http___gallery-hr.com_Maske_20i_20cvijet0707_EN_20DoraKinert.htm.xml
http___gallery-hr.com_Maske_20i_20cvijet0707_DoraKinert_20o_20Nadi.htm_1.xml
1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19
THE ORPHIC QUALITY OF NADA ŽILJAK'S PAINTING (according to Dora Kinert) «There are few idyllic people in the world, however, there are some», Bela Hamvas. Nada Žiljak's painting is »taken for granted», and this is not an uncommon position for artists in general - making them remain in the sphere of a passing impression and liking (and this may be the general reception of works of art). Nada herself can not, as is the case with a majority of painters, transfer this (surface only) perception into a higher standard one, nor do anything to make her paintings be evaluated in a radically different manner. Because she has never gone through drastic changes, nor did she make any efforts to be «different», «better», «newer». This is obvious. She did not go through various «phases»; perhaps she has only become more recognizable, i.e. she has made her painter's identity more profound. However, should this be taken as her weak side, her incapability or inertness? To date she has painted so many «similar» paintings which is more than obvious. Her paintings often resemble each other. They have the same motives, the same «mise-en-scene», and occasionally a new «requisite». Does this only appear to be so or can it be said for other painters' works too? Is this proof of anything important? (Is it of any importance - as these words are not written by an art theoretician but a plain observer)? But no question should be underestimated from this perspective, because other observers pose it shyly. For instance: Do artists – in the same way as writers do - always paint the same picture/write the same novel, and why are they doing this, for what reason? And why there is no effect on the viewer and everything is reduced to silent accepting or rejection, and most often to not understanding. The first thing I notice when making the effort to determine a general definition of how Nada Žiljak's painting impresses me is that colors dissolve in her works in a kind of unawareness, ecstasy, void of «composing», like in a molten kaleidoscope that alters from painting to painting only in nuances, tone and lighting intensity. However, the rhythm consistently, almost always remains the same. And the figures function in the same way in respect to those backgrounds; generally in pairs, with fragile joints, always in the same ethereal, floating movements. And they do not hover there as some sort of «decoration» but are there to express something. What is it? We shall try to answer this question. What are the titles? Is there an answer in those titles? They are always in more extensive series such as «The embrace» or «In ecstasy» telling us that they are only the common denominator, the external frame, the general mark, in one word: something not so very important for the artists, but nevertheless expressing the overpowering atmosphere of the works. My conclusion is that the titles also reflect what has been painted, perhaps even unconsciously, and thereby in a fully suitable manner. But what is this reality that is being painted by Nada Žiljak? This is the most important question; in any case it has been the one that has always really interested me. What is this «reality» about? What kind of «world» is it about? I sensed what would be the answer, I felt I was close to it; even more so, I was sure it was about being ORPHIC, I could even lamely articulate it, but I finally recognized it in making the analogy with the work of a thinker – Bela Hamvas. This kind of discovery is always a great pleasure because it is true in its essence. Therefore, I started from the fact that Nada's paintings were of «orphic» character, and came to the conclusion that they are ruled by the same transcendent serenity (elusive and untouchable) suggested to us as a life credo by Hamvas, trying to make it real to the reader, in the same manner Nada makes it conscious to the viewers. However, this is not about mere aestheticizing, remaining juvenile infantilism in respect to beauty and pleasure nor a mere world of lust. No, on the contrary, this is about being sensible, i.e. refined and a different consciousness is necessary for that, a consciousness different in respect to a mere “artist's decision” to express something in a “painter's” manner. This can be achieved only by “WINDING ONE'S CHARACTER”, by straining one's own nature and being, and the final result of such an exhausting long journey is the invasion of TRANSCEDENCY into the world. Into a world that has been blunt, insensitive and deaf for a long time