|
La
Bertesca-Masnata Gallery (Genoa)
The story of Apollo’s love for beautiful Daphne, daughter of Gea, the
goddess of
the Earth, and Peneus, the river god, came to us in Ovid’s poetic
interpretation. This story from the Metamorphoses has inspired artists of all
times. The fearful archer, he spoke loftily to Cupid only to fall prey to the
son of Venus. The enamored Phoebus pursued Daphne and nearly caught her, but the
nymph prayed to her father, and he transformed her. Instead of the much-desired
body, the Olympian god embraced a bushy laurel tree. («Daphne»
derives from the Greek «laurel»).
Delicate maidenly breast gets encased in thin layers of bark,
Hair turns to the foliage, arms transform into ranches;
Hitherto light feet become solid roots,
Face is hidden in leaves — leaving nothing but beauty.
Since then, laurel has been regarded as Apollo’s sacred plant, his
attribute.
Yet the ancient Apollo himself was a near kin to vegetation — Daphnis,
Apollo the prophet in the grove of laurel. So his love for Daphne signifies the
very nature of the god, the chief of the Muses.
This mythical and poetic analogy seems quite appropriate here, because of the
dual nature of creative forces — male and female, or, vice versa, female
and male (since the question of primogeniture should be immediately ruled out),
of their joint service to the Muses, of metamorphoses of the mental and the
sensual and, finally, of wood.
Ivan Govorkov and Elena Gubanova, husband and wife, have been working together
for many years, which is rare as such, and unique in Petersburg art. Even more
so as they are totally different. While he is loquacious (his very surname
conveys the idea of chattering), witty, brilliant in such a mode of speech as
buffoonery, ironic both of life and himself, disposed to reflection (agonizing
at times) and to conceptual arrangements, she is quiet in her radiant silence;
he contemplates everything before he starts, she seems to be spontaneous in all
her deeds; he is infatuated with the idea of the Glass Beads Game, she makes
Christmas decorations and toys; he is a contemplative type, she is active (her
ability to make use of her hands is amazing). Yet both have their secrets which
they willingly share without detriment to their personalities.
I believe that the shared secret is exactly what accounts for their creative
force. Surely, controversies are inevitable, sometimes becoming heated when they
resist to accept each other’s view. He may complicate matters, she may simplify
them, but the outcome — simplicity arising from the resolved problem
— is held dear. There are no losers: if she wins, he wins, too, and the
other way round.
When a creative competition is overcome through the interplay of two
imaginations, joy reigns supreme.
Paying a tribute to the academic school, we can’t but admit that both artists
owe their highly professional culture mainly to themselves. Together they worked
out their attitude to the art of the past and present, together they mastered
various artistic languages, that is why dialogue proved to be a natural mode of
work.
Yet, this frequently gives rise to questions, and the public and critics want to
know which was the designer and which the executor. And whether these roles can
be separated. Or it is the dialogue that is the mode responsible for the effect.
It is in no way accidental that their choice of subjects is guided by the
phenomena of dualism embodied in plastic metamorphoses of plane and volume,
figures and background, light and colour («Inhale and Outhale»,
«Yin-Yang», «the Mobius Strip» and
others).
Their attitude to abstract art constitutes the principal question. They are
adept at this relatively new, though versatile, tradition. But does it matter
which line of abstraction they develop and whose experience they draw upon?
Govorkov and Gubanova work not so much with available signs referring them to a
tradition (they may well resort to quotations should they wish), as with certain
basic capacities of substance and optic environment, which only suggest
significates). In this case, the ‘pre-figurative’ may be preferable
to the ‘non-figurative’. The name given to the 1992 series of works
— «The Birth of Alphabet» — surely reflected their
standpoint.
According to the artists themselves, their figurative pieces are ‘formulae
stripped of real-life details, incessantly repeating themselves in the world’s
variety and preserving the colourful radiance and softness of print«.
More: »We only tried to preserve the archetypical memory of the material,
animate the speculative idea with the sensuality of the surrounding world
through texture, material and colour, that is, to express the idea and image of
an object, and not to make a replica of it.
The range of their activity is very wide — from easel painting, graphic
works and sculpture to «objects» and installations. Development of a
topic they fancy may take years. Thus emerged «New Icons»
(1990–93), «Apostles»
(1991–94), «Labyrinths, towers»
(1993–96), «Filtration of White Noise»
(1993–97), «Shear planes»
(1994–97), The Movement of the Symbol« (since 1991),
«Soft Suprematism» (since 2000) and others.
Feeling at home within the world of pictorial culture, the artists take a
different stand on the East — West problem, which is forever vital for the
Russian identity.
And finally, about wood.
There is a quality in art which is irreplaceable: artists refer to it as ‘the
sense of material’. One may feel clay, wood, paper, canvas, stone, glass, sand,
metal, and the materials respond gratefully by communicating something special
to the artist. In fact, any accomplished work is a product of mutual love
between the idea and the medium. «Plastic art can be great as long as it
is closely related to the material; this again constitutes the very essence of
the idea of externalization, which has to ‘get darkened and confined’ first, and
then the crude lump of substance will light up from within» (Maximilian
Voloshin).
Every material has its own interrelations with space and time; each one, so to
speak, «remembers» various forms and textures, both innate and
developed by art.
Wood is the favourite medium with Gubanova and Govorkov (though they work with
many). Once again, I shall cite their brilliant formula, «to preserve the
archetypical memory of the material». Referring to the Jung School, the
word ‘archetypical’ denotes the memory that is far more profound than that
serving individual consciousness.
The story of Apollo’s love for Daphne seems to have been reversed. The artists
never endeavour to submit the material to their aesthetic will or to subdue it.
On the contrary, the responsive wood helps the artist to express himself by
evoking the time in which Apollo, the prophet in the grove of laurel, lived, and
the universe that was perceived as the tree of life.
Sergey Daniel
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
