Genesis of the work: The reasoned instinct 2013-2023©️

As per the agreements made with Prof. Umberto Eco in the autumn of 2013, not to reveal the facts before 2023, here is the following.

In October 2013, Virgilio Rospigliosi proposed an intriguing idea to Umberto Eco: collaborating on a performance in the form of an interview. The intent was to create a work of art that played with the public's perception. Rospigliosi asked Eco to develop a deliberately obvious text, with banal questions that Eco himself would ask Rospigliosi. Despite the apparent concreteness and logic of the answers, the mediocrity of the arguments had to contrast with Eco's taste and refined style.

The performative work aimed to insinuate into the reader a double doubt about reality: on the one hand, the veracity of an interview so crude as to seem unlikely for an intellectual of Eco's caliber; on the other, the possibility that the banality of the interview itself was a criticism of the unjustified literary mythologization of Eco's character. In this way, the interview became a means to explore the boundaries between reality and fiction, challenging the reader to reflect on the nature of fame and authenticity.

Umberto Eco Virgilio Rospigliosi "The reasoned instinct". Interview dated 31-10-2013

Contemporary society is daily overwhelmed by performance stress. Work times accelerate, risking weakening or destroying ideas before they can even take shape. Let's put in all the information, which through the Media now travels at the speed of light. And that's it. Man finds himself lost, nervous and deprived, in spite of himself, of the patience necessary for the creative act. So it makes me think that if art is always an expression of the society that produces it, then we are really in a bad way. Fortunately, from time to time we meet quite unique artists, who represent the time in which they live, without forgetting the history from which they come. As if suspended between past and future. One of these is Virgilio Rospigliosi. During last summer, I had the pleasure of deepening his interesting artistic path. So I asked myself for some specific and direct questions.

U.E - His interest in classical art is evident. If it weren't for the extremely current messages, I would define his work anachronistic. In reality, there is absolutely nothing out of date in his work. Figurative works and abstract works that touch minimalism. Visionary videos on the power of the media. Digital photographs on the codification of man by consumerism. Always maintaining consistency, strength of expression and content.

V.R - I believe that the most important thing in a work of art is the message. Regardless of the expressive mode used. Unfortunately there is a cataloging of artists by the market and by collectors. Which have imposed certain rules. There is a division between visual artists, informal artists, video artists, photographers, performers, etc. And this division / cataloging also applies to users. For example, there are those who buy abstract works, but would never buy a figurative work. Or the other way around. The same goes for criticism. All this is absurd. The artist cannot be codified in a style. The artist has the duty to express "the message" regardless of the expressive modality he chooses to use. When I am asked to give some indication, regarding the fact that my way of making art is quite varied, I remain a little hesitant. In my official website there are a number of categories, all named according to the Modus Operandi. Unfortunately, coding one's work is sadly necessary. The art market has decided so. I think the only category or genre that has a logical sense for all art from prehistoric times to the present is: "conceptual figurative". First, because everything is figurative. Second, because everything is conceptual. Let's take abstractionism as an example. The now historian Mark Rothko, classified as an Abstract Expressionist artist, is not abstract. Because in his works tangible colors and shapes can be recognized in some way attributable to geometry. Therefore concreteness and not abstraction. Man cannot describe what he does not know. Therefore "the abstract" does not exist. Man is incorporated in a unitary language and directly proportional to his earthly knowledge, linked to biology. What is represented by the artists codified as "abstractionists" (myself included), in reality, is "figurative". The same goes for any other gender cataloging. The human being cannot materially represent something that is not part of his knowledge or his nature. The artist. The man. Although he tries in every way to make a form abstract, it will always be a form impregnated with factors linked to a concrete recognizability. Human. We live on earth and are made up of tangible and limited biological processes. Thought alone can be abstract.

U.E - How important was the study of your predecessors? I am referring to the great artists of the past, whom you apparently know very well..

V.R - Basic. I have not attended academies. I am self-taught. I have said on more than one occasion that my artistic training owes a lot to the direct and careful observation of the works exhibited in museums. Since I was a child, thanks to my family, I used to wander around the Uffizi Gallery and the Vatican Museums. This allowed me to make eye contact with the masterpieces we all know. I made drawings and copies from life to tame intuition and sensitivity to shapes and colors. After learning the technique, I decided to start the personal journey that has led me to this day.

U.E - In many of his works messages, quotes and references from the world of mass media and advertising do not go unnoticed. And during our interview the well-known Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan quoted me several times. Why this marked interest in Mass media?

V.R - We are what we eat. And the artist has the duty to communicate to humanity what it often does not see, or does not want to see. McLuhan was prophetic. He wrote things that are still overwhelmingly current today. He understood that there would be a day when men would interact with each other without moving an inch. He understood that technology would become a second skin for man. In many of my works I underline everything that contemporary society distributes, without even realizing it. Advertising, television, the web, bring information into our homes that settles in our neurons. By codifying and paralyzing our mind. If we do not learn to manage this information, especially the negative ones, we risk becoming lobotomized eunuchs, unable to understand and want. And branded from head to toe. McLuhan was a forerunner and a very important point of reference for me. A milestone in world sociology. A genius.

U.E - During our phone call you called yourself a "scientist". There and then I made me laugh. However, I find it a fair definition. Indeed, the soul that drove illustrious scientists to make sensational discoveries could only be animated by a creative spirit. Adjacent to the sensitivity that an artist should have.

