Olgade

amaral

Olgade

amaral

tombé sur cette phrase : « Le charpentier ne vient pas

vous dire : “Ecoutez‑moi parler de l’art de la charpente”,

mais il traite pour la construction d’une maison et il fait

voir qu’il possède son métier. » Olga de Amaral n’a ja‑

mais parlé de l’art de la charpente à personne. Ce qu’elle

assemble, tresse et dresse, compose un piège où le re‑

gard prend conscience de ce qu’est (peut‑être) son pou‑

voir et de ce qu’est (peut‑être) son impuissance lorsqu’il

fait face à l’indéchiffrable, qu’il doit admettre que ce qu’il

rencontre et éprouve impose le silence. Et si elle n’a pas

besoin de citer Épictète, c’est parce qu’une affirmation

comme celle‑ci, essentiel propos de Cézanne, lui importe

– c’est une hypothèse –, plus que tout : « La sensation

est à la base de tout, je le répéterai sans cesse. » Relisez,

s’il vous plaît : « … de tout ». Ce qui implique, parce

qu’une œuvre est un partage sinon elle n’est rien, celle

qu’il a pu éprouver et celle qu’il se propose de provoquer.

De quel ordre est la sensation que provoquent ces sur‑

faces ? La réponse vous appartient.

Ce qui ne doit pas vous empêcher de penser à ces

mots prononcés par Matisse : « Tout art digne de ce nom

est religieux. Soit une création faite de lignes, de cou‑

leurs : si cette création n’est pas religieuse, elle n’existe

pas. Si cette création n’est pas religieuse, il ne s’agit

que d’art documentaire, d’art anecdotique… qui n’est

plus de l’art. » Ou encore à ce propos de Mark Rothko :

« Les personnes qui pleurent devant mes tableaux font la

même expérience religieuse que celle que j’ai eu lorsque

je les ai peints. » Faut‑il vous préciser que cette expé‑

rience se passe de textes sacrés comme elle se passe de

culte et de liturgie ?

Comprenez‑moi bien. Si j’ai tenu à vous citer ces

phrases de Paul Éluard qui m’accompagnent depuis des

années, c’est parce que l’œuvre de Olga de Amaral est de

celles, rares, qui permettent de ne pas vivre « que comme

un mort, comme une pierre ou comme du fumier ».

Acceptez que si cette lettre a commencé par une

confidence, une autre tienne lieu de conclusion. Vous

n’avez pu que le constater comme moi, depuis quelques

années les écrans se sont multipliés. Je m’en méfie. Et

que m’importe si vous pressentez que cette méfiance

introduit un propos ringard, acerbe ou aigri, lequel ne

peut être que celui d’un vieux schnock ou schoque ou

chnoque, à votre guise. Ecrans… Qu’y puis‑je si un mot

trimballe avec lui des significations anciennes quand bien

même son sens a évolué ? Il se trouve qu’avant d’indi‑

quer, dans le domaine de l’optique, une surface sur la‑

quelle se reproduit une image, ce qu’il ne fait que depuis

1859 me précise un dictionnaire historique de la langue

française, ce mot écran a d’abord désigné un panneau

qui servait à protéger, à dissimuler, à cacher. L’expression

« faire écran », me précise le même dictionnaire, date

elle‑même de 1866. Pour « faire écran », un « écran de

fumée » a pu – et peut toujours – fort bien faire l’affaire.

Comment donc ne pas se méfier de ces écrans ? Et

comment ne pas se méfier des images qui paraissent sur

ces écrans ? Comment ne pas redouter que la vigilance,

l’acuité et la lucidité que le regard se doit d’exercer en

soient atteintes ? Le très cynique PDG d’une chaîne de té‑

lévision ne s’est pas privé d’affirmer que son boulot consis‑

tait à livrer aux annonceurs « du temps de cerveau humain

disponible ». « Disponible » est l’adjectif pudique pour si‑

gnifier conditionné, engourdi, abruti, stupide. Comment

un regard usé par les images diffusées en rafales pourrait‑

il encore être capable de la patience qu’exige la peinture ?

