Content

Preface

Standing, Waiting, Brussels

Through the Looking Glass, Palazzo Capris, Turin

Gleiches zu gleichem, Wilhelm Hack Museum, Ludwigshafen am Rhein

Proprioception, The Italian Cultural Institute, London

Pause, Vitrine, Gente di Strada (Passaggio Pedonale), Galleria d’Arte Moderna e Contemporanea, Turin

Spotlight: Interview with Eugenio Re Rebaudengo & Manuele Cerutti

Biography / CV

4

6

9

12

14

17

19

21

Manuele Cerutti

Alisei Apollonio

PREFACE

Manuele Cerutti’s paintings are located at the intersection between the history of art, and the artist’s will of rediscovering the object’s essence, taking its pictorial representa-tion as a springboard for further reflection. Stones, bones and scraps of metal, collected by the artist over the years, rest dormant in his studio, until the moment they turn from inert shapes into works of art on his canvases. Taken out of their original context, these ‘actors’ sit for the artist in compositions that are always on the border between balance and precariousness.

The artist adopts clean lines and a thin layer technique, in order to create a dialectic relationship between different moments of his narrative. He considers the error, the pentimento as integral to the accomplishment of an artwork. His paintings call to mind stratigraphy; where amongst different layers it is possible to discern evanescent pres-ences in his paintings. Often, such presences are human subjects portrayed in the act of supporting, or contemplating the object – the real focus towards which the whole composition points.

In Cerutti’s oeuvre, even car mirrors are divested of all conventional attributes deter-mined by their function, in order to experiment new unstable relationships with space. In the context of his works, roles are subverted: the human being does not emerge as a protagonist anymore, it is rather the object that reclaims its status as a peer to Man. The artist leads the viewer to modify their perception towards daily life elements, which too often pass unnoticed.

Although Manuele Cerutti’s structures might seem comparable to the tradition of still-life painting, the difference between them is radical: the artist confers a subjectivity to forms that are traditionally inert, that are considered mere ob-jecta. Such subjectivity turns them into protagonists which should be interpreted on the same level as any other social actor.

Manuele Cerutti (b. 1976) graduated from the Accademia Albertina di Belle Arti, Turin, in 2001. In 2004 he was awarded the Illy Present Future prize.

He currently lives and works in Turin.

Pensiero di Orfeo, 2012Oil on linen38 x 32 cm

STANDING, WAITINGBRUSSELS

See, in these silences when thingsLet themselves go and seem almostTo reveal their final secret,We sometimes expectTo discover a flaw in Nature,The world’s dead point, the link that doesn’t hold,The thread that, disentangled, might at last lead usTo the center of a truth.

(Eugenio Montale The Lemon Trees, in Cuttlefish Bones 1925)

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS PALAZZO CAPRIS, TURIN

“With the word ‘magic’, as opposed to ‘mystic’, I wished to indicate that the mystery does not descend to the represented world, but rather hides and pal-pitates behind it.” - Franz Roh, 1925

Within the historical surroundings of 17th-century Palazzo Capris, ARTUNER is delighted to present its third Artissima Week event at the venue: Through the Looking Glass, a group exhibition featuring paintings by contemporary art-ists Manuele Cerutti, David Czupryn, Patrizio Di Massimo, Ana Elisa Egreja, and Katja Seib.

Magical Realism is arguably one of the most fascinating movements in the art and literature of the 20th century. Evocative and subversive, many artists and writers were attracted to it as a means of expression. As a movement, its defi-nition has proved ever-changing and open- ended and, as a result, it still bears relevance today.

The term Magical Realism was originally coined by German photographer, art historian and art critic Franz Roh in 1925 to describe a new wave of Post-Ex-pressionist painting. According to Roh, Magical Realism is characterised by accurate detail, smooth photographic clarity and the portrayal of the ‘magical’ nature of the rational world. The movement reflects the uncanniness of our modern technological environment, looking at the mundane through a hyper-realistic, yet often mysterious, lens.

Roh wrote: “We recognise the world, although we look on it with new eyes. We are offered a new style that is thoroughly of this world, that celebrates the mundane… It employs various techniques that endow all things with a deeper meaning and reveal mysteries that always threaten the secure tranquillity of simple and ingenuous things… it is a question of representing before our eyes, in an intuitive way, the fact, the interior figure, of the exterior world.”

The five artists included in this exhibition work predominantly with the me-dium of figurative painting and share some of the characteristics outlined by Roh. Like at the start of the twentieth century, artists today are faced with the challenge of making sense of a rapidly changing world, increasingly dominated by technologies that most of us do not fully comprehend. Such dichotomy triggers a feeling of estrangement which, in the work of these artists, sets the scene for mysterious, uncanny situations; often mundane but, at the same time, magical.

GLEICHES ZU GLEICHEM WILHELM HACK MUSEUM, LUDWIGSHAFEN am RHEIN

PROPRIOCEPTIONTHE ITALIAN CULTURAL INSTITUTE, LONDON

Proprioception marks a further deepening of Cerutti’s investigation of the object and the world, through painting, his medium of choice. The term ‘proprioception’ designates the set of sensory experiences related to the movements of body parts, and their position in space: in essence, a ‘primitive’ form, one that is non-conceptual, of consciousness of the self, already far along on the road to subjectivity.

