Take the small ferry out of Landskrona in December and climb from the harbour, the wind coming off the Sound from every side, until the island of Ven stops rising and there is nothing above you but a great deal of sky. Forty-five metres above the water, lies a square bank of earth about seventy-five metres on each side, rebuilt in the 1980s along the line of the old rampart. Inside it is a garden, and inside the garden, a circle where a house once stood, because the man who laid it out meant the square for the earth and the circle for the heavens.

The house was Uraniborg, the castle of Urania, muse of astronomy, and when they laid its cornerstone in August 1576, it became the first building in modern Europe raised above all to watch the sky, some thirty years before the first telescope. From its towers, Tycho Brahe fixed the positions of the stars to within about a minute of arc, closer than anyone before him had come, using quadrants and sextants that did not enlarge what he saw but only aimed it, so nothing stood between his eye and the night. When the wind that crossed the island made the instruments tremble in the towers, he sank the finest of them into the ground beside the house and called the place Stjerneborg, the castle of the stars.

Three and a half centuries later, a Swedish painter nearly seventy years old drew a round building for this island in her notebook: three stacked, narrowing rings around a tower, with a path inside that turns as it climbs. In her own words, Hilma af Klint wanted the whole of it “imbued with a certain power and calm”. The temple was never built.

Subscribe now

The first coil

The spiral had begun twenty-five years earlier, and much smaller. In January 1906, during a séance, a spirit her circle of women friends called Amaliel offered Hilma af Klint a commission, and she accepted immediately, as her Foundation puts it. In November she began The Paintings for the Temple with its first series, Primordial Chaos, twenty-six small pictures. No. 16 among them is barely fifty-three centimetres high, a deep blue brushed outward in rays, with two sea-green coils sprung loose across it and a gold zigzag running down into pale yellow rings that tighten around an orange core. It looks like a snail’s shell seen end-on, and in the key she kept for her own symbols, the snail and the spiral mean one thing: development, a movement that turns and rises at the same time. The series, as Guggenheim Bilbao reads it, starts from a oneness that has splintered, so everything after it is the long labour of joining what was divided again, female and male, light and dark.

The climb was quick, and then it stopped. The Ten Largest came in 1907, each more than three metres tall, and by April 1908 there were a hundred and eleven paintings; then her mother went blind, she gave up the studio, and for four years the cycle waited. When she took it up again in 1912, she no longer felt her hand being guided, and the forms grew geometric, as if the spiral had begun to count its own steps. The Swan followed, then the Altarpieces, and in 1915 the cycle stood complete at 193 paintings.

As for the famous twenty years of silence, they are not in her will, which asks only that the works be kept together on Munsö “så länge det är möjligt”, for as long as it is possible. They come from an X she marked on some of her notebooks in 1932, and the paintings were never hidden either, since seventeen of them hung in Stockholm in 1913 and works from the cycle travelled to London in 1928.

Until 1931 the temple had been mostly a figure for the growth of the soul, and only then did it take on walls and floors and look for ground, which it found on Ven. The notebooks published so far don’t say why that island, but her life points to it: a family known for its sea charts, a father who taught astronomy and navigation, and, according to her biographer Julia Voss, lessons in astronomy when she was young. It took nine years to climb from the snail to the altar, and sixteen more to find the altar a hill.

The seed at the top of the stairs

Go in as she drew it. The plan is a round building with three rings narrowing around a four-storey tower, with The Ten Largest one floor up and the Altarpieces at the top. You walk inward from the edge and up a spiral path, which ends in an altar room with three paintings. The first of them is Group X, No. 1, Altarpiece, painted in 1915 in oil and metal leaf on a canvas almost two metres forty high, from the group she called “the summary of the series so far”, and it is the painting the National Gallery of Ireland has chosen as the face of its exhibition this winter.

Read more

The thirst

It happens to all of us. We say we are going to see a painting, and every word we use comes from the eye: to see, to look, to view. Then we stand in front of the work of art, and what happens to us has almost nothing to do with looking. Something goes down.

Take the Seated Male Nude by Egon Schiele, painted in 1910. The ribs and the pelvis push up through ochre skin streaked with green, and the only pure red in the picture is kept for the eye, the nipples, the navel and the sex, as if the body had been peeled and painted again from inside. The hands and the feet are cut off. The title says seated, and there is no chair and no floor: the body hangs in an empty ground, with nothing under it, nothing behind it, and nothing between it and us.

No one in front of that canvas is learning about Vienna in 1910. In fifteen seconds, through the eyes, we take in an anxiety that took a continent four more years to reach and another hundred to name.

We did not study it; we swallowed it.

So how does a period, shapeless and outliving everyone inside it, get into an object the size of a door, and then out of it and into us, in our coats, in fifteen seconds? And what does that make art?

We say we go to look at art. What we do is drink a whole century and call it looking.

Subscribe now

Everything is still in solution.

The difficulty is that the age we want explained was never available to the people inside it, who had no more access to it than we have to ours.

A period is a liquid. All of us stand in it up to the neck, unable to see it because there is nothing to see it against, and it becomes visible only when something comes out of it and hardens. The chemistry belongs to a Welsh critic writing about film in 1954. Raymond Williams noticed that we examine each element of a past period as a precipitate, while in the living experience of the time every element was in solution, an inseparable part of a complex whole, and he called the thing still in solution a structure of feeling. Seven years later he added that it is as firm as the word structure suggests and yet works in the least tangible parts of what we do.

Art is where it hardens first, not because the painter is wiser than the rest of us, but because art is the only instrument not obliged to know what it is measuring. Politics must name an event before it can act on it, journalism before it can print it, philosophy before it can think it. A painter can put down a wrong green, or a silence in the wrong corner, explain neither to us, and still be right.

We have no word yet for what a painter does without meaning to, so we will borrow one from the man who spent his life reading what pictures mean. In 1939 Erwin Panofsky described the deepest layer of a picture’s meaning as the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class or a persuasion, unconsciously qualified by one personality and condensed into one work. Condensed, and unconsciously. Panofsky, who gave us the method for decoding every detail, ended by telling us that the most important one got there without our permission.

Hegel saw the price of this in 1820 and was honest about it. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, a shape of life has already grown old, and the owl of Minerva flies only at dusk. Which makes this essay an owl. Everything we are about to understand here was over before we started, and the paintings got to it first, because art registers early, before there is anything there to understand.