now. “In this immorality and unrestrained behavior that has been going on for two and a half thousand years, the sole and last foundation for order is the rapture of a piece of work in which a person lives and is the only and last thing in which he believes and for what he can make a sacrifice for with the remaining warmth of his half-frozen heart. A piece of work is a form of eternity. It may be the last one. A piece of work is glory. A piece of work ia the last crumb of the sacral being.” says Hamvas. Nada Žiljak is not a mere painting practitioner of such an orphic view of the world. Perhaps she is not even conscious of this orphic quality in her work, and her painting is even more so authentic. But for someone who is experiencing it externally, as an observer, viewer realizes that her painting is becoming more general, simpler, and more intense. At the same time it is more personal, and it has more layers, and many new nuances. Today it is more than ever the expression of an efficient existence of its author's real life. It is the expression of the artist's becoming authentic, of her credibility and original quality. How many artists have been capable of BECOMING AUTHENTIC while painting? This is impossible to achieve in the scope of a “project”, a plan. In order to understand this better it is necessary to observe two things. By sticking to Hamvas's assertion that the world does not change, that it has its unique system being also its foundation, and (bearing in mind that there will never be any other foundation) any disturbance of this precise being will have incalculable consequences for man: loss of taste, disruption of customs, mental derangement. The answer to this state would be salvation, a unique, only piece of art in which an artist functions. This can not take place in the field of realism, but in the relationship between imagination and the subjective I. In any case, this and such realistic state is not true. To believe in the truth of realistic state is a misconception that applies to all people equally. «There are few idyllic people in the world, however, there are some», says Hamvas. “Those people who know how to sit peacefully, drinking wine or tea, those who are not in a hurry, those who lie in the grass and do not want anything. But the idyll itself is something different. It is the capability of man to be quiet, sit, and wait. Like idyllic trees. You can have an idyll by placing one glass jar on the shelf. A chair made of straw. Van Gogh. idyllic animals, a higher individual quality. The highest metamorphose. The door-step to reality. Still myself, but not the same. When man comprehends that the body is concentrated spirit, and that logic is concentrated magic, matter is concentrated non-matter, contents is concentrated form, and a miracle is concentrated reality.” And to conclude, if one wishes to understand the painting of Nada Žiljak, it will be most appropriate to dedicate one to understanding its stoic serenity. Dora Kinert Bucan
1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35
ORFIČKO U SLIKARSTVU NADE ŽILJAK po Dori Kinert “Malo je idiličnih ljudi, ali ih ima.” Bela HamvasSlikarstvo Nade Žiljak uglavnom se, kao što je to čest slučaj, uzima “zdravo za gotovo”, ostajući u sferi površnog dojma i sviđanja, (što općenito vrijedi za najčešću recepciju likovnih djela), a ona sama, kao ni većina slikara, ne može tu (površnu) percepciju premetnuti u kvalitetniju, ili pridonijeti radikalno drukčijem vrednovanju svojih slika. Jer ona se sama nikada nije drastično mijenjala, nije se trudila da bude “drukčija”, “bolja”, “novija”. To se iz svega može izčitati. Nije prolazila kroz različite “faze”, možda je postajala samo prepoznatljivija, odnosno produbljavala je svoj slikarski identitet. Može li joj se to upisati u manu? Nesposobnost? Inertnost? Do sada je naslikala toliko međusobno “sličnih” slika da se slobodno može govoriti o očitosti te tvrdnje. Njezine slike često su nalik jedna drugoj. Isti motiv, ista “mizanscena”, tek poneki novi “rekvizit”. Je li to samo privid, ili se to može reći i za djela drugih slikara? Da li to samo po sebi doka-zuje išta važnoga? (I je li to uopće važno, budući da ovo ne piše likovni teoretičar, već obični promatrač.) Ali iz te perspektive nijedno pitanje ne treba potcjenjivati, jer ga i drugi promatrači samima sebi stidljivo postavljaju. Kao recimo: Da li i slikari - kao pisci - uvijek slikaju i pišu jednu te istu sliku ili roman, i zašto to čine, radi čega? Ili, zašto često u gledatelja izostaje efekt, i sve se svede na nemušto prihvaćanje ili odbijanje, a ponajčešće na nerazumijevanje. Ono što prvo uočavam u pokušaju poopćivanja svog osnovnog dojma, kad je riječ o slikarstvu Nade