In the series of works presented at the ICI, human figuration has been absorbed by the object, which not only represents a human extension, but has gained his most peculiar faculties. From these works, there emerges a proposal for a new way of looking at the world of objects. As if they were something with a meaning beyond the use they are able to provide; something that has its own subjectivity, and that goes a long way to affirm and defend it.

It thus seems natural to interpret actual ‘proprioceptive’ behaviours in the objects depicted within this body of work, such as the adoption of unusual postures (different than those we give them when we use them): the laborious maintenance of immobility – but also tests and exercises of balance.

15

PAUSE, VITRINE, GENTE DI STRADA (PASSAGGIO PEDONALE) GALLERIA D’ARTE MODERNA E CONTEMPORANEA, TURIN

SPOTLIGHT:Interview with Eugenio Re Rebaudengo & Manuele Cerutti

Eugenio Re Rebaudengo (ERR):Your works portray objects, and yet these seem to be endowed with humanistic qualities; with their own will to relate to the surrounding world. Does the object become a metaphor for the human body, or are they two separate entities?

Manuele Cerutti (MC): In my work I try to capture the ‘sub-jectivity’ of the objects: obviously this doesn’t mean that I con-sider them as small animate beings in the same way as humans. They are, clearly, two separate entities: nonetheless these two worlds have the capacity to reveal themselves to each other, granted that one forgets their relationship to practicality, which subordinates the objects to Man. By freeing the former from their quotidian function, the relationship between the two appears as one between peers, where the objects’ subjec-tivity feeds both on memories of their earlier subordination, and on original behaviours – that is, non-mimetic ones. Ma-nuele Cerutti - liturgies i - oil on linen - painting

ERR: Why are you interested in the daily, humble, left-be-hind object?

MC: The objects’ subjectivity – I think – emerges more clear-ly when they free themselves from their practical function. In fact, such liberation is easier to catch when their utility is restricted to their practical function. When an object is also ‘beautiful’, or precious, and so forth, it will never be able to free itself completely: its aesthetic or material value will not allow it to be entirely ‘of its own’/to belong to itself completely.

ERR: Your attention to this kind of unassuming, humble ob-jects reminds me of wabi-sabi philosophy. Is this particular Oriental school of thought something that interests you, or do you think your art is more rooted in Western, Italian cul-ture?

MC: I don’t explicitly reference any philosophy in particular. However I’m convinced that, in so far as this and other phi-losophies have permeated our culture, my work also bears their traces (and I’m very happy about this).

ERR: Notions of balance are prominent in your practice. What draws you to the painterly and conceptual research that goes into the presentation of the precarious poses found in your works?

MC: In a way, balance is a means of optimising resistance against gravity. This force acts on everything, and every realm, from the human-animal one, to that of the artefacts. It is pos-sible that some of the balancing behaviours that my objects seem to pursue are, involuntarily, mimetic memories of the homo erectus. However, it is undeniable that any liberation of the object entails the adoption of unusual postures, and the pursuit of balance is one of them. I appreciate that the novelty

of such poses might make them appear like acrobatics looking for the audience’s applause. However, this is not my intention.

ERR: Can you tell me something more about your will to get to and reveal the origins – “the original condition of each sub-ject” – of the objects?

MC: I’ve read extensively on, and thought a lot about, the topic of ‘origins’… but I believe that when it comes to objects, this question must be addressed in a very specific way. For the objects that I’m interested in, their origin stems from a ‘productive’ choice, which maximised utility and economy. For ‘luxury’ objects, the thought behind them was probably the same, although their inception came with many more variables (i.e. aesthetic values).

ERR: Regarding your pictorial language, what trajectory do you believe your practice follows? Do you privilege a syn-chronic progression (horizontal), which looks at contempo-rary trends, or a diachronic (vertical) one, which looks at the past while projecting itself forward?

MC: My practice is mostly diachronic. I turn my attention to-wards some aspects from the past, such as myths, which are complex forms that keep questioning us, even today. Perhaps only by looking at the past with an ‘archeological’ spirit, and questioning the sources directly, will we be able to discover clues about how to face the future. Also my method of opera-tion is part of such ‘need for diachrony’, that is the action of Hesitating, which in the context of painting is, seemingly, only a slowing of action.

ERR: From the first encounter I had with your works and the literature existing on them, they strongly reminded me of the poetry of Montale (translator’s note: Eugenio Montale, a re-nowned Italian poet), and in particular, ‘Cuttlefish Bones’. Is Montale’s poetry of any influence or inspiration?

MC: As I said about philosophy, I also find it difficult to recog-nise conscious links with poetry. I certainly read Montale, and what strikes me most every time about his poetics is the ‘gaunt’ character of the truths it unveils.

