In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts - they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty. EMERSON
This is an ongoing research on how, in simple terms, art understands itself through more art – how artists encounter other artists. These processes, for good or for bad, usually remain within the intimacy of the artists’ minds. The rare cases where we are made accomplices are either by explicit references provided by the artist him/herself or through critics’ deductions and speculations (that remain intangible). It becomes clear that we are speaking not of easy, forgettable encounters but of a complex relationship and a pitiless love, perhaps; a love that is often left unresolved but that has to be mercilessly deconstructed.
The myth around the artist’s image is projected into the artwork to such an extend that sometimes the two become truly hard to distinguish. It is, however, often said about an artist that it isn’t what he is doing that is important, but what he is. What happens here is that two “doings” are being compared, and the “is” of an artist is what made that choice.These are the two different types of encounter the project is talking about: the intangible between artists, and the physical between their works.
The concept of “companion piece” is a very interesting one. There is no definition in any art dictionary on precisely what it is. It is not, we can say, a critical term. But contrary to this believe, a “companion” can often perform the best criticism.
(more soon)