The same hand

So the owl flies back to an age we all think we know because we have seen it so often on a tote bag. In July 1962, at the Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles, a commercial illustrator from Pittsburgh showed thirty-two canvases of Campbell’s soup, one for each variety the company sold, standing along a narrow shelf like groceries. Andy Warhol had painted every can by hand. In ARTnews a year later, asked why soup, he answered: “Because I used to drink it. I used to have the same lunch every day, for twenty years.” Drink is the exact word: by his own account he had been taking the age in at lunch, a tin at a time, long before he painted one.

The same hand, that same year, copied a tabloid front page that blared 129 DIE IN JET. Most of the dead were art patrons flying home to Atlanta from a museum tour of Europe. When Marilyn Monroe died in August, he began to print her face from a publicity still, over and over, in rows. Car crashes followed, then electric chairs, then a tin of tuna that had killed two women from Detroit. He understood what he had been painting only afterwards: “I realised that everything I was doing must have been Death.”

In 1984 Fredric Jameson, a critic who read novels and buildings as symptoms of their age, set Warhol’s shoes beside Van Gogh’s peasant shoes. In Van Gogh’s he could still rebuild a whole world of field work and poverty; in Warhol’s Diamond Dust Shoes, whose diamond dust is powdered glass, he found “a new kind of flatness or depthlessness”. Then he admitted what bothered him: the soup cans and the Coca-Cola bottles “ought to be powerful and critical political statements. If they are not that, then one would surely want to know why.”

A statement needs a speaker who knows what it says, and Warhol had asked to be something else: “I want to be a machine.” His grid is in our hands now. We move it with one thumb, a trainer, a flood, a lipstick, a war, all at the same size, and now the habit has found its word: doomscrolling. He had already told us in 1963 what it does after a while: “when you see a gruesome picture over and over again, it doesn’t really have any effect.”

The century came out of him twice in one year, as soup and as the dead. He was not its author. He was the place where it came to the surface.

Shelley had the word for this in 1821, in a defence of poetry that no one printed until he had been dead eighteen years. Poets, he wrote, are “the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not”. They are the words themselves, which carry a meaning they will never be told.

Mnemosyne

In Hamburg, from 1924 until his death in 1929, Aby Warburg covered wooden panels with black hessian and pinned photographs to them, Greek reliefs beside Renaissance paintings beside postcards and advertisements, so that we could watch the same gesture come back across three thousand years. He called those returning gestures Pathosformeln, formulas of pathos: feeling condensed into a gesture. His doctoral dissertation, finished in 1893, had been on Botticelli, on the Birth of Venus and the Primavera, and what he noticed first was the hair and the drapery, the parts of the picture the wind moves.

Above the entrance to his library he had one word put up, in Greek letters: Mnemosyne. The Greeks made Memory, and not knowledge, the mother of the Muses. Some Greeks went into the grave with a leaf of gold that told the soul what to say among the dead: that it was parched with thirst, and wanted the cold water of Memory. Memory keeps what it does not understand and gives it back when it chooses, to whoever happens to be standing there.

Perhaps that is all art is: a memory the world makes before it has anything to remember, placed in the hands of someone who will not live to learn what was entrusted to them. The influenza took Schiele on 31 October 1918, at twenty-eight, three days after it took his wife, who was six months pregnant, and the body he had hung over nothing in 1910, his own, went on waiting for its century without him.

So we are the last vessel in a long chain. The age poured itself into a painter who could not taste it, the painter poured it into a surface that could not understand it, and it has been waiting there, patient as water in a well, for someone to stand still long enough to drink.

Do not photograph it; a photograph copies the glass and leaves the wine behind. Do not explain it; the one who made it could not. Stand there, in our coats, until whatever was poured into that surface a hundred years ago finds its way down, and then go out into the street carrying something no one has named yet. Somewhere tonight, in a room none of us will ever see, someone is already pouring the next one, and cannot taste it either.

it’s art is free: one essay a week, when something is worth saying.

Subscribe now

If this kept you company:

The voice in the opening paragraph is invented. The boy, the streets, the paintings, the will of 1487 and the day of his death are real.

Read more

Cross the Ponte Vecchio going south and keep walking until the street narrows and the river noise thins. Santa Felicita is the church you do not notice. It sits back behind a small square, with Vasari’s corridor running across its front like a sleeve pulled over an arm, and most people pass it on the way to the Pitti without looking up.

The chapel waits just to the right, behind a fretwork of iron, its illumination governed by the mechanics of small change. Drop in a coin, hear the click, and suddenly a wall of colour flares to life: coral, sky blue, acid green, lilac, rose, gold, all laid on with a flatness that refuses shadow. These are the hues of festivity, but what they enfold is a corpse.

And then, inevitably, your eye begins to register what the picture withholds.

No cross, no ladder, no tomb, no rock, no city, no soldiers: only a brown-grey ground that barely acknowledges the feet, a sky t…

Read more

Whole-writing

Easter Sunday, 1947. At a tennis club in Rugby, a Hungarian engineer is waiting for a court, unable to leave his problem at home. Dennis Gabor’s problem was the electron microscope, which stopped just short of the atoms it was built to see; push it further, and the picture became, in his own words, hopelessly blurred.

Yet as he waited in the tennis club, an idea sidled up to him.

Why not take a bad electron picture, but one which contains the whole information, and correct it by optical means?

There is something in that sentence that escapes the boundaries of physics. Here was a man who had devoted years to the pursuit of clarity, now surrendering it, accepting a flawed image so long as it preserved the whole, and placing his faith in light to restore what was lost.

By autumn, he had a name for it: a hologram, from holos, the whole, because it contained, he said, the whole information; the other half is gramma, writing, and nothing describes what he invented better than its own name. Whole-writing.

The trick is that the plate is never asked to hold an image. One beam of light ricochets off the object, gathering every contour; another travels straight to the plate. Where they cross, the plate records only the measure of their quarrel, so that, once developed, it resembles nothing so much as a grey fog. But send the clean beam back through that fog, and it bends into the shape the object’s light once had, and the thing stands up again in the air behind the glass, precisely where it is not.

Break the plate, hold a shard to the light, and the whole scene persists inside, all of it, glimpsed through a smaller window and a touch blurrier. Every point on the plate is written by light from every point of the object, so any fragment is a fragment of everything. Tear a photograph, and you lose the hand. The plate keeps the hand everywhere, though never quite as well. That is its first kinship with a person: it does not recall where anything was, only that everything was, everywhere at once, and it pays for that in clarity.