ERR: In your painting it appears that the object is the medium of a process of enquiry. Knowledge, your re-lationship to the world and even your relationship with art (and thus with painting) all pass through the ab-solutisation of the object. Does this happen in order to free yourself from physical reality by extrapolating its paradigm (the object), or rather, is it precisely in the object that you find the ultra-human and ultra-mundane?

MC: Out of these options, I would consider the first choice truer: as a matter of fact, I consider the object as a methodological instrument for the analysis of global reality, with the clarification that it is not only the ob-ject that is methodologically important, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the usage processes and the subsequent demission from any intended purpose of the object, as well as the consequent possibility of its ‘liberation’. As a methodological instrument, therefore, the object is useful to my current research. However, regardless of what my focus will be in the future, it will be very hard for me to accept the traditional hierarchy between realms.

ERR: I have read that an integral part of your crea-tive process is ‘doubt’: changing your mind, changing direction, reversing decisions, even repainting a work completely. This is evident in your new painting Extension II. Are they changes of mind, or is it more of a working method? What elements suggest to you that the painting is, finally, complete? Can you tell me more about this process?

MC: Changing one’s mind is a form of vision. It is a dis-harmoniously pre-established – Roscioni would say (translator’s note: Gian Carlo Roscioni, a renowned Italian literary critic) – form, which finds strength precisely in what might seem like an act of weakness and indecisiveness. I think it’s this ‘indecisiveness’ that creates hospitality, and the “inhabiting of painting”.

The result conserves its original characteristics apart from the immediacy of its beginning. More pre-cisely, a change of mind which leaves behind traces of itself is a way of capturing different facets of the same objects, and different moments of its pictorial life. It is this change, at the end of the day, which allows the moment of duration to be introduced into the painted artwork.

In this sense, I am never sure whether the work is actually complete. And there is also the aspiration (which I believe is shared by every artist) that the artwork is not limited to being liked, but that it con-tinues its journey in the spectators’ perception.

ERR: History of art and critique more often than not focus on the visual qualities of a work of art – on the visual qualities of objects in general. Con-versely, your paintings invite the beholder to con-sider the tactile qualities of an object. This clearly creates a tension between the visual enjoyment, the only one possible, and the tactile sensations this suggests. What draws you to the exploration of this kind of materiality, to this ‘tactile gaze’?

MC: I cannot here discuss whether all painting is, actually, strictly visual. I am thinking about Renoir, who, regarding his female nudes, used to say that he kept painting until he didn’t feel like pinching their flesh… Jokes aside, clearly Renoir was not referencing verisimilitude, but rather the threshold where the visual image becomes a tactile image. When it comes to my paintings, I am not sure I would adopt the tactile gaze for all pictorial themes – however it seems indispensable to depict objects, that have since always known the hand of man. Towards them, the sense of sight has always been distracted and short-lived, I find it difficult to believe that it would be helpful for their liberation, for their becoming again objects-in-themselves.

1976 Turin, Italy

2001 Accademia Albertina di Belle Arti, Turin, Italy

2018 Standing, Waiting curated by Artuner, Brussels, Belgium2017 Through the Looking Glass, Palazzo Capris, Turin, Italy Gleiches zu Gleichem, Wilhelm Hack Museum, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany2016 Proprioception, ICI – Italian Cultural Institute, London, UK2015 Prove di Carisma, 401contemporary, Berlin, Germany2014 L’Ospitalità, Maerzgalerie, Leipzig, Germany Pause, Musei in Mostra, GAM, Artissima, Turin , Italy Pause, VITRINE, Gente in Strada (passaggio pedonale), GAM, Turin, Italy2013 Modi di Esistenza, 401contemporary, Berlin, Germany2012 A che cosa ritornare, 401contemporary, Berlin, Germany2011 Greater Torino. Manuele Cerutti - Ludovica Carbotta, Fondazione Sandretto Re Rebaudengo, Turin, Italy Point of Passage, Frisch, Berlin, Germany2010 Negli occhi di un incisore si conservano tutti i dettagli, Galleria In Arco, Turin, Italy2009 Corpi Celesti, MARS/Milano Artist Run Space, Milan, Italy2008 Da lontano sembrano mosche, Galleria Citric, Brescia, Italy2006 Manuele Cerutti, Galleria In Arco, Turin, Italy2004 Present Future, Artissima 11, Galleria Estro, Turin, Italy Eraserhead, Galleria Estro, Padua, Italy2002 Ulrich, Cerutti & Pugno, Villa Capriglio, Turin, Italy

2004 Present Future, winner Illy Prize, Artissima 11, Turin, Italy Premio Giovane Pittura Italiana, ”P. Loverini”, Palazzo della Provincia, Bergamo, Italy2002 Menotrenta, 1st prize, Museo A.Olmo, Savigliano, Italy2000 Premio Morlotti, 1st prize, Imbersago, Lecco, Italy Premio Tiepolo, 1st prize, Biennial of Contemporary Engraving Italy-Slovenia, Mirano, Italy

Lives and works in Turin, Italy

Manuele Cerutti

born

education

selected exhibitions

Grants and awards

30