| |
MIROSLAV
PAVLOVIC / DIMENSIONAL WORKS / C.V. & TEXT

|
Miroslav
Pavlovic - Biografija
Miroslav Pavlovic je rodjen u Vrscu 1952. godine. Studirao na
Institutu za likovne umetnosti "Nikolae Grigoresku"
u Bukurestu (Rumunija) 1974-78. u klasi profesora Konstantina
Blende. Postdiplomske studije zavrsio je na istoj akademiji 1980.
godine. Imao je vise samostalnih izlozbi pocev od 1978. godine
u Rumuniji, Jugoslaviji, Skandinaviji i Sjedinjenim Drzavama.
Ucestvovao je na brojnim kolektivnim izlozbama u zemlji i inostranstvu.
Radovi mu se nalaze u kolekcijama u Rumuniji, Jugoslaviji, Danskoj,
Svedskoj, Norveskoj, Sjedinjenim Drzavama, Japanu..
Miroslav
Pavlovic - Curriculum Vitae
Miroslav Pavlovic was born in Vrsac, Yugoslavia, 1952. He graduated
from the Institute of Fine Arts "Nicolae Grigorescu"
in Bucharest (Romania) 1974-78. in the class of Prof. Constantin
Blendea. Post-graduated studies at the same academy he had finished
1980. He had many personal exhibitions since 1978 in Romania,
Yugoslavia, Scandinavia and United States. He took part at many
collective exhibitions in Yugoslavia and abroad. His works are
making part of vast number of collections in Romania, Yugoslavia,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, United States, Japan..
Miroslav
Pavlovic - Lebenslauf
Miroslav Pavlovic wurde 1952 in Vrsac geboren. Von 1974 bis 1978
studierter am Institut für bildende Kunst Nicolae Grigorescu in
Bukarest (Rumänien) in der Klasse des Professors Constantin Blendea.
Das Magisterstudium schloss er 1980 an derselben Akademie ab.Seit
1978 hatte er mehrere selbstständige Ausstellungen in Rumänien,
Jugoslawien, Skandinavien und den USA. Er nahm an zahlreichen
kollektiven Ausstellungen im In- und Ausland teil. Seine Arbeiten
findet man in den Kollektionen in Rumänien, Jugoslawien, Dänemark,
Schweden, Norwegen, Japan, in den USA, ...
Address:
Skadarska 28, 26300 Vrsac, Serbia, EU / Phone: ++ 381.64.512.8465 /
email
|

COMMENTS
1980-2000.
...accomplished,
sophisticated artist. His abstract picture-constructions appeare
at once original and well grounded in a modern tradition.
Peter Schjeldahl, New York, 1987.
...by
it's nature Pavlovic`s work slips the instantaneousness; it aims
at continuance, includes thourghly reconsidered mode of proceeding,
his work requests concentrated, permanent action by reanalyzing
his own achievements, and results so far.
Jerko Denegri, Belgrade, 1997.
...Pavlovic
showed us convincingly, judiciously and with grounding his fully
defined concept of painting that is well founded in the now dominating
aestheticism of the last traces of modernism, and even in the complex
of artistic issues that are currently oriented toward the idea
of a new or the second Modern at the end of this century and this
grand artistic epoch. And whatever the ultimate answer is to the
question of goals and meanings of Miroslav Pavlovic`s paintings,
his work will undoubtedly be part of a contemporary art that has
truly moved ahead artistic frontiers.
Jovan Despotovic, Belgrade, 1997.
The value of his work, then, lies in its reassessment of this tradition rather than in its destruction. All facets of the West's most conventional art must be explored and, literally, expanded upon.
Whitney May , New York, 2006
...Za
razumevanje Pavloviceve estetike od vaznosti je razlika izmedju
likovnosti i slikovnosti. Kod Pavlovica je rec o “cistim” artefaktima
u kojima nema ni traga klasicne slikovitosti. Svaki Pavlovicev
eksponat je lik za sebe koji ne odslikava nista drugo. Tako shvacene
ove Pavloviceve konstrukcije mogle bi da posluze kao primer tautoloske
samodovoljnosti na kojoj se zasniva radna praksa aktivista ekstremne
avangarde /.../ Njegovi radovi ne ukazuju samo na razliku izmedju
likovnog i slikovitog, vec upozoravaju i na suprotnost artificijelnog
i estetskog po kojoj se upravo koriguje aksiološki kriterijum
sudjenja o tome sta jeste, a sta nije umetnicko delo...
Djordje Kadijevic, 2000
...U ovom opusu postoji jedno duhovno srodstvo i bliska svest
sa idejama neoplasticizma (Mondrijan), konkretizma (Duisburg)
i americkog minimalizma (Dzad, Levit, Andre). Sa prvim ga povezuje
sklonost ka redu i harmoniji kao osnovnoj plastickoj ideji ali
i kao “umetnickoj poruci”, sa drugim ubedjenje da je moguce ostvariti
konkretnost linije, boje plohe, a sa trecim spremnost da se lapidarnim
plastickim jezikom (vise je manje!) ostvari zavidan sadrzinski
i estetski potencijal dela...