Seventeen centuries of one sentence

Dalí was sixty-seven when he saw one. For forty years he had been making paintings that refuse to hold still, a fruit dish on a beach that resolves into a face, a hillside that becomes a dog with an aqueduct for a collar, all of it by trickery. In April 1972, four months after the Nobel, the Knoedler gallery on Fifth Avenue opened his first exhibition of holograms.

The work he called Holos! Holos! Velázquez! Gabor! still stands in Figueres and says what he understood: for his first experiment with a machine that records a scene from many places at once, he went to Las Meninas, the one painting that is already about where the viewer stands, with Velázquez inside his own picture looking out at us, beside a canvas whose back is all we are given, while a mirror on the far wall holds the king and queen, standing where we are. On one plate he set fragments of it; on the other, because he was Dalí, three men at poker.

In 1273, in the Summa, Thomas Aquinas asks whether Christ is entire under every part of the consecrated host and answers that he is, not portioned out among the fragments but whole in each; break the bread, and you have not broken what is in it, because what is in it was never in one piece of it. A thousand years earlier, Plotinus had described a place where each thing contains all within itself and sees all in every other.

For seventeen centuries the idea lived in the mouths of people who believed it and could not set it on a table, until an engineer did, in a shed in Rugby, with the lights off. And what they had been trying to say, all that time, was something about people: that whatever has mattered to anyone was never kept in one place, and so could never be torn out.

Subscribe now

Where the body keeps it

In 1973, while Dalí was still in love with his holograms, Leon Harmon of Bell Labs asked how little a face needs to stay a face, took Abraham Lincoln from a five-dollar bill, dissolved him into a grid of greys and made the squares larger and fewer until almost nothing was left, and still the face would not leave. A few years later, that Lincoln of squares appeared in the corner of one of Dalí’s canvases.

A grid, though, is a fragile way of keeping an image. Each square knows one thing in one place, and if you tear it out, that piece of the face goes with it; a genome is written much the same way, one address at a time, which is why a flatworm is so hard to explain. Cut a planarian up, and it grows back; in 1898 Thomas Hunt Morgan watched a fragment he put at a two hundred and seventy-ninth of the animal become a whole worm, only smaller, as if every piece carried the drawing of the whole and no one could say where it was kept. A century later, Michael Levin’s laboratory at Tufts silenced the electrical conversation between the cells of a freshly cut worm for three days, and the fragments grew back with a head at each end, some of them keeping a second head in reserve for years; through all of it the genome was never touched. Levin reads it as a body plan held in the tissue’s electrical state, and if he is right, the worm keeps its shape the way the plate keeps the scene, in every piece, entire.

We have asked the brain the same question for longer. Karl Lashley spent thirty years searching for the place where the memory lived. In 1950 he admitted, in a sentence that reads like surrender, that it is not possible to demonstrate the isolated localisation of a memory trace anywhere within the nervous system. The more cortex removed, the worse the memory and where it was removed from hardly mattered: not a memory lost but a memory blurred, and the smaller the window left, the blurrier it grew. Lashley had found what Gabor found on the plate. You may keep a thing in one single place and have it sharp, or keep it everywhere and have it blurred, and nothing alive has ever managed both.

The question is being asked again now, not with a scalpel but with equations. In 2023, Marco Cavaglià and Jack Tuszynski proposed that the membrane of a neuron might do what Gabor’s plate does, recording not a signal in a place but the disagreement between signals. Three years later, Cavaglià, Tuszynski, and gave the idea a name, active interference, and argued that what a brain is made of is not incidental to how it thinks. In the model, the membrane is coupled to the water that wets it and to the electric fields of the body, and information is not carried from place to place but takes shape where it is. The brain, on this view, holds no picture of the world, any more than the plate holds a picture of the object; it holds the quarrel, and the picture stands up only when it is read. To anticipate the world, a living thing needs no model of it, only rhythms of its own that run faster than the world’s. It is a hypothesis, so far explored only in simulation, and the paper treats it as one: it says what would have to be true in living tissue for the idea to hold, and what would sink it. A plate means nothing until it is developed; this one is still in the dark room, and the authors are building the light to read it by.

The self you cannot sharpen

Gabor sought to escape the blur on the tennis court, but it remained with him; what he returned with was the cost of preserving everything, and the century since has been discovering how deeply that cost is embedded: it reaches all the way to the self.

Recall someone you have not seen in twenty years, someone who mattered for a season and then faded from the room. You would recognise them instantly across a street; you remember the subtle play of their face before laughter, the side where the smile first appears, the way they stood in a doorway. Yet you cannot see them clearly. Nothing remains still long enough to be described, and the more intently you search, the less you find, for you have not lost them; you have kept them in the only way a living being can keep anything: whole in every part, sharp in none.

Now turn the plate upon yourself. There is no cell, no year, no room where you are kept; the self is not inscribed at a single address, but everywhere, in the way you hold a cup, the side of the bed you choose, the word you reach for in fear. This is why the loss of a language, a city, a decade, or a person has never truly erased anyone. It only blurs them. Every part of you still bears the whole of you, glimpsed through a smaller window, and those who have departed are carried in the same way in every part, so no fragment of you too is small to be without them. This is the price Gabor paid on the plate. You will never see yourself with perfect clarity, nor will anyone who loves you.

That blur is easily mistaken for forgetting, or for being no one in particular. In truth, it is the opposite. It is the evidence that all of you remains, unbreakable because it was never confined to a single place, and the only task left is to look, regardless.

it’s art is free: one essay a week, when something is worth saying.

Subscribe now

If you know someone who cannot picture a face they love, send them this.

Share

Petrograd, a winter afternoon, December nineteenth, 1915. The Field of Mars lies silenced beneath snow, and inside the Dobychina Art Bureau, fourteen artists have gathered under a cypher: 0,10, zero-ten. You step in and, as every visitor does, your gaze drifts upward, then you slide inevitably to the corner.

The krasny ugol, the beautiful corner, is where the icon hangs and the little lamp burns under it, and you cross yourself towards it from the door; you do not approach, no one stands there, and yet it steadies the room as a keel steadies a boat, anchored in a place forever out of reach.

In the far corner of that room, high up, across the angle of the two walls, there is a black square.

Alexandre Benois saw it and wrote in Rech’ that January that it was the abomination of desolation, a sermon of nothingness and destruction.

