By: Lena Marin
Why refer a work that, to our own judgement has no remarkable standing value? What criteria decides the choosing of that work? And first of all what is the point of criticising it?
Are those questions enough to arise doubts about Marco Marzoni´s proposal?
Criticising is done not only in order to guide through new proposals, but also to set a landmark on future critics. These texts, therefor are offered to add sides to the already complex prism which the other, the reader uses to build their own experience on one work or another.
Criticising implies to recognise a work´s qualities, both positive and negative on the communicative purpose given to it. In the case of art, this purpose is always to question, meaning confront, stir and to never please restating the comfortable position as a mere spectator, reader, listener, etc. In fact if the work does not “move”, does not displace whomever may be confronted to it from their usual point of view, in fact it does not upset them. Even less it does not provide an experience which could lead to learning.
Although we link satisfaction with convenience and comfort and abandonment with oblivion (in serene abstraction on the enjoyment of senses) it matters to many, and more often than it may be believed. To have another way of confirming, uncomplaining and long-suffering. This is a form completely based on abstraction starting on a hasty, affected and even deform confirmation of our own misery, of the non-compliant solitude, of incomprehension and in its most alluring way, of deep melancholy. From this supposed certainty, the victim –since in the best case scenario will show themselves as a confused prey of some dark side of them- placed in dismay, with a stiff will, awaits even when in denial. And again –claiming in fact through this denial- the final rescue, the caring from others, the final answer by the grace of someone else´s will. Running away from themselves.
In this way, the glitz of gilt is easily recognisable. Betrayal´s ornament of secret reasons, beforehand unexplainable, of a given mystery. It is pretended to cause under the way of an attack against virtue (from a puzzling conservative perspective) highlighting like this the dedication to romance, under a sovereign stiff condition and no path. That condemns one thousand times invincible.
To go past this position, it takes a lot more than stunning images or powerful signs, just as it occurs in a good novel, to which it is not enough its equivalent form, or an interesting story. From the other hand the technical mastery of the pallet barely leads, well-advertised to the manufacturer´s prestige. The same as an outstanding eloquence from a clean even bold pirouette. Nothing guarantees to give consistency to a story, to bring it to live as truth.
Finally, if poetry as itself is an artistic experience. The result of the most condensation possible, and the daring to break its form – and any other form- up to touch the other ones in silence (behind the echo that are initially cultivated by a word, a stroke, a note and a gesture) it also represents on the other side the ultimate stop for keys and winks, its sentence.
What is the point of explanations to the lack of eyes? How about wings in relation to imagination and the noise of its wing beat?
The colour and the flowery against empty depths?
Is it appropriate to discuss death and tombs?
To discuss perfumes?
The open mouths, are they pits for flying creatures? But where do these words take? To grow what?
Given the reference. To continue going outside up in the depth, beyond the night’s end where light really blinds and we are instigated without bitterness, amazed to pure silence.
(Translated by Miriam Tejeda Muñoz)