Sava Stepanov, 1998
...ozbiljan, izgradjen, iskusan umetnik. Njegove apstraktne slike-konstrukcije
na prvi pogled izgledaju originalne i dobro utemeljene u modernu
tradiciju...
Peter Schjeldahl, New York, 1987
...Vizuelni objekti, ili "objekti za videti" Miroslava
Pavlovica, ostaju konsekventni i savrseni sa stanovista sagledavanja
njihovih konstitutivnih principa, apsolutistickih i puristickih,
objekti dislociraju a zatim rekonstituisu vizuelnu percepciju,
na jedan pikturalan nacin, putem estetskog funkcionisanja vrednog
po sebi. Vizuelno obrazovanje koje predlazem implicitno ostaje
paradoksalno: dakle, slike cistog vidjenja pojavljuju se kao vizuelno-konkretni
objekti, njihova namera je sto potpunije integrisanje u prirodu,
tako postaju cisto intelektualna nastojanja, matrice pogleda koje
ocekuju objekat. Sadrzaj, objekat, odredjenje, jesu jedan drugi
problem, "post festum", onoga koji posmatra to vidjenje
vidjenja. Njihova lepota, prociscena i distancirana, govori jednoj
drugoj intuiciji...
Magda Carneci, 1980
...Supremacija vizuelnog ishodi izuzetnom posledicom, anulira
emotivno, lirske reakcije, precizira jednu zajednicku cinjenicu,
bez alegorijskih aluzija; ne dozvoljava kolateralna objasnjenja
vec afirmise iskljucivo supstancu i funkciju. Takoreci, rad se
definise objektivno identican samom sebi, kao i nacin kako se
ostvaruje pod rigoroznom tehnickom kontrolom. Rad ne nudi nista
drugo do to sto jeste u konkretnom smislu, citacu nece izmaci
nemogucnost da transformise analizu jedne slike u sliku koja govori
ili sliku govora...
Raoul Shorban, 1980
|

Jerko
(Jesa) Denegri 1999.
Na jugoslovenskoj umetnickoj sceni devedesetih Miroslav Pavlovic
pojavio se iznenada i sasvim formiran, bez ikakvih pocetni(cki)h
oklevanja, ili je barem tako izgledalo zato jer se njegovo formiranje
odvijalo i do tada obavilo izvan domace sredine (u Rumuniji, gde
je u Bukurestu redovne studije zavrsio tokom 1974-78, postdiplomske
izmedju 1978-80), a potom se iskusao i postepeno izgradjivao boraveci,
radeci i izlazuci na vise grupnih nastupa u skandinavskim zemljama
i u Sjedinjenim Drzavama. Sa takvom, dakle, licnom predistorijom
Pavlovic se prvi put samostalno pojavio u vrsackoj Konkordiji
1997, potom u novosadskom Zlatnom oku i beogradskom Centru za
kulturnu dekontaminaciju 1998. ukljucujuci se odmah u kontekst
vrlo indikativnih previranja na domacoj umetnickoj sceni kraja
devedesetih, ujedno i samog kraja veka, u okolnostima ponovnih
preispitivanja nekih temeljnih tekovina modernistickog umetnickog
nasledja, no sada ne vise iz dekonstruktivistickih i simulacionistickih
motivacija postmoderne nego, naprotiv, iz neokonstruktivistickih
i iznova uspostavljenih formalistickih premisa jedne nove, ili
druge moderne koja se kao karakteristicno stanje duha svakako
sa jakim razlozima javila upravo u ovo krizno i katastroficno
vreme poslednje decenije.
Likovna kultura na kojoj je Pavlovic formiran jeste kultura evropskog
istorijskog i posleratnog konstruktivizma i konkretizma za koju
je, tu kulturu, svojstveno da se umetnicko delo shvata i izgradjuje
kao apsolutno autonomni artefakt, dakle kao delo liseno svake
reference na predmetni svet izvan samog dela. A u zamenu za izostalu
predstavu, iluziju ili aluziju okolnog predmetnog sveta, samo
delo je predmet za sebe, predmet kao takav, predmet estetski,
umetnicki, konkretan, kao sto je konkretan svaki drugi materijalni
predmet u nasem svakodnevnom zivotnom okruzenju. Umetnik koji
je tvorac takvog predmeta graditelj je novonastale plasticke strukture
kao simbolicke tvorevine koja u duhovnom mikroprostoru dela upucuje
na ponasanje kakvo bi umetnik kao projektant takvog dela zeleo
da zagovara delujuci - u skladu sa generalnom ideologijom tradicije
konstruktivizma - kao konstruktivna jedinka u fizickom makroprostoru
sveta.
