I would like to thank all those who have been following my blog throughout these years. The number of daily visits encourages me to keep this blog active with regular updates. Some have even sent me e-mails and asked me whether there are any exhibitions in the pipeline. I am presently busy on a daily basis in my studio, where commissioned works take most of my time.New works, mostly paintings, have been unfolding regularly. A new collection of abstract works is also gradually taking shape and I am keeping it aside for a future show. I am taking my time to find the right opportunity and venue to exhibit my work. As regards contemporary art, some new ideas and projects related to interventions on the natural environment are ready to be developed and documented. I am very excited about the finalisation of these projects and it is just a matter of a few months when life on the sister island becomes less hectic and photographic documentation is facilitated by the sensual autumn light. Roaming around unspoilt and solitary natural spaces makes me feel at ease - it is in such places where some of my ideas and thoughts are staged, away from the hustle and bustle and formalities of everyday life. My other project, Aging Mirrors, is still in progress and will take longer than expected to complete.

No.3 from The Horizon Series

True Art and Vision

The history of art is first and foremost the history of vision. Technique changes as a result of a change in the mode of seeing; it changes whenever the method of seeing changes. It changes so as to keep pace with changes of vision as they occur. And the eye changes its method of seeing according to the relation man establishes with the world around him. An individual views the world according to his attitude towards it. Two influences affect this vision - an outer one and one from within. As soon one realises that his vision is always a result of both external and inner influences, it becomes a question of trust. It becomes a dilemma between trusting more in the outer world or otherwise, more in the inner self. Once one arrives at the point where he can differentiate between himself and the world, when he can separate outer from inner, he can choose to find comfort either in the outer or inner world. A third possibility is that of halting on the boundary line between the two. Significant form, no matter whether it results from the outer or inner world, stands charged with the power to provoke aesthetic emotion in anyone capable of feeling it. The beliefs of men bear different weights during different times; the intellectual feats of one age are the follies of another; only great art remains stable and unobscure. Great art remains stable and unobscure because the feelings that it awakens are independent of time and place. It is generally assumed that people who cannot feel pure aesthetic emotions remember works of art by their subjects; whereas people who can, as often as not bypass the subject of a picture and its representative elements and prefer to talk about the shapes of forms and the relations and quantities of line, colour and texture. By doing so they win an emotion more profound and far more sublime than any that can be described or narrated through facts and ideas. The forms of art are inexhaustible, but all lead by the same road of aesthetic emotion to the same world of aesthetics.

Roots of an Island (2007)

This image shows a selection of my semi-abstract paintings exhibited at the National Museum of Fine Arts in Valletta throughout the month of November 2007. My dear friend and art critic Chev. Emmanuel Fiorentino passed away a few days before the official opening of the exhibition.

Art and Politics

Politics is about power relationships. Art is related to politics as well since it is capable of becoming political by its own or by the volition of culture, changing via the process from Art to History. All art as it becomes known becomes political as well regardless of the intent of the artist. When art becomes useful and relevant to culture and society in general, it becomes History. Elsewhere in my blog I have commented that maintaining a sophisticated stance above or outside of things is also taking sides, for such indifference and aloofness is automatically a support of the ruling class. A great number of artists quite consciously support the bourgeois system, since it is within that system that their work sells. Irrespective of the 'avant-garde' or 'conservative', 'rightist' or 'leftist' position art institutions might assume, they remain always a carrier of socio-political connotations. The policies of publicly financed institutions are obviously subject to the discretion of the governmental cultural division, whereas privately funded institutions showcase the predilections and interests of their patrons. In order to have an idea about the forces that elevate certain products to the level of 'works of art', it is indispensable to look into the economic, the selective and political underpinnings of the institutions, individuals and groups who participate in the control of cultural power. Artists as much as their supporters and their enemies, no matter of what ideological affiliation, are unwitting partners in the art-syndrome and relate to each other dialectically. Holding the strings from above we find the administrators, dealers, critics, curators, pundits, gallery staff, etc. These contributors, who were once considered the neutral servants of art, have now become its masters. They gradually consolidated their role in administering the artists' pure manifestations of freedom and in transforming them into commodities with a pricetag on the media-market. This is a mode of existence in which most artists accept to become subbordinates to the blind urge to production-consumption; their work becomes subject to scrutiny, assessment and administration by those who are close to the sources of control in the market hierarchy. The products change and selections occur continuously, but the process remains the same: the ruling market sets the standard of intelligibility. The ever-increasing promotion of an avant-gardist elite has successfully reduced unnecessary competition, if not eliminating it altogether. Undoubtedly, the 'permanent revolution' in art orchestrated by the market is actively designed never to fulfil any social ideals. Contrarily, the market system seems to predilect the celebration of the new individuality, arrogantly set against the idea of sociality. What used to be the production for a privileged middle-class, contemporary art has gradually transformed itself into a spectacularly elitist production, remote even from its own producers' actual lives and personal problems.