Read more

It is late afternoon on the Ekeberg hill above Kristiania, the city we now call Oslo. A road runs along the ridge with a wooden fence on the fjord side, and below it the water lies flat and dark, holding the last desperate glimpse of light the way a hand holds a coin it has decided not to spend. Three men are walking; the third, a painter not yet thirty, has begun to fall behind. The sun is going down, as it does every evening, but on this very evening the sunset has a different colour, the colour of the inside that dwells inside someone’s soul. His friends walk on. He stops at the fence and leans on it, tired to death; the sky seems to have turned blood red, as if tongues of fire were above the fjord, and a scream was going through nature, and he could not say from where.

He does not run away. He is a man too tired to run, and still a man who stands his post.

He comes back. In 1892, he paints…

Read more

Read more

it’s art is for people who suspect a painting can change how they live.

Every week, one artwork, looked at slowly, with a philosopher or a poet for company: Dante beside Miró, Hemingway beside Hopper, Dostoevsky beside Schiele. Around a thousand words, ten minutes with your coffee, no art degree required.

Try one, right now

Look at the sheet above. Brown packing paper, a sketch for a painting Klimt would cover in gold. In the corner, in pencil, three words in his own hand: Kopf, Hals, länger. Head, neck, longer. This from a man who kept no diary and wrote almost no letters; a note to the only reader he trusted, himself. Twenty seconds ago it was an old drawing. Now it is a man talking to himself at night. That is what these essays do: stand in front of one work until it opens.

Subscribe now

Start with these

The newest essays are always free. After two weeks, each one joins the archive, which belongs to paid subscribers.

How it works

Free: one essay a week, usually Tuesday, in your inbox, whole and free for its first two weeks. No daily digests, no filler. If you want a daily rhythm, the Notes feed carries one artwork a day.

Paid: the full archive, every essay ever published, and the knowledge that the weekly one stays free for everyone else.

Subscribe now

Reading on an iPhone? Subscribe at itisart.substack.com in the browser, not inside the app. Apple adds 30% to the price.

What readers say

Who writes this

I’m Vittorio Zappa. Italian; I have lived in Paris and come back to Tuscany. I spend my time between paintings and the books that talk to them, and these essays are what happens when the two meet. I write one a week, when something is worth saying.

it’s art publishes one essay a week on a single artwork: paintings by Hopper, Klimt, Miró, Schiele, Hockney and others, read closely and paired with philosophy and literature. Art history for how to live, in ten minutes a week.

Questions

Is it free? Yes. Every new essay is free from the day it is published, for two weeks. Then it joins the archive, which is for paid subscribers. The best way to read everything is simply to arrive on time.

Can I write to you? Please do. Reply to any email or message me on Substack. I read everything and answer almost everything, and the messages where someone has been standing in front of a painting without working out why it holds them are my favourite kind.

What if I want to leave? There is an unsubscribe link at the bottom of every email. No hard feelings; take a painting with you.

Subscribe now

Morning, Vienna, in the last years of the empire. At the end of a garden where the grass grows as it pleases, a low studio hides behind fruit trees, and a heavy man in a long blue smock crosses the lawn with cats at his heels. Inside, the day’s quiet routine has already begun. Models drift through the rooms, clothed or unclothed, dozing on sofas, the whole studio like an orchestra still awaiting the director’s cues. No one performs. Even the light sits down in the studio quietly.

The man moves among them without a word, and the only sound in the room is graphite: a pencil line tracing a body, losing the trail, circling back to try again. Sheets flutter from his board like leaves from a tree too indifferent to notice its own autumn; they pass into the hands of admirers or vanish unsigned into corners. By the end, nearly four thousand will be produced.

He left almost no words. No diary, letters barely worth the postage, and, wh…

Read more

Each August, the sky loosens its grip on light, scattering nights with the slow choreography of falling stars. People slip away from the city’s static, tilt their faces upward, and watch as stars trip and tumble through the night’s hush. While waiting for something to descend, they sketch with the mind’s pencil, tracing shapes and constellations. They search for the hunter, the bears, the queen enthroned.

Here is the quiet secret at the heart of it all: the shapes do not exist. The stars, flung across impossible distances, are strangers to one another. We are the ones who draw the lines, threading them together in the privacy of our own minds. A constellation is not something found in the sky, but something we inscribe upon it.

In January 1940, in a house on the Normandy coast, Joan Miró began drawing those lines for himself: twenty-three small paintings, the Constellations, spun out over twenty-one months as France unravelled. Critics call them an escape; Miró did too. But escape feels like the wrong shape for what unfolded on those sheets. He was not fleeing the world. He was mending the one fragment left within reach.

Twenty-Three Nights

At Varengeville-sur-Mer, in 1939, he said later, “began a new stage in my work which had its source in music and nature. It was about the time that the war broke out. I felt a deep desire to escape. I closed myself within myself purposely. The night, music, and the stars began to play a major role in suggesting my paintings.”

The escape had a format. Sheets of paper of virtually identical size, about 38 by 46 centimetres, worked in gouache and oil wash, each one taking a month or more, taken up day after day, a few tiny stars and washes at a time. And each one dated, precisely, like a diary: the first, Sunrise, on 21 January 1940; the second, ten days later, The Escape Ladder. The ladder had been in his pictures since the beginning, leaning against the farmhouse in The Farm. Now it had work to do; it had to elevate the painter towards the sky.

He painted the tenth sheet on 14 May 1940. The German offensive in the west had opened four days earlier, and Normandy had begun to learn the sound of aircraft.

Subscribe now

The Blank Sheets

The family fled: Pilar gripping their daughter’s hand, Miró with a portfolio tucked under his arm. Inside were the ten completed Constellations, and the blank sheets he hoped would become the rest. Picture him, one among a tide of refugees, carrying his own unpainted nights to safety, as if the papers were the family’s third child. They threaded through Paris, joined the great exodus south, and crossed into Spain, to Palma de Mallorca, his wife’s city.

The series records the escape in its own way. The tenth sheet is dated 14 May 1940, in Normandy; the eleventh, 4 September, in Palma. The four months of silence between the two dates are the flight.

In Palma he lived like a monk in hiding. “After lunch each day I would go to the cathedral to listen to the organ rehearsal,” he remembered. “I would sit there in that empty Gothic interior daydreaming, conjuring up forms.” Bach and Mozart entered the sheets, and so did the reading of those months: Saint John of the Cross, Saint Teresa, Mallarmé, Rimbaud. “It was an ascetic existence,” he said. “Only work.” The ladder climbed back into the pictures almost at once: the twelfth sheet, painted that October, is called On the 13th, the Ladder Brushed the Firmament. He finished the series at the family farm at Mont-roig, in Catalonia; the last sheet, The Passage of the Divine Bird, dated 12 September 1941.