Comment un regard fatigué par ces images qui imposent

l’immédiateté pourrait‑il être encore capable de prendre

son temps pour voir ? Je ne peux me satisfaire de la pi‑

teuse (et douteuse) consolation qui m’assure que, parmi

toutes les images qui passent sur ces écrans, les seules qui

vaillent sont celles qui les crèvent.

C’est pourquoi, vous le comprendrez, ces surfaces

que propose Olga de Amaral me sont essentielles. Elles

conduisent à un recueillement, à une méditation néces‑

saires. Elles permettent de prendre rendez‑vous avec ce

qui est « sensible, réel, utile ».

Pascal Bonafoux

My dear ***,

If I have said this all to you before, forgive me

for repeating myself. These words have been

with me for years, because they will have been

a beacon to me, and will no doubt have defined

a requirement —they are essential (to me). For

all this time I have kept a slip of paper, folded

n two, in my wallet. In forty years, the onion skin paper

has become a bit weathered, torn, and held together

with tape. I had typed a few sentences by Paul Eluard on

t: “I am not of those who try to lose their way, to for‑

get themselves, by loving nothing at all, by cutting down

their needs, their tastes, their wishes, and by leading their

ives, that is to say life, towards the loath‑

some conclusion of their deaths. I am not

willing to subject the world to myself by

the mere virtual power of understanding,

I want everything to be tangible, real, use‑

ful to me, because it is the basis on which

I can conceive my existence. A man can

only be in his own reality. Otherwise, he

only appears to others as dead, as a stone or as a piece

of trash.” This is how Eluard began a text that he wrote

about Picasso’s painting.

At times I would only read it every now and again. At

times I felt that I had to read over it quite often. Regard‑

ess, I always come back to it when I discover a piece

of art, and after having gazed at it for a long time, sur‑

prised, confounded, lost, what else? A bit worried per‑

haps, my only certainty being that I understand nothing

of it at all; I have to ensure myself that what I am looking

at is “tangible, real, useful” I did not have to reread Elu‑

ard’s words in Olga de Amaral’s studio. Because what she

showed me was obvious.

And necessary.

The surfaces spread out in front of me were what

they should have been. And they were nothing else than

what they had to be. It was “it”. And “it” could only be

“it”. The word “surface” that I have chosen to use may

disturb you... What other word could I use? They are not

canvases... Not paintings either. Nor are they tapestries, a

word that would relegate this piece of art to who knows

what basement or attic where, obsolete and out of style,

it would belong to nothing else but dust. Let us agree

that I stick to “surface” for lack of a better word. At least

this lets me attempt to give an (imperfect) description of

what it is: irregular, unbalanced and rough, uneven as

much as fluid and undulating. At least this word allows

me to invite you to see for yourself that the light seems

to scrape the surface, and graze it in one place, then in

others to burst forth and sparkle... Unlike on any other

material, unlike on any other “surface”. What can I do if

this ordinary word is the only one that can describe what

is incomparable in this artwork? All the more incompa‑

rable that it remains detached from any manifesto or any

theory in order to be singular.

The acrobats, authors of these theories and mani‑

festos that have always been around, which has not

prevented them from becoming increasingly numerous

over the last few decades, should have read Epictetus’s

Discourses. Book III, Chapter XXI, to be precise, entitled

To those who undertake the profession of teacher with a

light heart. They would have found this sentence: “The

carpenter does not come and say, Hear me discourse

on carpentry, but he undertakes a contract and builds a

5

Letter to *** regarding Olga de Amaral

house and so shows that he has acquired the art.” Olga

de Amaral never talked about the art of carpentry with

anybody. What she assembles, weaves and sets up cre‑

ates a trap in which the regard becomes aware of its own

power and of what it is (perhaps), of its weakness faced

with the incomprehensible, and it must admit that what

it encounters and perceives imposes silence. And if there

is no need to quote Epictetus, it is because the following

statement —an essential comment by Cézanne— mat‑

ters to her (that is a hypothesis) more than anything else:

“Sensation is the basis of everything”. Read it again,

please: “... of everything”. Which includes the sensation

that he could experience and the one that he offers to

arouse —because an artwork is a matter of sharing, oth‑

erwise it is nothing at all.

