WHO KILLED CATTELAN?
Emanuela Pezzetta* Caravaggio / Dalla Venezia Caravaggio’s David with the Head of Goliath, completed during the early 16th century, is one of the most intense and dramatic interpretations ever done in depiction of this well-known biblical episode. From a leaden, atemporal background, a grazing light brings out David’s youthful physique as he holds Goliath’s decapitated head in his left hand while gripping his victorious sword in his right. David, with a stance expressing a kind of slight forlornness, reveals an intense and grave look, desolate in the pity he feels for the bloody head that has been ravaged by his savage blows. It is widely agreed that the depiction of Goliath is actually Caravaggio’s self-portrait, in which he portrays himself in the role of a victim. On the sword, the tool that brings about the triumph of good over evil, there is the inscription «H.AS O S», which recalls the Augustinian motto humilitas occidit superbiam (humility kills pride) and it is precisely in light of Saint Augustine’s maxim that David with the Head of Goliath must be interpreted. Caravaggio, who was guilty of murdering Ranuccio Tomassoni, depicts himself in the guise of the decapitated head of Goliath the sinner, as if Caravaggio had already been executed. The pitying gaze of his executioner is a Christ-like expression of compassion and forgiveness: the tack that Caravaggio hoped that the Roman Catholic Church would take with him. Contrasting SystemsWKC? constructs around the painting, conceived as a stand-alone element within the work, a ramification of meanings which make the pictorial object the expedient, the temporal circumstance upon which David Dalla Venezia puts into effect his reflections on the production of contemporary art. The structure employed here (the Biennale event linked to the WKC? event, which, in turn, is linked to the picture) causes the convergence, in a pictorial setting, of the dialectic contraposition between two divergent systems of artistic production: the system that one recognizes in and which is represented by the Biennale (Goliath/Cattelan) and the system that exists by virtue of its opposition to the latter (David/David Dalla Venezia). WKC? sets in motion a form of opposition to the Biennale’s institutional system. It challenges the Biennale’s preconceived notions as to authenticity, absolute originality, the singleness of an idea and shock value. These areas, as far as David Della Venezia is concerned, seem more like ethical assumptions which a creative mind must conform to in order to be institutionally recognized as being an artist rather than qualities that are in and of themselves intrinsic to a work of art. He sets these against, for instance, the practice of emulating a model, through which the authoriality of an old master is not debased. Instead, an artistic discourse is continued insofar as it is conceived of as being part of a shared heritage of expression and research which has still not been completely brought to an end but which can be carried on. Here then is the explanation of the foundation of the painting WKC? in Caravaggio’s David with the Head of Goliath. Moreover, Caravaggio was also an individual who produced art through the medium of painting as traditionally understood, as set against contemporary practices in which the artist often delegates the accomplishment of his ideas to others, as Cattelan does. This clarifies why David Dalla Venezia depicts himself in the guise of a painter-faber with a brush in hand while looking with compassion upon the beheaded Cattelan, an artist who cannot execute his own works. Two examples: Kitsch and LowbrowIn WKC?, Dalla Venezia’s reflection on the institutional system of contemporary art is central to the piece. On this very subject, Rosalind Krauss remarks upon: “the growing importance in the art world of huge exhibitions: today there are biennial and triennial ones in Venice, Sao Paolo, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Gwangju, Seoul and Yokohama. Entire expositions are often given over to a confused juxtaposition of projects—photographs and texts, images and objects, videos and screens—and sometimes such effects are more chaotic than communicative: in these cases, comprehensibility as art is sacrificed”(2). Rejecting, as David Dalla Venezia does, the assumptions of institutional context means disqualifying the context in question and with it the enunciative act from which it stems. Denying to the large art exhibitions the validity to represent art also invalidates the institutionalization of the works on display as models of contemporary artistic production. Otherwise, art is not only what is offered in the big events, but it is also what is found outside of them. It is no coincidence that David Dalla Venezia often cites two movements that found their raison d’être in the contrasting of institutional systems: Kitsch and Lowbrow. Beauty and paintingIn differentiating between the institutional context of the leading art events and the defying of their assumptions, David Dalla Venezia suggests the return of a certain model of beauty in the face of the contemporary tendency to celebrate the ephemeral through the anti-aesthetic and the ugly. In his view, beauty is understood as that which is capable of involving the senses in a pleasurable way. It is what acts on corporeal perceptions so as to cause a sensual and physical reaction. Artistic beauty confers upon the work an element of transition into the atemporal, a permanence of being. The painted image creates an illusion, it overcomes the limitation of the duration of the subject matter and crystallizes into a suspension of temporality. The emotional benefit deriving from a sensory involvement in artistic beauty provides the spectator with a permanence of being, a transition into the atemporal that, from David Dalla Venezia’s point of view, is possible only through the continuation of tradition—in his case, painting. Dalla Venezia / CattelanAs much as WKC? may seem, at first glance, to be a criticism of Cattelan, it must be underlined, however, that this in no way the intention of the artist, David Dalla Venezia. On the contrary, he considers Cattelan to be an intelligent and ironic contemporary artist who seeks out the sensational to the detriment of beauty and the sublime. Cattelan, therefore, incarnates what a contemporary artist is—a figure to whom Dalla Venezia is diametrically opposed. In WKC? he states: “it is also a kind of homage to a prime example of what I am not, what I do not want to be and what I cannot be—that is to say, a contemporary artist”.
1. Henceforth referred to as ‘WKC?’.
*Emanuela Pezzetta is currently completing her final year of study at the Scuola di Specializzazione dell’Arte dell’Università degli Studi di Udine (History of Art Specialization School at the University of Udine), where, on the strength of her thesis on “The Spread of British Sculpture in Italy through the Venice Biennale from 1948 to 1958”, she will receive an advanced degree. She was awarded her first degree in 2004 at the Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia di Udine (The School of Arts and Philosophy at the University of Udine). Her degree thesis was on “Beauty and Sensory Perception in Plotinus’ Enneads”. She is also the author of various publications (Testimonianza/Testimony, in the biannual TempoFermo no.001/2003, 2003; Percorsi sulla filosofia dell’arte/Paths in the Philosophy of Art, in the monthly L’architettura, cronache e storia/Architecture, Events and History, anno L no. 580 February 2004, Rome; Il Viatico per cinque secoli di pittura veneziana di R.Longhi: un’analisi linguistica, 2004 (A Viaticum for Five Centuries of Venetian Painting by R. Longhi: a Linguistic Analysis) in the periodical www.almanaccoindipendente.it; Intra/Extra moenia, in Palinsesti, catalogue of the exhibition, organized by Alessandro Del Puppo, Skira, 2006; Sefer Memisoglu, in the modern art magazine Juliet, January-February 2007) (Sefer Memisoglu, in Juliet: The Journal of Contemporary Art). |