Another Man’s Stairs

Six centuries earlier, another man had looked at the sky in the same way, from the wrong side of it. In 1302 Florence condemned Dante to exile, then threatened to be burnt if he ever returned. So he never did.

He wrote the entire Commedia displaced, on other people’s bread, and he knew exactly what that costs:

Tu proverai sì come sa di sale lo pane altrui.

You will learn how salty another man’s bread tastes.

E come è duro calle lo scendere e ‘l salir per l’altrui scale.

And how hard a road it is, the going down and the climbing up of another man’s stairs.

Another man’s stairs. Miró, marooned on his island, in a country he had already once abandoned, climbed them each day. At night, on paper, he painted his own ladder.

Dante, too, understood what hell is made of. He names it at the threshold: an air sanza stelle, without stars. From within hell, the sky is invisible; the punishment, distilled into two words. Here the two exiles diverge, and in that divergence lies the modern world. Dante looked up and read: his sky was a text already written, every sphere in its appointed place. Miró looked up and wrote the very webs of line in the Constellations. No one handed him an order of heaven, so he drew one. A constellation for Miró was a decision.

That is what these sheets are: not images of the sky, but decisions about it: twenty-three choices, made slowly, in hiding, while the world’s supposed order was being unmade by artillery.

The Exit Word

Dante ended all three parts of his poem on the same word.

E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.

And then we came out, to see the stars again.

Puro e disposto a salire a le stelle:

Pure and ready to climb to the stars.

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle:

The love that moves the sun and the other stars.

The three endings in sequence are a single instruction taking shape. First the stars are something you recover the sight of; then something you climb toward; and at the last they are the thing that has been moving you all along. Seeing again, climbing, being moved: hell, purgatory, paradise.

The Constellations repeat the sequence: begun by a man recovering the night sky from a war, continued up a ladder that brushed the firmament, finished under a divine bird.

In July 1944, twenty-two of the sheets sailed from Lisbon on a neutral Portuguese ship, and in January 1945, with the war still on, they were shown in New York, where they were received as the first message from Europe’s studios since France fell. Twenty-two, not twenty-three. The Morning Star never made the crossing, because Miró had given it to Pilar. One constellation stayed quietly at home, held back by the force Dante says moves all the others.

The stars are the possession of the dispossessed. Exile can take the ground, the bread, the stairs, everything that is under you; what is above you cannot be taken away. So go out, some night soon, while August is still shedding its lights, and catch a falling star if you can. Then stay a moment for the ones that do not fall, and draw the lines. It is the oldest thing we do with what we cannot reach.

it's art is free: one essay every few weeks, when something is worth saying.

Subscribe now

If you know someone who never misses the falling stars, send them this.

Share

If this kept you company:

Nighthawks puts you on a street corner past midnight, in a city that has finished with the day. The shops opposite have shut their lights, the upstairs windows are asleep, the pavements are empty. What remains is a diner wrapped in a single curve of glass and, inside it, held in a light with no visible source, four people: a man and a woman whose hands lie close on the counter without touching, a second man alone with his back to us, and a man in white bent to some small task between two coffee urns. No one is speaking. The glass, if you follow it round, admits no door: no way in from the street, and no way out either.

The loneliest painting in America, people have called it for more than eighty years. Hopper himself, asked twenty years after he painted it, would concede only this much: “Unconsciously, probably, I was painting the loneliness of a large city.”

If you read the sentence slowly: two hedges in the first five words, fro…

Read more

The painting presents a swimming pool in the south of France, a day so still it seems to hold its breath, green hills folded behind like a promise.

Two figures inhabit this hush, destined never to meet. One is submerged, swimming toward the edge in white trunks, his body blurred by the water, rendered expressionless, faceless. The other stands at the rim in a pink jacket, dry, upright, rendered with the crispness of a photograph, gazing down at the swimmer with the idle absorption of a man skimming through a book.

Everyone holds their gaze at the pink jacket, because he is the one the eye can claim. Yet, I think that the painting belongs to the other, and that blurring effect of that chlorinated water might tell us something more.

Two Photographs on a Floor

David Hockney made it in 1972, conjured from an ending and a stroke of accident. Two photographs had tumbled together on his studio floor: one of a figure swimming underwater, the other of a boy gazing downward. In their accidental pairing, he glimpsed something he had not yet managed to say aloud.

He had tried once before, in the autumn of 1971, the very year Peter Schlesinger left him after five years together, but when the composition refused to yield, he destroyed the canvas. The following April, with a New York exhibition looming, he flew to a borrowed pool near Saint-Tropez. He photographed a friend swimming underwater, then returned to London and took a photo of Schlesinger in Kensington Gardens, pink jacket, eyes on the grass.

Out of these borrowed fragments, in a fortnight of eighteen-hour days, he assembled a scene that never existed: the swimmer was a stand-in, the garden pretended to be France, and the man at the pool’s edge was already gone.

Subscribe now

The Only Eyes in the Picture

Notice what he did with the arrangement. To the one who left him, he gave everything the painting could bestow: dry land, upright stature, a profile cut clean as glass, and most of all, the only eyes in the picture

.

He kept himself out of the frame, though the frame is nothing but him. He named it Portrait of an Artist, and the title suggests where the artist has gone: not at the edge, where love stands, crisp and intact, but in the water, where the one who was loved is quietly dissolving.

The Mother Who Stayed in Focus

There is a page in Italian literature that explains this geometry of loss and love. In 1915, in the first year of the war, Luigi Pirandello lost his mother, and instead of writing an elegy he wrote a conversation, the second of his Colloqui coi personaggi, in which her shadow returns to him and he tells her what her death has actually changed. Not her presence: tu sei viva, viva com’eri, he tells her, alive exactly as you were, alive with the same reality I gave you for years from far away, and alive for as long as I live. Her image in him has survived her completely; his grief has left it untouched, vivid, in focus.

What has died is something else, and he finds it with terrible precision: io non sono più vivo, e non sarò vivo per te mai più. I am no longer alive, and I will never again be alive for you. She keeps existing in his eyes; he has stopped existing in hers. And then the sentence that opens like a trapdoor under every mourner: quelli che si credono vivi credono anche di piangere i loro morti e piangono invece una loro morte.

