the uncanny
<

Studio ZERO85 – University of architecture D’Annunzio -PESCARA  Italy

AUG > SEP 2017

text by Gianluca Peluffo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S. Freud. The Uncanny 1919
“The uncanny. A conflict of judgement, when a new unusual and unfamiliar reality suddenly looks like possible, familiar, believable” “The uncanny is that class of terrifying which leads back to something long know to us, once very familiar.” 

The recent developments of Rushid Uri’s work, especially in this new installation at STUDIO ZERO85, in Pescara, deal with Freud’s idea of uncanny.
This is not new: the uncanny, passing through the XX century like a wind or an underground force, arrived and blew in our contemporary time, together with the fear and the detachment theorized by Simmel (both were born in the same period and they are like Siamese twins in their psychological and sociological interpretations of modern alienation).
Nevertheless this idea of alienation is nowadays outdated: it does not concern the difficulties of relationship with the neighbour anymore, but rather its total absence (L. Zoja). Uri’s work stays between ambiguity and paradox and, through its screaming silence, it speaks about the darkness of contemporary (and not about the bad present). It simply and deeply shows a dark and complex way toward the future. 

The ancient Greek Theatre was set by the presence of opposite elements in the same space, which set the stage for an emotional and cognitive path. For instance the geometric abstraction and its fixed and absolute rationality with the well known, hurting and poor physical matter, in its real sense and not only in an artistic meaning.
The result was knowledge and the transformation of the audience into citizens of the world. Therefore, Uri’s work is not “ob-scene”: it does not hide the stage of the theatre, where mimesis, catharsis, knowledge, ethics and collective aesthetics take place. Our “bad present” is characterized by the absence of this scene, but Uri’s work is fully a “theatrical scene” and so it is not “ob-scene”: the matter and the uncanny disorientation, through its juxtaposition with the form (Uri does not renounce to the form and to its role in the space: it is a conscious decision and it is not “architectural” by chance), they produce the mechanisms of mimesis. The geometric abstraction of the form creates the paradox and the emotional reaction in its relationship with space and matter. 

This is a moment of dialogue between Art and Architecture. We might define it a “lesson of the Renaissance”, because it holds together the opposites in its artistic paradox (matter and elsewhere, space and abstraction, popular physicality and geometric precision), in a way that only Italian culture has in its genea- logy. For instance the hung egg of Piero della Francesca, that is inside a real architectural space which host a spiritual place. “Heim” means home, it denotes its space and familiarity. Its creative violation now looks to the future. So, maybe, the accuracy, the effort of researching the precision on the wire of paradox is the precious and fertile lesson of Rashid Uri Bianchini and his work. A lesson of contemporaneity. 

Gianluca Peluffo August 2017 

 

Studio ZERO85 – University of architecture D’Annunzio -PESCARA  Italy

AUG > SEP 2017

text by Gianluca Peluffo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S. Freud. The Uncanny 1919
“The uncanny. A conflict of judgement, when a new unusual and unfamiliar reality suddenly looks like possible, familiar, believable” “The uncanny is that class of terrifying which leads back to something long know to us, once very familiar.” 

The recent developments of Rushid Uri’s work, especially in this new installation at STUDIO ZERO85, in Pescara, deal with Freud’s idea of uncanny.
This is not new: the uncanny, passing through the XX century like a wind or an underground force, arrived and blew in our contemporary time, together with the fear and the detachment theorized by Simmel (both were born in the same period and they are like Siamese twins in their psychological and sociological interpretations of modern alienation).
Nevertheless this idea of alienation is nowadays outdated: it does not concern the difficulties of relationship with the neighbour anymore, but rather its total absence (L. Zoja). Uri’s work stays between ambiguity and paradox and, through its screaming silence, it speaks about the darkness of contemporary (and not about the bad present). It simply and deeply shows a dark and complex way toward the future. 

The ancient Greek Theatre was set by the presence of opposite elements in the same space, which set the stage for an emotional and cognitive path. For instance the geometric abstraction and its fixed and absolute rationality with the well known, hurting and poor physical matter, in its real sense and not only in an artistic meaning.
The result was knowledge and the transformation of the audience into citizens of the world. Therefore, Uri’s work is not “ob-scene”: it does not hide the stage of the theatre, where mimesis, catharsis, knowledge, ethics and collective aesthetics take place. Our “bad present” is characterized by the absence of this scene, but Uri’s work is fully a “theatrical scene” and so it is not “ob-scene”: the matter and the uncanny disorientation, through its juxtaposition with the form (Uri does not renounce to the form and to its role in the space: it is a conscious decision and it is not “architectural” by chance), they produce the mechanisms of mimesis. The geometric abstraction of the form creates the paradox and the emotional reaction in its relationship with space and matter. 

This is a moment of dialogue between Art and Architecture. We might define it a “lesson of the Renaissance”, because it holds together the opposites in its artistic paradox (matter and elsewhere, space and abstraction, popular physicality and geometric precision), in a way that only Italian culture has in its genea- logy. For instance the hung egg of Piero della Francesca, that is inside a real architectural space which host a spiritual place. “Heim” means home, it denotes its space and familiarity. Its creative violation now looks to the future. So, maybe, the accuracy, the effort of researching the precision on the wire of paradox is the precious and fertile lesson of Rashid Uri Bianchini and his work. A lesson of contemporaneity. 

Gianluca Peluffo August 2017