go to next page

 
As mentioned already, it is important to start with the overall visual impression of the very long 'frieze' rather than with a close-up view of individual sections.

It is however clear that the general impression must be "verified" when looking at the diverse sections.

What impression do I get when I look at this work of art? What impression are other viewers likely to get?

At first sight, summing up a general impression, we can discover a soft and, despite tender disruptions that are comparable to mellow "fade outs" in a film, a basically continuous rhythm constituted by graphic, probably textual elements of this frieze. Superimposed on it, in a contrastive way, there is another rhythm, more abrupt, perhaps syncopic. In other words, something comparable to a strong off-beat syncopation in modern music, is produced by relatively strong  visual "blocks" of blue color that, as either long horizontal or tall vertical rectangles, produce "unexpected accents" that we see "with reference to" or "in the light of" the other, gentle and flowing rhythm.
 

 


 


 
 
 
 
Looking more closely, as we move closer to this work which constitutes a montage of several lithographic prints, we will probably agree that we see several superimposed layers, rather than simply two.

The flowing rhythm that is the most continuous, in this work, is (as I said already) "built" by a pretty continuous "addition" or "juxtaposition" of greyish text fragments that appear as if  cut out of a book, that is to say, of pages of a book,  in the shape of flowing algae, or of vividly moving fish, or even, at times, perhaps of doves.

This rhythm is the basic one, of the work, I would say.
In painterly fashion,  isolated forms that appear like dark, greyish-brown water plants moving slightly in the current, are placed "over" the grey flow of "cut-out" text.
They can form clusters. As these clusters occur and disappear and reoccur again while we "read" the "frieze" from left to right (or from right to left, depending on our specific cultural predisposition), we notice that there is more "grey-white" space between them than between the elements of the "text flow"

The fact that the individual elements of these clusters, just as each cluster (as a combined "whole"),  feature a quality suggestive of "flow" makes me see in them an echo though not a reduplication of the "text flowing along" in this work of art.

The "water-leaf" clusters (if I may provisionally refer to them in this way) are reduplicated or echoed by just such clusters that are presented in colors of lesser intensity. Rather than appearing as brown, some tend towards "olive," others are almost grey.

The "text-filled" forms and the brown, respectively olive or grey "water-leaf" forms, recurrent as they are, and separated by different interspaces, constitute four layers. To my mind, the three "series" constitutes by the "water-leaves" are like harmonic lines that play around the basic, textual "line".

The "blocks" or "rectangles" are not the only "unexpected accents" though they are the only accents that introduce a strong, very noticeable "counter"-rhythm.

The human face shining through the diverse layers is another "unexpected accent."  Appearing "underneath" the "text flow", it is of a strange, pensive beauty. It may be showing an expression of apprehension. At the same time, I see in it the face of a female saint of liberty, a republican angel, a madonna of clarity / determination / and revolutionary theory that is unafraid to take the next step: action.

In the light of this (unproven! - unprovable?) intuition, the text can be nothing but a continuous stream of historic documents demanding freedom, social justice, respect for the dignity of all human beings, respect for nature, its seas mountains plains its plants and animals. 
 
 
 

 

(The above segment, slightly larger)
 

 

                                                                                                                                      go to next page