The Geometry of the Pool

This is the geometry of the pool. The man in the pink jacket stands clear and whole because that is what love does with its object: five years from the beginning and a year past the end, Hockney could still keep Schlesinger upright, dry, every hair in place, just as Pirandello held his mother. Nothing of the beloved is lost when the beloved leaves; the image lingers, pitiless in its clarity.

What dissolves is the other thing: the self that lived in the beloved’s keeping, the version of you that existed only in eyes that have now closed. That is the figure in the water: the artist as he survived in Schlesinger’s withdrawn gaze, a body losing its outline in the element that once bore it, a face that cannot be found because no one is searching for it anymore. When we mourn a love, it is not the person who remains that we mourn. We mourn ourselves, the one they carried, the one who drowned when they turned away.

With a Dead Man’s Eyes

Hockney died at his home in London on 11 June this year, at eighty-eight. Schlesinger is seventy-eight and lives in New York, so the man at the pool’s edge has outlasted the man who placed him there.

In the colloquio, before she fades, Pirandello’s mother leaves her son a single instruction: guarda le cose anche con gli occhi di quelli che non le vedono più, look at things also with the eyes of those who no longer see them, and the sorrow of it, she promises, will make them more sacred and more beautiful.

it’s art is free: one essay every few weeks, when something is worth saying.

If you know someone who always looks at the wrong figure first, send them this.

Share

Subscribe now

I have stood in a small Italian town at the blue end of the day and watched the snow blush into a colour that snow, by all rights, should never attempt. It was an hour of no particular ambition, a winter afternoon quietly surrendering to evening, the sort of hour you pass through en route to somewhere with central heating. Then the light, as if bored with its own routine, performed a trick I have never managed to describe. The snow turned violet. The wall behind it was the pink of a sweet you are now far too old to buy, and above the roofline the sky held a green so implausible I could not name it without feeling I was making things up.

It took me a moment to notice what was absent, precisely because nothing was. The walls stood, the windows blinked, the snow lay solid and luminous; the whole town looked as if it had just been unwrapped. Everything was present except us. I stood, my breath manufacturing its own tiny climate, and waited for the scene to …

Read more

There is a room beneath certain old Tuscan houses that the house itself seems to have forgotten. You go down a few uneven steps, and the air drops a decade, cool and mineral, smelling of stone and vinegar and something patient. I remember visiting one in an old relative’s home just outside the town called Impruneta. What I clearly remember is not the wine or the oil but the vessels that once held them: terracotta orci taller than a child, green glass demijohns with a hay coat, their mouths stopped with rag. Everything they contained was drunk, or poured, or given away long ago, as contemporary traces of former joys. Only the empty vessels survived.

I have carried that cellar with me for years without quite knowing why. Lately I think I understand. Walk through any museum of the ancient world, read any book of the past, and count what remains of the people who are gone. It is not their wine, not their bread, not their gold, but the jars that held these things: amphorae, kraters, cups, the patient hollows that have outlived their own contents by three thousand years. We keep the containers, their forms deprived of matter.

Yet we pass through our days as if the opposite were scripture. We lavish our years on whatever fills us, and give a thought scarcely to the vessel that must bear it all.

Lives That Only Inhale

We are taught, without anyone quite saying it aloud, to measure a life the way one measures a tank: by how full it is. An unoccupied hour feels like a leak. An unanswered question feels like a debt. We furnish every silence and make busy every afternoon; the feed refills itself before we have reached the bottom of the last thing it gave us. Emptiness has become the one condition we treat as a catastrophic emergency.

But the body remembers what our calendars have forgotten. You cannot draw breath until you have let one go. Emptying is not the failure of breathing; it is breathing itself.

Nothing can enter a cup already brimmed. As a bell cast solid is only a lump of bronze. It rings because the founder shaped a hollow, and left it there.

What if the hollow we spend our lives outrunning is not the enemy of fullness, but its instrument?

Subscribe now

The God Who Withdrew

In the sixteenth century, in the hill town of Safed above the Sea of Galilee, a young mystic named Isaac Luria asked a question a child might ask. If God is everywhere, where is there room for a world?

His answer is among the strangest and most beautiful things anyone has ever proposed. Before creation, Luria said, God did not expand. God contracted. He drew Himself inward, a kind of held breath, and in the space left behind, in that deliberate absence, a world became possible. The mystics called it tzimtzum, the withdrawal. Creation began not with a making, but with a making-room.

Then the divine light poured into the cleared space, and it was to be held in vessels; and the vessels, unable to bear it, broke. Their fragments fell, and the sparks of light scattered down into the matter of the world, where they wait. The task of a life, in this telling, is to gather them, to find the light caught in ordinary things and lift it free.

The alchemists, labouring through the same centuries in another tongue, murmured: Unum est vas or the vessel is one. The vessel is the whole secret of the art. They were trying to free the spirit they believed was locked inside matter, waiting — like a spark in a shard — for someone patient enough to release it. Hold the two ideas together, and a strange job description appears. Someone has to build the vessels.

The Chemist Who Defected

Marco Bagnoli was born in Empoli in 1949. He took a degree in chemistry, and then he defected: not from science, but from the disenchanted way it had learned to describe matter. Since a February day in 1975, his signature has been a single red band set at the golden mean, first printed in a broadsheet he named Spazio × Tempo. Critics call him an alchemist, and for once the word is a job title rather than a compliment.

His work is a long inventory of hollows, each deliberately left open.

There are vessels of air: in 1989, in the octagonal hall of the Fortezza da Basso in Florence, he raised a hot-air balloon, the vessel that rises by holding nothing but warmed breath, and set beneath it a shallow pool of mercury, so that anyone who leaned in to catch the balloon’s summit met their own face instead.

There are vessels of water: at the Castello di Rivoli, fifty-six slender tubes of aluminium, blue and red and five metres tall, stand in a nineteenth-century basin and let fall a continuous rain.

There are vessels of sound: an earthenware vase he calls Sonovasoro, from which a low drone rises, its name an anagram of vaso sonoro, the sounding vase, with io sono — I am — and oro, gold, folded quietly inside the letters.

And there are vessels of light: alabaster worked so thin it stops being stone and becomes a lantern, pieces he names for the aleph, the letter that stands, silent, before all speech.