No, to su, zapravo, samo opsta mesta i temeljne postavke ideologije
i oblikovnog jezika istorijskog i novog konstruktivizma, za svakog
autora koji u prihvatanju te ideologije i jezika danas deluje
postavlja se zahtev za izgradjivanjem pojedinacnog autorskog profila
i njegovog specificnog doprinosa. M. Pavlovic je svoje pojedinacne
osobine poceo da trazi i nalazi u podrucju postepenog prelaska
od apstraktne slike kao monohromne plohe, kao oslikane dvodimenzionalne
povrsine ka slici-objektu koja zadrzavajuci jednobojnu podlogu
poseduje jos i svojstva materijalne konstrukcije. A to je obavio
tako sto se od plohe kao potpune ravnine uputio u prostor pred
tom ravninom aplicirajuci nad plohu trodimenzionalne elemente
zahvaljujuci kojima je delo od slike preraslo u reljef, pri cemu
je svojstvo reljefnosti osim prisustvom samih taktilnih elemenata
pojacano jos i efektom senke koju ti elementi pod dejstvom svetlosti
bacaju na podlogu nad kojom su ucvrsceni. U sledecem zahvatu,
telesnost slika-objekata postignuta je tako sto je ram (okvir)
prestao da bude neutralni pomocni faktor materijalnog sklopa dela
i postao je njegov osnovni konstitutivni element. Naime, ram je
postao materijalna granica slikanog polja koje jednom ostaje oslikano
belim, ili drugi put, ujednacno obojenim crnim, zutim, oker ili
plavim, pri cemu na takvoj osnovi likovni element kao sto je linija
umesto da je slikan odnosno crtan sada je materijalizovan u vidu
celicne sajle ili aluminijumske sipke. a posledica svih tih zahvata
jeste da slika definitivno prestaje da bude ravna ploha poput
ekrana koji emituje predstavu ili na kome se projektuje forma,
nego postaje telo odredjene debljine i zapremine; u takvoj slici
prostor poseduje ne vise potencijalnu nego stvarnu dubinu, a na
galerijskom zidu postavlja se tako da bude centar ili integralni
deo vidnog polja kojega osim obojenosti slike cini i belina okolnog
zida.
Iz tradicije neoplasticizma M. Pavlovic izvodi princip horizontalno-vertikalnog
polozaja elemenata kompozicije, iz istog istorijskog izvora koristi
i sklop osnovnih boja (crveno, plavo, zuto, takodje jos crno i
belo), ali ujedno tezi i narusavanju obaveza normativnog pridrzavanja
ovih vec kodifikovanih tekovina postavljajuci objekt kvadratnog
formata pod dijagonalnim otklonom, a zbog tog nagiba kojim se
svesno narusava statika idealne ravnoteze delo poprima aktivniji
decentrirani prostorni raspored. Dok se u pojedinacnim objektima
pridrzava principa kompozicije, u radovima od secene hartije standardnih
malih formata umetnik se pridrzava principa serije, variranja
bliskih ali ne i ponavljanja potpuno identicnih formalnih jedinica,
sto upucuje na to da je ovde posredi analiticki nacin misljenja,
jedna vrsta gotovo naucnicki preciznog ispitivanja i proveravanja
brojnih modaliteta koji svi proizlaze iz prividno suzenih ali
u postupku detaljnije razrade gotovo neiscrpnih, uvek srodnih
a ipak medjusobno dovoljno razlicitih optickih i vizuelnih resenja.
U nastojanju da napravi sledeci i ovoga puta zaista radikalni
korak ka elaboraciji problema trodimenzionalne slike, na jednoj
grupnoj izlozbi u vrsackoj Konkordiji krajem 1999, M. Pavlovic
od zidnog objekta prelazi na zidnu instalaciju nazvanu Evolucija
slike I, duzine skoro punih deset metara, visine tri metra, zahvaljujuci
drvenoj konstrukciji na kojoj je platno nategnuto udaljenu od
zidne plohe skoro do punog metra u sredistu takve, uslovno receno
"slike", a zapravo jednog neobicnog oblika napravljanog
od dva podjednaka komada impregniranog platna tamnosmedje boje.
Platna ostavljenog takvim kakvo jeste, dakle platna neoslikanog
nego koristenog jedino u funkciji materijala kao takvog, fabrickog,
industrijskog, poput neke vrste ready-madea ovo jedinstveno delo
gigantskog formata tvorevina je koja objedinjuje konstrukciju
konkretnog oblika sa upotrebom konkretnog materijala, ovo delo
dakle pomiruje status novonastalog objekta u tradiciji konstruktivizma
i status zatecenog predmeta u tradicija ready-madea, a obe ove
operacije zajedno uklapaju se u umetnikovu stalnu preokupaciju
da izradi i uradi delo koje se, kao u ovom slucaju, mocno namece
u prostoru svojom izrazitom fizickom prisutnoscu, a ipak je pri
tome posredi pre svega delo ciste plasticke imaginacije i invencije,
ujedno i delo cistog duhovnog sadrzaja i znacenja.
