The relationships between drawing and painting generally speak in the key of complementation. This results in the design/work dyad, and determines the distance between the steps of thinking and making. In this arrangement, what fits in the work is implicit in the design. Modernism showed us the drawing embodied in painting, although it could not disengage this body and soul from their fatal embrace.
Thinking about drawing in Marcos Amaro’s production from 2020 requires another logic. Here, the drawing in its autonomy represents nothing. As a conducting thread of drives, it connects enlightenments from psychic life to the paper, the place of encounter of figures of desire, without the retouching of rationalization. In relation to the painting, this desire-drawing is a trigger, whose features act as a conducting nerve to connect buddings of memory and of existence to the surface of the support, the skin of the painting.
The conversion of actions of painting into actions of desire involves derivations, rearrangements, near erasures, resumptions. Supporting cast and protagonists switch roles, are re-signified and are relocated to other outlines of the imagination. Through the process of painting the path moves, step-by-step, in a previously unlikely spiral. What overflows from life is bottled up in the painting until it reaches the level of equilibrium between the limit of the painter and that of the painting. With each new work, a new stretch of the spiral is therefore achieved, and by so dedicating himself to painting, the painter is re-created as a painter-being, with each small turn of the grindstone of this mill that was invented in the motor of the painter-being, in the painting’s being and making.
Established in their overall set, the paintings do not accede to an a priori classification, but rather to a gaze without a framing – as they avoid taking the beaten paths, keeping their distance from framed aesthetics. Far from the path that introduced the Object of the Painting in the place of the object of nature, present in emblematic works, since its appearance in the cubist canvases and which, in its continuation, takes another direction in the dialectic relation between cubism and expressionism. Here, I refer to the extensive and changing aesthetic key, which resulted from the rivalry between the nature of painting and the painting of nature. This process that followed determined other imaginaries and paintings, by prospecting in existence for its figures. This key exemplarily includes the painting of Bacon and, in the letters, the text of his emulator, Beckett.
Another path which, in the easy classification can be considered near, is that of abstract expressionism. It does not, however, fit. There, the gesture of exhibitionist appeal is found, the absence of existential content, which in no wise resemble Marcos Amaro’s painting. His painting begins in the tangle of lines, generated between the drive and the feeling, modulated by the demands of existence. The new wine that is formed then matures between clarifications and shadings, between dives and emergings. In this movement everything is processed simultaneously, and provokes the confrontation between synthesis and contradiction. This fundamentally centripetal movement creates a system which, step-by-step, moves away from the surroundings toward the axis, until touching loneliness. A singular path of individuation in which the work, when finished, finds itself and rejects the illuminating exterior. This painting will remain untouched by incident light of any nature or intensity. This painting will subject us to the imminent light, the light of existence which illuminates itself.
Antonio Helio Cabral – May 2020