that records the fading and evanescent trace left by the passage of the individuals who inhabit it. This way, while the domestic interiors confer a frame of balance, at least within the depiction, the actions of the subjects multiply in a synchronic dimension where past and present converge. Therefore, Maglionico’s research points out the impossibility to concretely define the psychological identity of the painted subject, sending it back to the objects and furnishings surrounding him. In the same way , the reification – a philosophical concept by Karl Marx doctrine- indicates the people’s commercialization or the reduction of their psychological , moral and cultural motions, to mere objects. Through his painting, the artist describes reality as a process of human commercialization of human experiences, a sort of gratuitous creation of the mind, who is unable by nature to seize the dynamic and jumble complexity of the existence. That is the reason why in his canvases, people metaphorically appear as incomplete anatomies, undefined looks, as captured in a late, quick and imprecise vision.
Valerio Melchiotti’s painting has a frangmented vocation, where the typical media realism of his portraits is filtered by an inner psychological quest that flows into a bunch of incongruous narrations. The artist himself defines his artworks as “small theatres, sometimes absurd and lacking logic”, and, in fact, they could be considered as segments of a potential surreal tale, or a short movie studded with ambiguous and enigmatic images. In Melchiotti’s work the preference for small sizes states the will to catch back with his inner self, a dimension the artist reaches thanks to the traces and fragments of lost childhood memory, made of comics, old black and white pictures, sci-fi tales and board games. However, the artist hides all these elements in a coded visual language, almost obscure. We can therefore affirm that the mystery of human psyche, with its sudden pairings and obscure interferences with the collective unconscious, is the real subject of Melchiotti’s painted work. A painting that is full of slips and failures, subtractions and cancellations, ambiguous images, but yet able to depict the imperfect and unavoidably evanescent essence of memory.
Paolo De Biasi, Annalisa Fulvi, Dario Maglionico, Valerio Melchiotti.
Opening: April 2 – h 18.30