He does not, in any of this, translate the invisible for us. He does something quieter. He builds the instrument, steps back, and lets the invisible find its own way in.

The Vase That Turns with the Sky

The work I cannot stop thinking about is called Locus Solis. It is a vase, nearly five metres tall, and it is broken, but the wound in its flank has been worked open into a window. And it turns. One degree every seventy-two years, keyed to the precession of the equinoxes, that slow wobble by which the earth redraws its own sky. Around it Bagnoli has laid seventy-two stones of alabaster in the ancient quincunx pattern, and from the vessel’s hollow a landscape of sound rises. He borrowed the title from Raymond Roussel’s Locus Solus, the solitary place; in his hands the solitary place becomes the place of the sun.

Stand before it, and you will never catch it in motion. No one will. A human life fits inside a single one of its degrees. It keeps time not with us, but with the heavens; patience is its true material. A broken vessel, turning at the pace of the sky, Luria’s cosmology made tangible at the scale of a room.

And notice where he chose to open it. Not at the mouth, where a vessel is meant to receive, but at the side, at the break itself: the flaw turned aperture, the place where sound escapes and light enters. This is his whole grammar in a single gesture. The wound is not the mishap that ruined the vase. The wound is the window. It is the only place through which anything can pass.

Eight centuries earlier, Rumi opened his great poem with the same shape:

Listen to the story of the reed

As it laments the pain of separation:

Since they have cut me from my reed bed

My wails bring tears to both woman and man

Those ripped away from their beloved

know my song

Having been cut from the source,

they long to return

In celebrations, I laugh with those laughing

And in sadness, I cry with those grieving

The divine secrets are not separate from my cries

But only those who are cooked in the fire of love will hear them

These secrets are for the heart, not for eyes or ears

It is fire, not wind, that makes me sing!

If you don’t have this fire,

you might as well be dead

Oh, how can the uncooked

know the majesty of the fire of love?

If you meet the uncooked,

don’t sing, don’t preach

Instead listen to my advice:

Say goodbye and leave

-Rumi

The reed sings for one reason alone: it was cut, and hollowed. Its music is the sound of its own emptiness. Bagnoli, too, plants the reed in his works.

There is a smaller phrase hidden inside his old formula, the way the gold is hidden inside his vase. Take Spazio × Tempo, space multiplied by time, and strip the words to the bone. Spaz-IO per TE-mpo. What remains is io per te. I, for you. Space and time, reduced to their marrow, become two people turned toward one another. Which is tzimtzum or withdrawal embodied in art. I make an emptiness in myself, and in that emptiness there is finally room for you.

The Emptiness You Keep

This spring, I went back down to the cellar. The jars waited where they always had, holding their darkness, their dust, their patient nothing.

We are taught to dread the sound of our own hollowness. But that sound, ask the reed, ask the broken vase, is the only one that carries.

So I will not turn this into a lesson. I will leave you instead on the cellar steps, with the question the vessels keep asking, one slow degree at a time. Somewhere in you, there is a room no one has ever entered. Do not hurry to furnish it. Something is on its way.

it’s art is free: one essay every few weeks, when something is worth saying.

Subscribe now

Know someone who’d sit with this? Send it their way.

Share

Most of us set out along the well-trodden boulevards of life, clutching our maps of certainty and scanning the roadside for those reassuring signposts: Happiness, Success, or whatever ambitions we have been taught to chase, searching for the billboard that promises arrival.

But the signage thins out. Almost without noticing, we stray from the easy road and face a crossroads where the landscape grows wild, demanding not just our effort but our faith.

Puzzlement arrives, uninvited. Our reflex is to recoil, to retrace our steps toward familiar ground, as if confusion were a pothole to be avoided rather than a signpost in its own right.

We crave explanations, guarantees, the soothing balm of rational certainty; anything but that electric shiver of not-knowing, that invitation for our identities to be jostled and rearranged.

The Greeks had a word for this wild detour where the road ends unexpect…

Read more

Read more

Twilight settles over the Edo period, and spring breathes its gentle promise along the banks of the Sumida River. In a modest workshop, an old man, seventy-one, bends over a block of mountain cherry wood. With a slender knife, he inscribes seven characters: Hokusai aratame Iitsu hitsu, from the brush of Iitsu, once Hokusai. It is, by now, perhaps his twenty-somethingth name, and not the last he will borrow for his restless artistry.

This humble block will become the matrix for the thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji, a series destined for such success that ten more views will soon be pressed into existence.

Three years on, in the postscript to a book born of the same magnetic pull toward Fuji, Hokusai will confess that nothing he made before seventy was worth looking at. He signs off with a fresh name: gakyō rōjin, the old man mad about drawing. It is a name newly carved, yet the sentiment has been his silent companion all along, like a loyal mantra whispered beneath every stroke.

Most of us …

Read more

This essay grew out of a long conversation with my friend Armand Louis, designer and glass artist, working in Murano alongside the Maestro Roberto of Wave Murano Glass. With thanks to both, who let me steal their words and watch them work.

The First Lesson is Silence

The furnaces of Murano roar and seethe; their bellies blaze at more than 1200 C; the air thick with the perfume of scorched oil and the sweat; Hephaestuses of Glass raptured in an act of creation. One might expect only chaos here, a cacophony fit for the gods. Yet, amid the tumult, the first lesson is silence.

Only in silence can one truly listen to the interplay of the three idioms uttered at the scagno - the master’s betch. The artist arrives fluent in the dialect of ideas, sketching eloquence in lines and intentions, and in dreamed-away silhouettes. The Glass-Master, by contrast, is a linguist of gesture, for whom meaning resides in the tilt of a cane, the pirouette of molten glass, the measured cadence of breath. Then, there is Glass itself, always the last to speak, murmuring in the secret tongue of viscosity and temperature, whispering its verdict through the tension of its surface.

None of the three understands the others directly. The work takes place at the intersections of a game of translations, where, when one speaks, the other two remain silent.

In Murano, the artist’s role is curiously oblique. The artist is the dreamer, the gestator, who must ultimately trust his creation to the Glass-master. So, my friend Armand Louis describes the artistic process. His hand might convulsively materialise concepts into drawings. He describes form and harmony. But then, the moment arrives: the idea, still warm from its incubation, is handed over to Roberto, the glass master.

