Contrary to what the aesthetes have always told us, in a synoptic scheme we can say that geometric painting, as in all forms of space art, one never does what one wants to do but what the picture tells us to do. From a strictly artistic perspective, doing what one wants would be doing the arbitrary. The first forms are certainly arbitrary, seeing as it is the painter who paints them on his canvas by his own free will. Initially, the artist seeks, be it the evocation of the real, be it the original form or even the form that comes from the spontaneous gesture. But the effective creation of the work only begins from the moment when the forms appeal to other forms, those that via their relationships permit the composition. When the aesthetes place great importance upon “the act of pictorial imagination” they are not sufficiently aware of the true meaning of art; the “imagination”, if we wanted to give true meaning to this term, it would be nothing more than the ability to perceive, apart from the object, the conditions of existence that animate it. It is thanks to the faculty of perception of the collection of laws that the painter achieves the form that, being that the thing that is absent, appears as the only one that is capable of satisfying the mathematical rigour of the composition. Any collection is prone to being established and setting itself up as a work of art, as long as the linking of its relations are achieved.Quite simply, and that is where the problem lies, one can not always find the solution to that crucial operation, whose stages are dragged out in periods of research that are almost always too long when compared with the quickness of the first forms painted on the canvas. Let us reflect a little more. If it weren’t for an operation of linked quantities (mathematical quantities and not simple qualities), something inherent to the creation and the very constitution of the work of art, by which singular predestination, would the last forms projected always be the most difficult to compose? What this is really about is not losing irreplaceable links, the only ones able to finish this type of chain; free-expression factor is increasingly aside. And this is the most particular, most misunderstood and I would say the most unknown aspect: that which proves that the choice of form is not dictated by an inventive subjectivity inherent to an entity, but by an objectivity based on precise and pre-existing laws. This was confirmed by a test, experienced and related by our previous work (M.C.A.), in the following way: “Before an intentionally mutilated composition, some artists re-encounter that precise element that was missing via perceptive feelers, as if this had come from a mathematical calculation”.
However, the key forms of composition are not always evident and the artist is often impelled to run through and touch up other parts of the composition; sometimes more evocative, perfect or spontaneous attract and divert him; the source of the emotion is not always clear or defined and the artist is swayed by currents and solutions that are not art-specific; currents that time will tell on and solutions that the persistence of the work finally reveals: the best established ideas and the most laudable intentions are re-questioned by the manipulations of the forms.
© Nadir Afonso