What sensation do these surfaces inspire? The answer

lies within you.

It should not keep you from thinking about these

words by Matisse: “All art worthy of the name is reli‑

gious. Be it a creation of lines, or colors: if it is not re‑

ligious, it does not exist. If it is not religious, it is only a

matter of documentary art, anecdotal art…which is no

longer art.” Or those by Mark Rothko: “The people who

cry in front of my paintings have the same religious ex‑

perience I had when I painted them.” Do I need to point

out that this experience does not need any sacred text

just as it does not need any cult or liturgy?

Do not misunderstand me. If I insisted on quoting

Paul Eluard’s words that have accompanied me for years,

it is because Olga de Amaral’s work belongs to those rare

people that make it possible to live not only “as dead, as

a stone or as a piece of trash.”

Kindly accept that if this letter started with a confi‑

dence, it will also end with one. You must be aware like

me of the multiplication of screens in recent years. I do

not trust them. And I don’t care if you sense that this

mistrust introduces some old‑fashioned, caustic or bitter

thoughts that can only come from an old schmuck or

shmuck or schmo, whichever you prefer. Screens... What

can I possibly do when a word carries old meanings even

when its definition has evolved? In the field of optics,

the word screen, before standing for a surface on which

pictures are shown (its meaning since the 19th century,

according to my etymology dictionary), used to desig‑

nate a board whose function was to protect, to hide, to

conceal. Hence the expression “to screen off” . In order

to “screen something off”, a “smoke screen” has always

managed to do the trick.

So how can we not mistrust screens? And how can

we not mistrust the images on them? How can we not

fear that they could affect the necessary vigilance, acuity

and lucidity exercised by looking? The very cynical CEO

of a French TV channel once allowed himself to con‑

firm that his job consisted of selling “periods of time of

available human brain” to advertisers. “Available” is the

modest adjective meaning conditioned, dulled, dazed,

stupid. How could looking, worn out by the flurry of

broadcasted images, still be capable of the patience re‑

quired by a painting? How could looking, tired by these

images that impose immediacy, still be capable of taking

its time to see? I cannot be satisfied with the pitiful (and

doubtful) consolation which guarantees that, among

all the images passing on these screens, the only ones

worth watching are those with a great presence on it.

That is why, you will surely understand, these surfaces

that Olga de Amaral proposes are essential to me. They

lead to a necessary contemplation and meditation. And

it is here that one can come and see what is “tangible,

real, useful”.

Pascal Bonafoux

7Strata aqua i, 2010.

eMorias i, 2

9Resonancia 2, 2009.

Vestigio Azul, 2002.

11Estudio MagEnta, 2007.

Pueblo F, 2010.

13

Pueblo e, 2010.

15Umbra 51, 2007.

MeMento, 2000.

17Segmento 8, 1999.

Lienzo 25, 1988.

19Bosque i y ii, 1988.

21nudo Magenta, 2011.

MeMorias ii, 2010.

23AlquimiA 95, 2005.

Strata 14, 2009.

25Strata 15, 2009.

Strata 18, 2010.

27Strata 20, 2010.

Pueblo P, 2012.

29

Olga de amaral

1932 naissance d’Olga de Amaral à Bogotà en Colombie

expOsitiOns / Exhibitions (1990-2012)

2012 Olga de Amaral, Nohra Haime Gallery, New York, NY, USA. • Boundaries, Latin American Masters, Los Angeles,

California, USA. 2011 VII Pueblos VII Policromos, Bellas Artes Gallery, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. 2010 “Entre Pue-

blos” & oeuvres récentes, mise en scène par Juan Montoya, Galerie Jean-Jacques Dutko, París, France. 2009 Plus

Ultra al di La’ del Barocco, Museo Della Citta’Di Santa Giulia, Brescia, Italia. • Estructuras y Esculturas, Jim y Olga

de Amaral, Galería Club El Nogal, Bogotá, Colombia. • Jim y Olga de Amaral, Corpbanca, Caracas, Venezuela. 2008

Golden Fleece, Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv, Israel. 2007 Strata, Centro Cultural Casa de Vacas, Madrid, España.