V.R - "Art is science made clear" said Jean Cocteau. I say: "The scientist without creativity has no future. The artist without science will have no future". The input that allowed Einstein to write the "Theory of Relativity" is equivalent to the input that Michelangelo had in the brilliant idea of "Genesis" on the Sistine Chapel. I believe the discovery of penicillin is art. The same goes for the invention of the microchip. Some experiments carried out by brilliant researchers, using sophisticated devices, are works of art. And they could be exhibited in museums, galleries and international fairs. They would certainly be more interesting than many exhibited works, both in beauty and in richness of content.

U.E - Is instinct or reason more important in art?

V.R - I would say a very reasoned instinct. A beautiful building with no foundations collapses. It is inevitable. As the Neo-Platonists said, you need the right balance. Personally, if I had to translate the concept into a percentage, I would say 70% right 30% instinct. I don't think the idea should be represented as soon as it comes into our mind. I think the idea needs to be filtered by reason. Obviously there are dazzling intuitions. But you need to be able to grasp them and above all manage them, so that they can be best represented. And this is possible only through rationality. Contemporary art has not yet managed to shake off romanticism. This is demonstrated by the fact that often in the collective imagination the figure of the artist is associated with the somewhat crazy character, who in the throes of a mystical and delusional crisis creates his masterpiece. Visions invented by 19th century literature. Stereotypes that could have been fine at that time, but which today risk obstructing the mind and not bringing new ideas. The masterpieces are not born only and exclusively from the fire of passion. The Neoplatonists called it "brute force". They arise from an alchemy of factors, first of all, clear thinking, based on solid and defined planning. Of course, the passion component is important, but only in small doses. Too much passion in art clouds sight and intellect. Oscar Wilde used to say: "The heart of an artist is not in the chest, but in the head".

U.E - Is art truth?

V.R - The truth is an illusion. So art is Illusionism. Often it is also a mystification. We live in an era in which anyone can improvise as an artist. This is thanks to technologies, such as digital. New forms of communication, which act as solver media in an attempt to apparently facilitate the approach to art. And this is a damage that creates confusion and misdirection, to the detriment of real artists, those who really have something to say. I am in favor of technologies in art. I myself use sophisticated equipment on a daily basis for certain works, such as videos, photographs. But I am also extremely convinced that to get to "B" you have to start from "A". You can't get to "B" by a miracle. Arnold Shoenberg has deconstructed the fundamental canons of classical music, opening the doors to the modern. But he was also aware of how a symphony was built. First you learn to walk and then you can run. I think I made myself clear.

U.E - "Have the light bulb and go to bed with the candle". "Libertè. Egalitè. Publicitè I love God r". "The papal fish and the avenging angels". "Cultural Annunciation". "Nature changed". "Culture is a crime". Titles are a very important component in his works. Narrative aspect and form are in perfect synergy. The messages are deep and ironic. Never banal. Aren't you afraid that the refinement of the title could take over the work?

V.R - In some cases, the titles must absolutely take over. The title is very important to me. I often start from that. And sometimes the rest on that. In the sense that the title becomes the work itself. A sentence, or a word, is projected directly into the brain in no uncertain terms. Like in advertising. I always carry something with me to write down phrases and words which then turn into titles. And this even before having made the painting, the photograph or the video. Of course what I write must have a relationship with the form that accompanies it and vice versa. Although deliberately creating a narrative misdirection, from time to time, it can give even more strength to the work.

U.E - Throughout history there have been many artists who used a pseudonym. She signs herself Virgilio Rospigliosi. It's actually not his real name.

V.R - The name is just a word invented by men. A sign of recognition. For me it is a color. Let's say that the choice of the pseudonym has only an aesthetic function. I liked the sound. A few months ago I added the surname "Rospigliosi". For many years I have signed my works only as "Virgil". The choice of the pseudonym comes from the union of the name and surname of two characters from Italian history: "Publio Virgilio Marone", "Giulio Rospigliosi - Pope Clement IX".

U.E - I have the impression that contemporary art focuses more on quantity rather than quality. Just think of the art galleries that are born like mushrooms, or the trade fairs, which will soon begin to sell fish as well. Will there be a future for the new generations of artists?

V. R - The future of art is in the "Pixels". Everything has already been accomplished. The twentieth century has ignited the stages, and has put contemporary art in difficulty. We are still all children of those who have opened the doors to the modern. And I am referring to great masters like Marcel Duchamp, just to name one. Most of today's art no longer knows which fish to catch. Artists who tend to provocation and the (often banal) scoop to attract attention. But now it is heated soup. Just enter a social network like Facebook, or on the web, and we find photomontages of ideas that are sometimes paradoxically brilliant. Made by strangers without artistic ambitions, and who without realizing it make shoes for many professional, well-known and famous artists. Perhaps contemporary art is fruitful. Perhaps the real novelty consists in an intelligent and filtered recovery of the past, through today's philosophy and technology. Probably in the future the computer means will be the "definitive" substitutes for canvases and brushes. There will be a time when art will be pure thought. And there will be no need to materialize it either. The communication will take place telepathically or in some other way unknown to us. But I think we will have to wait a little longer. Digital has become an important mode of expression. And I am convinced that sooner or later it will totally assert itself. But for now it is not yet able to replace the old painting. Let's say that, for the moment, Painting and Digital are following a parallel path. I agree on the use of technologies in favor of art. It is enough that at the base there is culture and above all important ideas. Because without those, the "artist" doesn't work.

↑

← Home

Theoretic →