The artist has to have a very clear idea of anonymity and prominence in the work of art if he wants the result coming out of his hands to be the purest one within the limitations each one has. Why do I use the words anonymity and prominence?... because I am convinced that the artist, when he forgets that it is him who is giving life to the canvas, works only thinking about the result of what he is doing, getting rid of any prominence; that is when, what he has conceived in his mind, will become alive in the painting. The prominence of the artist subtracts freedom to the work of art, which must be born pure and by itself; and only when the artist will assume its secondary role, his role of being and instrument to achieve the Work of Art… then will it freely come to life.

When an exhibition is inaugurated or museums show a period of creation of an artist’s life, very often the error of distorting what is being shown is committed, though unconsciously, due to the answers and explanations of the author… because, how can we synthesize in a few words the content of an exhibition? How can we comment forty paintings as if they were scrambled asparagus? How can we answer “as it comes” the questions (sometimes stupid questions) of comment and question makers?... well, yes, these are answered… and that is what is wrong, that people talk and talk and talk, even about things they know nothing about, but because it came about… and many stupidities are said… and sometimes we want to explain the unexplainable… and what do we, artist, must do?, not answering?. My answer is final: yes, not answering directly to the question but rather invite the interviewer to dialogue with the author of the work.

Dialoguing about the work: yes. Answering questions: no…. yes to anonymity; no to prominence.
Let the freedom of the artist at the moment of creating the work of art and at the moment of dialoguing about it remain, do invite the people interested on the work to dialogue. Let the work talk!


Jorge Rando, London, May 2008