Sve Pavloviceve radove nezavisno od pojavnih razlika objedinjuje,
zapravo, jedan temeljni princip: prioritet forme, misljenje formom,
misljenje cisto likovno, plasticko, opticko, vizuelno, umesto
da bude slikovno, narativno, alegorijsko, literarno. Ali to bespogovorno
poverenje u formu niposto nije, naravno, "formalizam"
(termin sa negativnom konotacijom), nego je to poverenje u stvari
uzdizanje ideala forme na mesto vrhunskog simbolickog znaka sopstvenog
dela. A taj znak oznacava pre svega spoznaju da je forma nezamenjivo
svojstvo umetnickog rada, forma je tvorevina duha ali i tvorevina
operativnog postupka, konstrukt uma i produkt ruke, jedinstvena
i usaglasena posledica plasticke misli i oblikovne prakse. U poslednjoj
deceniji veka umetnost je poprimila najraznolikije vidove ispoljavanja,
posredi je razdoblje kada je u umetnosti fakticki sve moguce i
sve je dozvoljeno, ali bas zbog te njene potpune oslobodjenosti
savremenom umetniku danas je mozda teze nego ikada da bude strog
prema samom sebi i prema sopstvenom umetnickom radu. Evo, medjutim,
jednog umetnika koji se spremno pridrzava te samodiscipline, a
to cini zato jer veruje da mu je umetnost - i to umetnost lisena
svega izvanumetnickog - sasvim dovoljna licno da se izrazi, da
opstane kao jedinka sama u svome svetu sopstvenih mogucnosti.
Nekada, u istorijsko vreme modernih geometrija i geometrizama
umetnost zasnovana na takvim principima idealisticki je verovala
u kolektivna iskupljenja, danas pak u ovo postistorijsko vreme
postmodernih i neomodernih geometrija i geometrizama umetnost
zasnovana na takvim principima ne vise idealisticki, nego defetisticki
veruje jedino u umetnikovu usamljenicku pojedinacnost iz koje
ipak i uprkos svemu, kao sto pokazuje i primer ovog umetnika,
mogu da nastanu i zaista nastaju cista i mocna umetnicka dela.
Top.of.page |
|
|
Text
by Jerko Denegri, 1999
Professor of Contemporary Arts Theory at the
University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia
At Yugoslav art-scene of nineties Miroslav Pavlovic came up suddenly
as a completely formed artist, without any hesitations specific
to the begin(ers)ings, or at least seemed so because his formation
was developing and up to that time developed outside of our country
(in Romania, where in Bucharest he has finished studies during
1974-78, postuniversity studies 1978-80), and after that gaining
experience and gradually building out, residing, working and exhibiting
at many collective exhibitions in Scandinavia and United States.
With such, so to say, personal prehistory, Pavlovic has for the
first time individually appeared in Concordia (Vrsac) 1997, after
that in Golden Eye of Novi Sad and Center for Cultural Decontamination
in Belgrade 1998. Instantly entering in the context of the very
indicative turbulencies on the domestic art scene at the end of
nineties, which means also end of the century, under the circumstances
of the new reexamination of some ground achievements of modernistic
art heritage, but not any more from the constructivistic and simulationistic
motivation of Postmodern but to the contrary from neoconstructivistic
and again reestablished formalistic premises of new or second
Modern which as a characteristic condition of the spirit with
strong reasons appeared just now at the time of crises and catastrophe
of the last decade.
Plastic culture at which M. Pavlovic is formed is a culture of
European historic and afterwar Consturcivism and Concretism, for
wich that culture is specific, that sort of artwork is to comprehend
and build out like absolutely autonomous artifact, artwork free
of any reference to the external world. At the exchange for missing
scene, illusion or allusion to surrounding material world; artwork
is object to itself, object as it is, aestethic object, artistic,
concrete just the way it is any other material object in our everyday
living suroundment. Artist who is the creator of such object is
a builder of newly - made plastic structure; as an symbolic product,
in a spiritual microspace of the work is guiding us at behavior
which artist should take as an architect of such work wishing
to speak in favor and act in accordance with general ideology
of constructivistic tradition as a constructive specie in a physical
macrospace of the world.
In fact, these are just general notions and fundamental aspects
of ideology and formative language of historical and new Constructivism,
for any author who is practicing today, by acceptence of such
ideology and language; it imposes claim of building out individualistic
personal profile of its specific contributions. Miroslav Pavlovic
begin to search and found his personal characteristics in the
field of gradual transition from the abstract painting as a monochrome
plate; painted two - dimensional surface, to painting-objects
holding up uni-coloristic background containing also characteristics
of material construction. Work has been realized by departing
from the plate, rising up to the space in front of surface; applicating
above the plate three - dimensional elements by which the artwork
from the painting has developed to a relief, the quality of relief
is consisting of tactile elements emphasized by effect of the
shadow, as a result of light influence over the surface above
which material elements are fixed. The next achievement, corporeality
of the painting-object is realized when the frame (holding construction)
ended to be neutral assisting factor of material body of the work
and became its basic constitutive element. Namely, the frame became
material boundary of the painted field which once remains painted
white, or other times, evenly painted black, yellow, ochre, or
blue, by which at such background plastic element instead of being
painted or drawn now is materialized in mode of steel wire or
aluminum bars. The effect of all these conduct is that painting
definitely ended to be a flat plate such as a screen emitting
scene or projected form, but becomes body with certain thickness
and volume, in such painting, space is no more potential but real
with all possible correlatives of deepness; at a gallery wall
work is placed to be center or integral part of the viewer's site;
what beside of painted work includes whiteness of the wall, altogether.
