top of page






Why is man more attracted to the possible than satisfied by the real?

Why, every time, what is only virtual pushes us further and pushes us to overcome what is there and what we have?

There would be no change, improvement, evolution if the virtual did not have this decisive role: the reality we have should suffice, and instead ... every time what is presented to us is considered inadequate and less valid than, although not yet there and having a ' identity, in fact, only virtual, pushes us to research, to a purpose that we still do not know how it is, but that, we think, we hope, indeed we are sure, it will be better!

Why does all this happen?

Simply because the virtual is infinite!

And the infinite possibilities have in store, surely, a better answer than the one that, finite, limited, circumscribed, the reality is imposing!

Real and virtual, then, translate the encounter / clash between finite and infinite in a new guise: a "unbalanced" man comes out, because he lives the inadequacy of reality dreaming of the wealth of the virtual, as in the platonic myth of ἔρως, in eternal tension of research. There is no longer the tension that, for example, marked the romantic artists: now the infinite seems to be realized by the technique, by its still unexplored potentialities.

But it is what comes from it that needs to be examined in depth. What produces the technical element that intercepts reality and develops unthinkable possibilities?

Every public work becomes the father of indefinite interpretations: all those that it generates, wrongly or rightly. We have been used to linking interpretation to someone who reads or sees or hears a public work. Even more evident is this relationship, when there is an aesthetic relationship at stake, where it is played on the art table. But today's interpretations can have a generative aspect, constituting, in turn, a work in itself, autonomous, complete, a bit like the different orchestral directions of a musical work: one thing is Toscanini, another it's Bernstein, for example. Or even interpretations of theatrical performances or ballets: actors and dancers, directors and set designers, interpret, yes, but at the same time create and make independent art, because each interpretation is a work in itself, which is worth as independent art compared to that of work musical or theatrical or cinematographic performed.

Thus, knowing how to use a technical tool means interfering with an original and producing something new, something else, independently. Taken from the virtual infinity of which the original is potentially father (or mother, if you want).

Besides this reference that identifies virtual and infinite, there is another aspect that I would like to underline.

Who can deny that in a painting (as in any work of art) there are no hidden meanings, mysterious relationships, invisible proportions that the virtual manages to manifest!

In this case, virtuality is a kind of reader of the unconscious, of the hidden, of the hidden, because only possible. Possibility, mind you, that is generated by the original, it is not foreign to it! In this case the virtual becomes the decoder, the decoder, the instrument that knows how to open the tight doors of conscious and manifest production, to see all that is hidden, with discretion and perhaps fear, between the folds of the express lines or the chosen colors .

Each work of art, therefore, multiplies: even before the multiplication of the different interpretations of the many users of artistic work, there is a multiplication, without end, that the technical instrument allows, revealing an alternative semantics and, however, present in 'Opera.

Today, an artist, in addition to the father-painting, should, as in this exhibition of the works of Mauro Guidotti, present to the public, next to the original, the different possible children, arresting the generative process where it wants, as happens in life , but showing the public, a range of multi creations born from the same artistic root.

(Roberto Rossi)

bottom of page