Žiljak, jest da se na njenim slikama boje rastapaju gotovo u nekoj nesvjesnosti, zanosu, slobodno od “komponiranja”, kao u nekom rastaljenom kaleidoskopu, koji se iz slike u sliku mijenja samo u nijansama, jačini tonova i svjetla. Ali ritam dosljedno, gotovo uvijek, ostaje isti. I fi gure na tim pozadinama funkcioniraju na isti način; obično su u paru, lomljivih udova, u uvijek istom eteričnom, lebdećem pokretu. I ne stoje tu kao neki “ukras”, već su tu da izraze nešto. Što? Pokušat ćemo na to odgovoriti kasnije. Naslovi? Krije li se u njima neki odgovor? Uvijek su u većim serijama, kao što su “Zagrljaj” ili “U zanosu”, što govori o činjenici da oni predstavljaju tek zajednički nazivnik, vanjski okvir, opću naznaku, jednom riječju nešto za autoricu ne odveć važno, ali što ipak iskazuje prevladavajuću atmosferu tih djela. Moj je zaključak da i naslovi odražavaju ono što je naslikano, možda i nesvjesno, ali tim prije savršeno prikladno.Ali, koju to zbilju, slika Nada Žiljak? To je najvažnije pitanje, u svakom slučaju to je ono što me je oduvijek odista zanimalo. O kakvoj se tu “stvarnosti” radi? O kakvom “svijetu?”. Odgovor sam naslućivala, činilo mi se da sam mu blizu; štoviše, bila sam sigurna da se radi o “ORFIČKOM”, čak sam ga mogla i nemušto artikulirati, ali sam ga konačno prepoznala u analogiji s djelom jednog mislioca – Bele Hamvasa.Takva vrsta otkrića uvijek predstavlja zadovoljstvo, jer su u srži istinita. Dakle, pošla sam od činjenice da su Nadine slike “orfi čkog” karaktera, a došla do zaključka da njima caruje ona ista transcedentna vedrina (neuh-vatljiva i nedodirljiva), koju nam kao svoj životni credo sugerira Hamvas, pokušavajući ga osvjestiti u čitatelja, kao što ga Nada Žiljak osvješćuje u gledatelja. Ali tu se ne radi o pukom estetiziranju, zaostalom mladenačkom infantilizmu ljepote i ugode, ili o pukom svijetu žudnje. Ne, naprotiv, tu se radi o osviještenosti, odnosno rafi niranosti za koju je potrebna drukčija spoznaja, spoznaja drukčija od puke “slikarske odluke” da se nešto na (slikarski) način iskaže. To se naime jedino može postići “SUKANJEM NARAVI”, cijeđenjem vlastite prirode i bića, a krajnji ishod toga iscrpljujuće dugog puta upad je TRAN-SCEDENTNOSTI u svijet. Svijet koji je već odavno tup, neosjetljiv i gluh. “U pokvarenosti i razularenosti, koji traju dvije i pol tisuće godina, jedina i posljednja baza reda, zanos je djela u kojemu čovjek živi i jedino i posljednje u što još vjeruje i za što se još može žrtvovati s ostatkom topline svog upola sleđena srca. Djelo je jedan oblik vječnosti. Moguće da je posljednji. Djelo je slava. Djelo je posljednja mrvica sakralnog bitka”, kaže Hamvas.Nada Žiljak nije puki slikarski praktičar takova orfi čkog pogleda na svijet. Možda tog “orfi čkog” u svom djelu čak i nije svjesna, te je njeno slikarstvo tim prije autentično. Ali onaj tko ga doživljava izvana, kao promatrač, kao gledatelj, uviđa da njeno slikarstvo postaje sve općenitije, jednostavnije, zgusnutije. Istodobno i sve osobnije, slojevitije, iznijansiniranije.Danas je ono više nego ikad izraz djelotvornog postojanja autentičnog života svog autora. Izraz autoričina ozbiljenja, njezine vjerodostojnosti i izvornosti.Koliko je slikara koji su u stanju slikajući OZBILJITI SEBE? Nemoguće je to učiniti u okviru nekog “projekta”, nekog zadanog plana, odista nemoguće. Da bi se to bolje razumjelo treba konstatirati dvije stvari. Slijedeći Hamvasevu misao da se svijet ne mijenja, da ima svoj jedinstveni sustav koji je njegov temelj, i da će (s obzirom na to da nikada neće biti drugog temelja) svako narušavanje tog preciznog bitka imat nesagledive posljedice po čovjeka: gubitak njegova ukusa, podivljalost običaja, pomračenje uma. Odgovor na to stanje, bilo bi spasenje, jedinstveno, jedino djelo u kojemu umjetnik djeluje. To se ne može dogoditi na planu “realizma”, već u odnosu imaginacije i subjektivnog ja. Uostalom, ta i takva realističnost nije istinita. Vjerovati da je realističnost istinita, zabluda je koja vrijedi jednako za sve ljude.“Malo je idiličnih ljudi, ali ih ima”, kaže Hamvas. “Onih koji umiju mirno sjediti, uz vino ili čaj, ne žure se, leže u travi i ništa neće. Ali idila sama nešto je drugo. Sposobnost da čovjek šuti, da sjedi, da čeka. Idilična stabla. Jedna se staklenka može staviti na policu da nastane idila. Slamnati stolac. Van Gogh. Idilične životinje. Nadosobnost. Najviša moguća metamorfoza. Prag zbilje. Još ja, ali više ne to. Kad čovjek shvati da je tijelo zgusnuti duh, a logika zgusnuta magija, tvar zgusnuta netvar, sadržaj zgusnuta forma, i čudo zgusnuta zbilja.” I da zaključim, želi li se razumjeti slikarstvo Nade Žiljak, bit će najprikladnije posvetiti se razumijevanju njegove stoičke vedrine. Dora Kinert Bučan