From tradition of neoplasticism Pavlovic discerns principle of
horizontal-vertical of the composed elements, from the same historic
source using primer complex of the colors (red, blue, yellow and
also black and white), but at the same time is tending to escape
the obligations of normative approachment of these codified achievements
by placing object of square form to diagonally vertical position,
because of this inclination and consciously disturbed static of
ideal equilibrium, work became more active at decentralized space
arrangement. As long in the individual objects he is holding with
principal of composition, in the works of cut paper of the standard
small formats is following the principal of series, variation
of close but never repeating of the same identical formal units;
what is guiding us, to have it qualified as analytic way of thinking,
sort of almost scientifically precise way of examination and re
- examination of numerous modalities which are passing from apparently
narrow, but in the process of detailed elaboration almost inexhaustible,
always related but in between evidently different optical and
visual outcomes.
Tending to accomplish next, and this time really radical step
towards elaboration of the problem of three - dimensional painting,
at a recent collective exhibition in Concordia (Vrsac) by the
end of 1999, M. Pavlovic from the wall - object deed pass over
to wall - installation called Evolution of the Painting no. I,
work is long almost ten meters, high three meters, due to wooden
construction on which canvas is tightened departed from the wall
nearly one meter at the center, conditionally declared "painting",
but actually it is an unusual shape made of two equal pieces of
waterproof material (textile) of brown - dark color. Canvas stands
the way it is, so to say, unpainted canvas used only in a material
function of what it is; of the factory made, industrial, somehow
it is a kind of ready - made. This unique artwork of gigantic
size is creation that unifies construction of concrete form by
using concrete material; actually this artwork is reconciliating
status of newly - made object of constructivistic tradition whith
status of the found object in ready - made tradition, both of
these operations together are making impact of artist's permanent
engagement to build out (realize, make) artwork, which is like
this time mighty imposing in space by its exceptional physical
presence, after all it is art product of purely plastic imagination
and invention, at the same time it is artwork of pure spiritual
consistence and meaning.
All works of Miroslav Pavlovic no matter of their appearing difference
are unified by one basic principal: priority of the form, thinking
by the form, purely plastic thinking, optic, visual, instead of
being painted, narrative, allegoric, literary. This undoubted
trust to the form is not just "formalism" (term with
negative connotation), in fact this is a trust, to lifting ideal
of the form at a position of exclusive symbolic sign of individualistic
work of art. That sign represents before all, knowlidgement that
the form is unreplaceble quality of the artwork, form is a creation
of the spirit, but also the result of operative process, construct
of mind and product of the hand, unique, and accordingly result
of plastic thinking, and formative praxis. At the last decade
of the century, art has gained most different forms of expression,
it is a question of time where in art all is possible and permitted,
but, probably because of such liberation to contemporary artist
today is more difficult than ever before to be rigorous to himself,
and toward to his artistic activity. So, here it is, an artist
who is strictly holding with such self - discipline, he does that
because of believe that art to him is-and that disposes art of
all that is not art itself - sufficiently enough to express himself,
to survive individually (lonely) in the world of very personal
possibilities. Once upon a time in a historical period of Modern
Geometry and geometrisams art based at such prinipals idealistically
has believed in collective redemption, but today in this posthistorical
time of Postmodern and Neomodern geometry and geometrisams art
based at such (grounds) principals is not any more idealistic,
but defeatisticiy believes only in artist's solitudic individuality
from which in spite of all, like example of this artist shows,
it is possible to make, and so, indeed are created pure and mighty
works of art.
|
|
von
Jovan Despotovic 1997
Kustos im
Museum der modernen Kunst in Belgrad, Jugoslawien
Das
Bild als Kunstgegenstand hat während des Modernismus im 20. Jahrhundert
zahlreiche Transformationen erfahren. Diese Veränderungen gingen
meistens in Richtung seiner Selbstüberprüfung, Problematisierung
eines jeden seiner traditionellen Elemente und formalen Postulate,
seiner visuellen Charakteristiken, seines poetischen oder semantischen
Inhalts usw.
In der Zeit der historischen Avantgarden am Anfang dieses Jahrhunderts
wurde das Bild zuerst in seinem Status angeschnitten durch die
Reduktion des komplexen bildlichen Inhalts, der im Laufe seiner
langen Geschichte gebildet wurde, als es trotzdem seine wenigstens
veränderte Gestalt eines Kunstgegenstandes behalten hat, während
es in radikalsten Fällen durch andere Nicht-Kunstgegenstände substituiert
wurde, die Autoren mit dem Verkündigungsakt in das ästhetische
Feld eingeführt haben.
Dieser Prozess wurde in der Zeit der konzeptuellen Kunst in den
siebziger Jahren noch einmal wiederholt mit beiden seiner geschichtlichen
Ausgänge. Das Bild wurde nach seinem Selbstmord im Enformel auf
seine konstitutiven, primären Inhalte zurückgeführt, während diese
Inhalte in einem anderen Kapitel dieser neuen Kunstpraxis analytisch
problematisiert wurden von der epistemologischen, ontologischen
und axiologischen Seite - im extremsten Falle wird der Kunstgegenstand
selbst endlich entmaterialisiert, alle gewöhnlichen ästhetischen
Inhalte sind also darin eingebaut, nur daß er nicht finalisiert
wurde zu seinem materiellen Zustand.
