The ideas behind the stage that begins with the inauguration of the new gallery are based on the essential coherence with the events surrounding us, both in society and the world of art, since both are intimately related.

Times are changing – we undoubtedly find ourselves in moments of intense dynamism throughout many fields – and with these changing times, the objects around us and the reflections that they cause in us are also changing. Furthermore, the own evolution of creation materials and techniques open new alternatives for expression.

An artist that is restless, committed, and therefore open to the information flowing in his surrounding environment, keeps in touch with the times he is living in, which leaves a stamp on his work. The discourses and intellectual concerns, on one hand, and the aesthetic criteria on the other, are susceptible to continual revision by a creator. This relationship between the artist and his times can be revealed in many ways – from the materials, processes and techniques used to the very subjects of the artwork, concepts dealt with or realities depicted (if there are any present). Contemporaneity  conceived in this way is an implicit consequence of a vital attitude.

This mélange of possibilities and attitudes is also reflected in the expositive line of the gallery, an aspect that we intend to strengthen in this new phase. However, the changes must follow their own pace. The fruits of the labor of a philosophy’s implementation are only seen over time, and throughout the course of this evolution it is important not to lose sight of the prerequisites of the quality and coherence of the work, which should dominate the process. In this regard, the concept underlining a work of art – what the artist wants to convey – is so important as the material expression of it – how it is conveyed-, and the correct adjustment between both aspects seems to be an essential element in determining the profoundness of a work of art.

In the same way as some young people who set off on their journey with us are now well-established artists, since the open-armed welcome that they received from the market was favoured by the quality of their work; we are absolutely convinced that the expositive dynamism of this new project will be enriching and highly valued by all art lovers.

ABOUT REALISM

Giving the title of Realism to an exhibition can lead to many interpretations and reactions, such as it may occur with any word that has such a common suffix. Before this twelfth exhibition, it is important to clarify the reasoning behind this title and reflect on what this word may or may not provide. In this regard, the interesting question that we should ask isn’t “what is realism?” since for some it would refer to more or less identifiable artistic movements and for others it refers to an expressive style whose boundaries are quite blurred and can be confused with other figurative paintings and “isms” based on the expressive intention contained within the artwork. I must make it clear that the latter, the most generic and referent to expressive style, is the meaning that I have in mind when referring to this term.

The question that many are still asking is whether realism makes sense nowadays, in painting to be precise, and whether it can offer us anything worthwhile from an artistic point of view. The answer is clear and emphatic: yes. At the very least, painting as an expressive medium in general, and realism as an extensive generic style in particular, has the same potential possibilities of expressing intentions and containing meaning as any other medium and/or style.

If one thing has dominated the art world since the 60s, it’s plurality. As Arthur C. Danto describes in his essay “The end of art,” the artist is liberated from the dictatorship of canons and aesthetic theories and is free to create as he wishes. Since then, we find ourselves in a post-modernity with no one true style that predominates over any other, that´s to say, in a world of artists with so many canons, languages, intentions and expressive resources as one can desire to create, without any one being superior to another beforehand. Andy Warhol stated, in this regard, that an artist cannot miss the opportunity to be an abstract expressionist in the morning, a realist at midday and pop-art by night. Nothing of this aspect has changed since then and we live in a post-modernity that seems to be becoming eternal. Not too long ago, I was speaking with a friend of mine who is an artist about how fascinating I find this freedom for a creator, at least from a theoretical perspective, with all the possibilities of creating he could conceive within his reach. He answered me that, nevertheless, the responsibility is much greater. It’s probably true, because freedom has another side – the obligation to go beyond the mere technical exercise. In the case of realism, it’s no longer valid to make an exhibition of resources, but rather one must harness them towards a much more significant end. Reality must be an excuse, a means for communicating other things beyond, which transcends. It must never be an end in itself – it happened and the artistic became mundane.

Marcel Duchamp stated, referring to what he defined as the coefficient of art: “There is a difference between what the artist wants to express and what he expresses, which is determined by that which he intended to depict but he did not achieve and by that which he expressed unintentionally.” Interesting coincidence of theses words with the ones heard from Antonio López, the unquestionable reference point of Spanish realism, when a couple of years ago he gave the following recommendation in response to a question about technique posed by a young artist: “You´d better worry first about having something to say. Once you’ve got that, then you’ll find the most adequate way to tell it.” This is what it’s all about, and that depends on the artist, not the medium or language with which he expresses himself.

Santiago Sánchez Echeberría