I recommend the reading of the following article by Jonathan Jones:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/dec/06/turner-prize-spurns-george-shaw

Painting and repainting

I have always had mixed feelings about the art of visual artists Iakovos "Jake" Chapman (born 1966) and Konstantinos "Dinos" Chapman (born 1962), often known as the Chapman Brothers.
I also have a low consideration of those artists who purposely try to be vulgar and offensive in order to gain recognition. Though some works of art may be considered sublime because of the feelings of awe or anguish these are capable of transpiring, few are those artists who are able to strike the right balance and simultaneously retain the dignity and moral stance required along the feeling of repulsiveness which their work tries to convey. Being excessively different from the norm is not equivalent to being outstandingly original or creative. A case in point is the work by Jake and Dinos Chapman. For those familiar with their works, their subject matter tends to concentrate on whatever is generally deemed to be appalling and offensive.The brothers have also gained international recognition for their taste in altering works of other artists.
In May 2008 the White Cube gallery exhibited 13 apparently authenticated watercolours painted by Adolf Hitler, to which the brothers had added hippie motifs. Jake Chapman described most of the dictator's works as 'awful landscapes' which they had 'prettified'.
In 2010, the artists took an Old Master crucifixion scene and embellished it, apparently with the intention of asking the viewer to consider which works might be by Jake, by Dinos or the Flemish master. Their “Brueghel” also appears to have been, like most of the Chapmans’ works, a collaboration. By coincidence, a version of The Crucifixion accepted as by Pieter Brueghel the Younger sold at an auction in Zurich a few months earlier. This was catalogued as a joint work by Brueghel and Joos de Momper, the Flemish landscape artist who painted the backdrop.
And then there is the price. The Zurich auction picture sold for £673,000. The Chapmans’ “Brueghel” was priced, allowing for a 10 per cent reduction to a good client, at the same level as an authentic Brueghel of the same subject. Thus, a minor Old Master painting accrued in value just because it has been doctored by the Chapmans. The White Cube would like us to believe that the Chapmans are on the same pedestal as Brueghel.
Now let’s consider the moral issue behind this story. It often occurs that art practitioners revisit their past works and decide to intervene with some alterations (pentimenti). In some extreme cases, such alterations may be devastating, to such an extent that a whole body of work could disappear. The denial or erasure of one's past efforts could be explained as a portrayal of failure in creating something significant back in time. There could be other motives behind such drastic actions. It often occurs that unsuccessful art practitioners or beginners come to a point when they desperately need to repaint unsold works in order to make a living. For instance, Francis Bacon once confessed that due to financial problems he repainted most of the works that characterised the initial phase of his artistic career. In fact we do not have a significant documentation related to the period of his formation.
Intervening on one’s own work is one thing but messing with the works of others is logically and morally unacceptable, as long as there is consent from the original creators. Duchamp notoriously drew a pair of moustache on the image of the Mona Lisa . At least, and thanks God, the image was a reproduction.
But painting over an original work of an old Master, no matter whether it is a Brueghel or a minor artist, is deplorable. In my opinion, such an offensive action is a shameful attack on Art and the values of dignity and respect required for appreciating it.