Einen Teil dieser ästhetischen Aktivitäten des Modernismus könnte
man als ein bestimmtes Experiment mit der Bildkonstruktion betrachten.
Dieser Prozess wurde in der Epoche des Kubismus initiert und hat
sich dann doch an der Oberfläche der Leinwand abgespielt. Der
Konstruktivismus im russischen künstlerischen Experiment hat die
klassische Vorstellung vom Bild desturiert, indem er es in das
Feld des Reliefs bzw. des Objekts einführte, das die Eigenschaften
des Bildes und der Skulptur kombiniert: das Bild blieb hier als
Echo der Bildlichkeit und die Skulptur erscheint gleichzeitig
mit ihrem Volumen, der dritten Dimension, dem Bedürfnis nach Verräumung.
Die Künstler mit aktuellen Ansichten der heutigen Praxis finalisieren
diese Prozesse, kombinieren sie, verschränken sie, recyclen sie
mit der klaren Absicht, den Status des neuen künstlerischen Schaffens
nochmals zu (re)definieren. Ein der Öffentlichkeit völlig unbekannter
Maler aus Vrsac, Miroslav Pavlovic, kommt in die Reihe der Autoren,
die sich auf eine offensichtlich Problem-Weise gegenüber dem Komplex
der ästhetischen Fragen, mit denen sich das laufende Schaffen
beschäftigt, gestellt haben. Pavlovic wurde 1952 in Vrsac geboren,
studierte an der Kunstakademie in Bukarest und machte 1978 auch
sein Magisterstudium dort. Bisher hatte er Ausstellungen in Rumänien,
Jugoslawien, skandinavischen Ländern und in den USA. An der Ausstellung
in Vrsacer Konkordija zeigte er über 60 Bilder-Objekte und die
gleiche Anzahl von Arbeiten auf dem Papier, die im Laufe von 15
Jahren entstanden sind.
Der Raum dieser Galerie selbst ermöglichte es Pavlovic, seine
Ausstellung in einige Zyklen aufzuteilen, so wie sie nach einer
offensichtlich einzigartigen inneren kreativen Idee entstanden.
Man kann sagen, daß Pavlovic praktisch zum denselben Ziel gekommen
ist, indem er verschiedene Malverfahren benutzt hat. Eines von
ihnen basiert auf der analytischen und primären monochromen Malerei,
wenn ihre Basiselemente - Farbe, die piktorelle Schicht überhaupt,
das Prozess des Malens - diskutiert werden, die Art des Anstreichens
der koloristischen Materie auf den Grund des Bildes und zugleich
wird die Leinwandoberfläche im Bild - sein Aussehen, das Vorbereitungsverfahren,
die Textur, technische Charakteristiken in diesem Prozess zum
legitimen und konstitutiven Arbeitselement promoviert. Das andere
Verfahren ist die Strukturierung der Gestalt des Bildes überhaupt,
früher sagte man - die Poetik, auf die geometrischen Postulate,
und im Laufe der achtziger Jahre handelt es sich eigentlich um
eine Art Simulation der plastischen Sprache in den neugeometrischen
Syntaxen des späten Modernismus. Das dritte ist der dekonstruktivistische
Faktor in den Werken rezenter Produktion, wenn irgendeiner oder
alle Inhalte der Malerei zerlegt werden in voneinander unabhängige
ästhetische Komplexe, die in einem solchen "fraktalen"
Zustand immerhin eine einheitliche Bildvorstellung bilden.
Es ist keineswegs möglich, das Opus von Miroslav Pavlovic in bezug
auf seine große Ausstellungsabstinenz als reines Anfängerexperiment
mit ungewissem Ausgang zu betrachten. Pavlovic hat überzeugend,
verständlich und begründet ein völlig definiertes Malkonzept gezeigt,
das völlig in der Ästhetik dieser Zeit fundiert ist, die auf den
letzten Spuren des späten Modernismus steht, oder sogar in jenem
Komplex der künstlerischen Fragen, die heute theoretisch auf die
Idee einer neuen oder einer anderen Moderne am Ende des Jahrhunderts
und dieser großen Kunstepoche gerichtet sind. Wie auch immer die
endgültige Antwort auf die Frage über die Ziele und Bedeutung
der Arbeiten von Miroslav Pavlovic sein mag, wird sein Werk ohne
Zweifel in den Inhalt jenes laufenden Schaffens eingehen, das
ihre künstlerischen Grenzen wahrhaftig verschoben hat.
|

Text
by Raoul Shorban / June 1980, Bucharest - Romania
Raoul
Shorban, Profesor of Art History at the Institute of Fine
Art "Nicolae Grigorescu", Bucharest, Romania,1980.