2005 Resonancias, Centro Cultural de Belen, Portugal. 2004 Threaded Words, The Colombian Embassy in the United

States, Washington D.C. 2003 Glyphs, Bellas Artes Gallery, Santa Fe New Mexico, USA. 2002 Tiempos y tierra, Museo

de la Nación, Lima, Perú. • Museo de Arte Moderno, Barranquilla, Colombia. 2001 Mes de Colombia, Museo Nacional

de Bellas Artes, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 2000 Bellas Artes Gallery, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. 1999 Galería Diners,

Bogotá, Colombia. • Hillside Terrace, Tokio, Japan. • Kreismuseum, Zons, Dormagen, Germany. • Textilmuseum Max

Berk, Heidelberg, Germany. • Olga de Amaral. Woven Gold, The Albuquerque Museum. • Albuquerque, New México,

USA. 1998 Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, USA. • Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianápolis,

Indiana, USA. 1997 Museo de Arte Moderno La Tertulia, Cali, Colombia. • Art Museum of the Americas, Washington

D.C., USA. • Cleveland Institute of Art, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. • Bellas Artes Gallery, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. • Ré-

trospective, Musèe de la Tapisserie Contemporaine, Angers, France. • Olga de Amaral: Seven Stelae, Federal Reserve

Board, Washington, USA. • University Art Museum Downtown, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New

Mexico, USA. 1996 Galería Diners, Bogotá, Colombia. • Peter Joseph Gallery, New York, New York, USA. • Museo de

Arte de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia. • Nine Stelae and other Landscapes, Fresno Art Museum, Fresno, California, USA.

• UNM Center for the Arts, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 1994 The Allrich Gallery, San Francisco, California, USA.

• California State University, Todd Madigan Gallery, Bakersfield, California, USA. • Galería Pérez-McCullom, Guayaquil,

Ecuador. • Bellas Artes Gallery, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. 1993 Lost Images, Inherited Landscapes, The Allrich

Gallery, San Francisco, California. • Elite Fine Arts, Miami, Florida, USA. • Cuatro tiempos (retrospectiva), Museo de

Arte Moderno de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia. • Centro Cultural Avianca, Barranquilla, Colombia. 1992 Lost Images,

Inherited Landscapes, Johnston Community College, Overland Park, Kansas, USA. • Bellas Artes Gallery, Santa Fe,

New Mexico, USA. 1990 Bellas Artes Gallery, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. •

prix et remerciements / AWARDs AnD ACKnoWLEDGMEnts

2010 Membre de l’Académie Nationale des Beaux-Arts, Buenos Aires, Argentine. 2009 Prix attribué à Olga de Amaral

pour la Vème Biennale Internationale des Arts de la Fibre, Art Textile Mondial, Buenos Aires, Argentine. 2006 Le Prix

Olga de Amaral est créé au Costa Rica et le premier prix de 2006 est remporté par Olga de Amaral lors de la IVème

Biennale Internationale des Arts de la Fibre, Art Textile Mondial, San José, Costa Rica. 2005 Visionary Artist 2005,

décerné par le Museum of Art & Design, New York, USA. 1989 Présidente, UCLA, Los Angeles USA. 1973 Guggenheim

Fellowship Arts Créatifs/Beaux-Arts, New York, USA. 1972-1974 Premier Prix 3ème Biennale des Arts de Coltejer,

Medellin, Colombie. 1971 Premier Prix du XXIIème Salon des Artistes Nationaux, Bogotà, Colombie.

cOnférences / ConfEREnCEs

2003 Conférence “Le lieu de mon imaginaire” Metropolitan Museum, New York, USA. 1978 Conférence à l’Université

de Californie, Berkeley, USA. 1972 Palais de la Légion d’Honneur, San Francisco, USA. 1971 Olga de Amaral participe

avec Magda Abakanowicz, Junius Bird, Sheila Hicks, Boris Kroll, Glen Kaufmann et Jogoda Buic au symposium "La

fibre comme moyen créatif", organisé par l’ UCLA, Los Angeles, USA. 1970 Ecole des Arts Appliqués, Bâle, Suisse.