He likens this act of letting go to the art of fatherhood - wise, patient, and tinged with apprehension. There is a breathless pause before the first exhalation, a moment when the world shifts from the artist’s hands to those of the maestro. The piece might fall. Something unexpected might happen. Yet, as any parent knows, growth demands risk. You watch, you hope, but you do not interfere. The maestro is no mere instrument; he is the second author, guiding the fledgling idea toward its own maturity.

Then, both the artist and the glass-master need to listen to the voice of glass. The artist has dreamed, the master has breathed life into molten sand, but it is the newborn crystal that utters the first true words. As any spirited being, glass might accept to the fullest the idea of the artist and the process of the master, or it might rebel and insist on a path of its own design.

So Armand Louis, the artist, and Roberto, the glass-master, listened to what glass told them, and they heard the whispers and murmurations of the sea coming back from the soul-transparent shell coming to life in front of them.

Subscribe now

Echinozoa - Hearing the whispers of the Sea

Echinozoa began as a flirtation with instability, in which the glass canes, meant as decorative tools, became structural, highlighting the paradoxical nature of glass - fragility made rigid, stability made still. Yet, as the material found its voice, it echoed the soft roar of the brackish Venetian sea. Firstly conceived with the abstraction of pencil and paper, the work became organic. It transformed itself into living urchins, whose Aristotle’s lantern guided this artistic endeavour. It transformed itself into the moving shells that seemed to carry the sea’s own secrets within their curves.

The artist’s pencil wanted to play with the glass’s instability. At first, he decided to give further linearity and a structure that looks rock-solid, but is precarious by design. The first sketches on the project Echonozoa reflected this attempt at linearity and solid geometry. The canes, meant to be mere decorative tools destined to be molten and diffused into colour, now thrust into the spotlight as structural protagonists. The first drawings capture this paradox of stable instability, and the inversion that makes patent what would otherwise have disappeared under the melting blaze of the furnace.

The dialogue started. Yet, the master, Roberto, and the capricious material, glass, had yet to talk.

Positioning the molten glass symmetrically atop upright canes proved a delicate dance. The right temperature had to be found. The right density and flexibility of the flaming-hot glass had to be achieved. Roberto experimented, chasing that elusive balance between fluidity and form.

At last, a method emerged. Yet, as if revealing a long-held secret, the glass made its desires known: it wished to move, to breathe, to live, quickened by Roberto’s first animating breath.

In the final act, a flaming torch coaxed the canes from the sphere, and they bloomed like spring flowers under the right touch. The work started to move with the soft pace of sea urchins, or the languid drift of a jellyfish suspended in its watery waltz.

It was then chosen to set those yearning tentacles free. As the temperature changed, the material dictated its own evolution. Some of them blossomed like flowers; others crept across the showroom floor, their tendrils caressing the imagined heft of sea rocks; others hovered like jellyfish caught mid-gesture in the endless tide.

The Humanity of Glass - Stable where it is most fragile

In the lexicon of physics, glass is a supercooled liquid caught in a state of arrested motion - a substance that has simply forgotten how to flow. Its rigidity is not the serenity of atoms at rest, but the exhaustion of a race unfinished; the atoms, denied their destination, are frozen mid-journey. Glass is stable, in other words, because it failed to rest.

Glass’s intimate relationship with fragility is written into its very structure. In Angell’s classification, glass’s fragility is defined as the steepness with which a glass-pervious viscosity rises and approaches the transition temperature. The most fragile glasses are the impatient ones - those that rushed toward stability, only to find it precarious and short-lived.

Seen this way, glass art is stable precisely where it is most fragile. Glass must inhabit its own paradox, learning to listen to the contradictions at its core. Like us, it develops in the blazing heat of youth, malleable and wild, before searching for the right moment to settle. Rush the process, and stability is a mirage, shattered at the first hesitation and tremor. Wait too long, and the result is amorphous and deprived of its crystalline transparency. Glass, that capricious rebel, mirrors our own journey: shaped by many hands, many lessons, many experiences, but ultimately responsible for choosing when to become stable, and to accept its own fragility.

Glass art is the only art that, like us, is scared of light because it renders our soul transparent to every curious gaze. But very much like us, light is also the only force that can coax forth the kaleidoscopic colours of its spirit- sometimes blazing like the sun, sometimes glowing with the gentle softness of moonlight, sometimes glimmering with the quiet guidance of stars.

Looking at a Murano piece, at the Echinozoa taking the path of self-assertion, we catch our own reflection, half-mirrored back to us on the shining surface, and half-hidden within glass’ transparency. We remember that fragility is not an enemy to be outrun, but a companion to be welcomed in its time. We recall that stability, if seized too soon, will only shatter us, but if earned, will let us shine. We remind ourselves that, however exposed we may feel in our transparency, only through such honesty do our true colours emerge.

Thank you for reading. If something here resonated, the most useful thing you can do is share it with one person who’d like it.

Subscribe now

Share

These pages do not seek to explain, but to linger: beside the cuts of Fontana, beside the solitary note of Scelsi.

I invite you to play Scelsi and enjoy the depth of Fontana whilst reading this brief text.

Step into the museum hall, in front of you hanging, or better, levitating midair, leaning on an absolutely white wall, a Concetto Spaziale Attese, by Fontana. A monochromatic canvas is inviting you to wait, meditate, and contemplate the dialectical elan and the leap to absurdity it has endeavoured. Here, the tyranny of two dimensions is stretched to its breaking point, the surface coolly immaculate until it is breached- slashed with a violence so poised it feels almost ceremonial. The cuts are inflicted not to damage, but to liberate painting onto the infinity of tridimensionality, a wound not to kill, but to resurrect what was already dead.

Now, transpose yourself to a concert hall, where a chamber orchestra sustains a solitary F for four unbroken minutes. The full array of music scores flattened to a single note, the protagonist of a musical monologue. Giacinto Scelsi squashed and razed the variety of musical notes to uncover infinity itself - an entire orchestra’s worth of possibility, all secreted within the confines of one persistent pitch. Here, repetition is not monotony but a portal, inviting you to peer into the teeming multiplicity that hides behind apparent sameness.

Our reflex is to search for what is missing. One canvas appears to have mislaid its composition of shades, hues and colours. The orchestra seems to have forgotten the variations in notes and the dynamic jumps on the varied parallel lines of the musical scores. But in both cases, the work is not withholding something from you. But it has concentrated itself into a single gesture. It is inviting you to discover how a whole melody, a whole composition, can dwell behind the wall of the particular. It is inviting you to transfigure repetition into singularity.

Subscribe now

Read more