Miroslav
Pavlovic persists eagerly to reject all he knows about painting:
all the manners meant to give evidence to a trained convention
repertory.So, he rejects a past, looking for the standing
point of the present. The proceeding starts from the intelectual
style - tending to speculation and concentration of an artist
resistent against those temptations which confortably rely
on the general or particular evidences of harmonious "cohabitation"
offered by the nature.It is clear that M. Pavlovic is irritated
at an immens world experience, often converted into an industry
producing merchendise, manufactured in order to take sundry
advantage.
M. Pavlovic rejects also by the dialectical necessity of
the points of view's reexamination, looking for himself,
he contests the dominating spirit of some creations, tendencies,
styles, as well as the influence of some despotic personalities,
unable to give up the obsessions of their subjectivity.
And so, here it is, a choice. An unengaged choice, in the
old meaning of painting, a choice which refuses the logic
of the representation of the external appearances, of their
connections between themselves - and avoids to join what
the young painter is now knowing, by assimilation or accumulation,
about his work generally, to what he puts in opposition
to the tradition and inherited common understanding. As
examples of assimilation we could see, now, in this exibition,
the painter's studies, and at the year's painting and sculpture
exhibition, in Bucharest, at the Dalles-Hall - 1980, a "Still
Life". From the chaos of the possibilities, Pavlovic
persists to discern the project of a new accomplishment
- anti-traditional. That is why, deliberately, he doesn't
resume objective or subjective properties, dependent to
any legislated judgments, he is not doing allusions to forms
and colors, able to offer analogies or associations, he
doesn't intent to do any metphore, memories, neither to
the emotions or routine ideas, nor to the "cliché",
or to the immersions due to some former art creations. Against
these manners of perceptions, M. Pavlovic accepts a single
way to take possesion of the picture itself, purged of symbols
and affective connections with the nature, as a vigorous
optical structure.
The supremacy of the emotional and lyrical reactions specified
as a clear fact, without allusions to the allegories; -
it cannot permit collateral explanations and it emphasizes
exclusively it's substance and it's destination. Therefore,
the painting is clearly defined to be objectively identical
to itself and with the way in which it is technically made
under a rigorous and organized control. It is (the image)
nothing else but what it is, or concretely must be - an
image by itself!
Maybe the entire conduct which we are refering to could
appear too theoretic and cheating, if we shouldn't know
that, there is something in the world, which is not identical
with the human being, and which has nothing in common with
him, and which cannot "emit signs". The human
being is looking at that world without receiving any answer;
he can see and understand things and he tries to change
the metaphysical agreement, contracted long ago in his name
and he finds that something - essential and decisive - is
going to change in the contemporary relation between him
and the universe. Leaving out the question: "Why right
now and in which way?" we could mention that the new
elements appeared in the existence, have already overthrown
some of old or new legends. Concerning the painting, these
phenomena are obliging us to leave - with or without regrets
- the impressionsm, espressionism, surrealism, abstractionism
etc., which after all, have lost their persuasion strength.
Miroslav Pavlovic is attempting such a divorce hoping to
realize it.

Text
by Magda Carneci / June 1980, Bucharest - Romania
Magda
Carneci, Curator at the National Museum, Bucharest, Romania,
1980.
If
any creative attempt would have to offer an unedited experience
or again to reedit the eternal one; plastic objects of Miroslav
Pavlovic are editing on its own account an not-edited experience
of a modern painting, which otherwise has become obsessive
and symptomatic: visualization of the sight. Measure by
which any kind of visual art considers, necessarily, partly
illusion, and partly allusion, what follows painting of
M. Pavlovic is reduction to transpassing in objectualisation
of illusion and allusion of pictorial act: more precisely,
replacement of old illusionary vectors by new ones.
His works are not visualizing anymore objects of the sight,
but sight itself, plasticising their inner mechanism: spatialization
with correlatives of the tridimensionality "not masked"
in the objects, but in their "pure" condition
of the vectors, relations, visually clear, transferred directly
in tridimensionality and real spatiality of his work, with
multiplexity of the strata, deliberately realized in mathematical
relation of dimensions and chromatic absolutism of primary
and complementary relations. Instead of classical object
of trompe l'oeil here appears the trompe l'oeil itself,
dismembered - "unmasked" - and reduced to a tiny
number of its functional principles: from the illusion of
the second degree, to say, to illusion of the first degree,
or to elimination of visual illusion, maybe, more illusory
than any other illusion.
Tautological process, so to say, visualization of the sight
is guiding us at the same direction like thinking: examination
of perceptive condition and not content of the same. And
there it is, an experience of the conscience equally valid,
if intellectual, with any other kind of rationality.
Paradoxically, the appearing experience with visible results,
this much "abstract", is inspired by reduction
to the final aspiration for concrete: with more direct approach,
set free of natural intermediation, meaning, place and goal
of interest, not through intermedia of the environment,
but through direct reproduction of natural mechanism of
the same nature. Conscientization of the part of illusion
is unseparable from any plastic attempt, act of watching,
the way eye would have been able to see itself or its inner
functioning, dislocated from itself, conscientization becomes
the way of "englobing" to what is real.