1968 World Crafts Council, 3ème Assemblée Générale, Lima, Pérou. 1967 Université de Californie, Berkeley, USA.

31

cOllectiOns publiques et privées / PUbLiC AnD PRiVAtE CoLLECtions

American Craft Museum, New York, New York, USA. • Ararat Gallery, Australia. • Arthur Young Company, Houston,

Texas, USA. • Banco Comercial Antioqueño, Medellín, Colombia. • Banco de Comercio Exterior, Bancoldex, Bogotá,

Colombia. • Banco de la República, Bogotá, Colombia. • Braniff International Airways, Kansas, USA. • Chicago Art Ins-

titute, Chicago, Illinois, USA. • Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. • Clínica Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá,

Colombia. • Club El Nogal, Bogotá, Colombia. • Colgel the Clinton Exchange, Syracuse, New York, USA. • Coltejer,

Medellín, Colombia. • Cranbrook Academy of Art Museum, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, USA. • Charterhouse Interna-

tional, New York, USA. • Chicago Art Institute, Chicago, Illinois,USA. • Denver Art Museum, Denver, Colorado, USA.

• De Young Museum, San Francisco, California, USA. • Dreyfus Corporation, New York, New York, USA. • Embajada

de Colombia, Madrid, España. • Embajada de Colombia, México D.F., México. • Embarcadero Center, San Francisco,

California, USA. • Federación Nacional de Cafeteros, Bogotá, Colombia. • First National Bank, Forth Worth, Texas,

USA. • First National City Bank, Chicago, Illinois, USA. • First National City Bank, Miami, Florida, USA. • Flagship Bank,

Miami, Florida, USA. • Florida National Bank, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. • Forth Worth National Bank, Houston, Texas,

USA. • Four Seasons Hotel, Hong Kong, Japan • Hilton Hotel, Chicago, Illinois, USA. • GBC International, London,

Great Britain. • Hotel Santa Clara, Cartagena, Colombia. • Hyatt House, San Francisco, California, USA. • Hyatt Re-

gency, Chicago, Illinois, USA. • Hyatt Regency, San Francisco, California, USA. • IBM de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

• Interamerican Development Bank, Washington, USA. • International Trade Mart, Bruxelles, Belgique. • John Nuveen

& Company, Chicago, Illinois, USA. • Kunstendustrimuseum, Throdheim, Norway. • Macquarie University, Sydney,

Australia. • Marriot Hotel, San Francisco, California, USA. • Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, USA.

• Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida, USA. • Museo de Arte Moderno, Bogotá, Colombia. • Museo de Arte

Moderno La Tertulia, Cali, Colombia. • Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York • Musée cantonal des Beaux Arts,

Lausanne, Suisse. • Museum of Modern Art, Kyoto, Japan. • Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris, France.

• Musée Bellerive, Zurich, Suisse. • Musée Jean Lurçat et de la Tapisserie Contemporaine, Angers, France. • Museo

de Albuquerque, Albuquerque, Nuevo México, USA. • Museo Nacional-Cancillería, Bogotá, Colombia. • Museo del

Instituto de Arte Contemporáneo, Lima, Perú. • Museum Bellerive, Zürich, Suisse. • Omaha Public Library, Omaha,

Nebraska, USA. • Omni West Hotel, New York, New York, USA. • Palacio Antonio Nariño, Bogotá, Colombia. • Park

Hyatt, San Francisco, California, USA. • Peachtree Plaza Hotel, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. • Phillip Morris Collection, New

York, New York, USA. • Prudential Life Insurance Company, New Jersey, USA. • Regency Hyatt House, Chicago, Illinois,

USA. • Regent Hotel, Hong Kong. • Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. • San Antonio Mu-

seum of Art, San Antonio, Texas, USA. • Seguros Skandia, Bogotá, Colombia. • Sofitel. Hotel Nicolás de Obando, Santo

Domingo, República Dominicana. • The Renwick Gallery of the National Gallery, Washington, USA. • Toledo Museum

of Art, Ohio, USA. • The Landmark Group, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. • The Denver Art Museum, Denver, Colorado, USA.

• The Renwick Gallery of the National Gallery, Washington, USA. • UCSD Medical Center, La Jolla, California, USA.