The real gain to "mind, body and heart" of such
an attempt from time to time called "clear visuality",
or in a way of Mondrian - visual civilization of "pure
relations", it remains problem of choice: conscientization
of the sight is taking us to a better, more complete and
truthful comprehension of the world, or - paraphrasing Oscar
Wild - to see the nature in the system of "clear visuality":
what we ought to see "has been seen already",
or disappears.
Visual objects or "objects to see" of Miroslav
Pavlovic are remaining consecutive and perfect concerning
their constitutive principals, absolutistic and puristic;
these objects are dislocating and thereafter, reconstituing
visual perception, in a pictorial way, using aesthetic functioning
valid to itself. Visual education that I propose implicitly
remains paradoxical: and so; purified pictures of the sight
appear like visually-concrete objects, their intention is
much better integration in the nature, pictures become purely
intellectual endeavors, matrix of the sight which are expecting
the object. Content, object's determinations are another
problem, "post festum" of the one that is watching
the sight of the sight. Their purified and distant beauty
is speaking to another, different intuition.
Magda
Krnetch, (Magda Carneci) ,
Conservateur du Musée National, Bucarest,
Romania, 1980.
Si
chaque essai artistique devrait offrir une dextérité non
éditée ou de nouveau une infini, les objets exprimés par
la peinture de Miroslav Pavlovitch de nouveau présentent
pour leur propre compte une expérience non éditée de la
peinture moderne, qui devient déja une actualisation visuelle
obsessive et symptomatique. La mesure par laquelle n'importe
quelle n'importe quelle sorte de la peinture comprend, indispensablement,
en partie l'illusion et en partie l'allusion, ce que suit
le tableau de Miroslav Pavlovitch est la réduction jusqu'au
passage en objectivation de l'illusion et de l'allusion
de l'acte pictural: dit plus précisément, remplacement des
vecteurs anciens d'illusion par de nouveaux vecteurs.
Ses travaux ne pendent plus visuels les objets qu'on regarde,
mais une vision pour soi, les mécanismes en les plastifiant
les memes: l'espace avec des corrélats de la profondeur
et des trois dimensions mais non mis en construction, "
masques " dans les objets, mais dans leur état propre,
des vecteurs et des rapports visuellement propres en ce
qui concerne leur état, transferes concretement dans la
troisieme dimension et l'espace propre de ses travaux, avec
des plans a plusieurs couches réalises d'une manicre tres
astucieuse dans des rapports mathématiques des dimensions
et dans l'absolutisme des rapports chromatiques primaires
et complémentaires. A la place de l'objet classique trompe
l'oeil ici apparaît trompe l'oeil pour soi, démontes-"
démasques " -et réduit a un petit nombre de ses principes
de fonctionnement, de l'illusion du deuxieme degré, comme
on dirait, a l'illusion du premier degré, mais a la communication
de l'illusion visuelle, peut-etre plus illusion rament plus
que n'importe quelle autre illusion.
L'essai tautologique, on pourrait le dire, de la visualisation
du regard est orientée, comme acte de méditation:une recherche
de l'état de la perception et non du contenu du meme et
voila une expérience de la conscience et de meme valeur,
cependant intellectuelle, avec n'importe quel autre mode
de penser. Paradoxalement, cette expérience de l'aperçu
avec des résultats visibles tellement "abstraits",
est motivée par mise en mesure a l'intention finale vers
le concret: par une approche plus directe, sans intermédiaires
de la nature comme lieu et but du regard, pas par l'intermcde
d'un coin, d'un coin de la nature, mais par une reproduction
indirecte des mécanismes naturels de la perception de la
meme nature. La prise en conscie ce d'une partie de l'illusion
est une partie inséparable de n'importe quel de l'arte facte,
de l'acte de regarder, comme l'oeil pourrait se voir lui-meme
ou bien voir son fonctionnement intérieur, déplace derriere
lui, la prise en conscience devient la voie pour l'introduction
au réel.
La réception réelle pour la "raison, le corps et le
coeur" d'un tel essai, nomme parfois " visuellaité
propre " ou-le mode de Mondrian - civilisation visuelle"
des rapports propres ", reste une probleme de choix:
la prise ne conscience mené vers un monde meilleur, plus
complet et plus vrai, ou mené - en paraphrasant Oscar Wilde
- vers le mode de regarder la nature dans le systeme"
de la vision pure'': ce qui est nécessaire de voir, "déja
vu" ou disparaît.
Les objets visuels, ou " les objets a voir" de
Miroslav Pavlovitch, restent conséquents et parfaits du
point de vue de l'examen de leurs principes constitutifs,
absolutistes et puristes, les objets disloquent et ensuite
reconstruisent la perception visuelle, dans un mode pictural,
par le fonctionnement esthétique valeureux par soi. L'éducation
visuelle que je propose implicitement reste paradoxale :
donc, des tableaux de la vision pure apparaissant comme
des objet visuels - concrets, leur but est une intégration
plus complcte dans la nature ; comme cela ils deviennent
une intention tout a fait intellectuelle, du modele du qui
attend l'objet. Le contenu, l'objet, la détermination, sont
un autre probleme, da celui qui regarde ce déja vu. Leur
beauté, purifiée est distancée, parle a une autre intuition. |
Top.of.page
|
|
|