Cuerpo y Alma

Andrés Ginestet

© Ginestet, 2006

Connection between Minoan, modern and philosophical culture in Ginestet’sworks. Picture references and explications. A quick review.

All information about the Minoan culture on: www.fhw.gr/chronos/02/crete/en/index.html

The crossThe Unchristian or Neolithic cross is, according to the American author Riane Eisler, „gylanic“ a symbol of the

femininity, fertility and cooperation of partnership, replacing the existing models of concurrence and domination.

In connection with the work exhibited here, it is allowed to be understood as an independently conceived creation

that is not influenced by any ideology. In this way, „gylanic“ concepts become visible that have been prominently

present in the work of Ginestet since the 80‘s. His dialogical art simply finds another academic reference and

explanation.The “tight-rope dancers”, in their aesthetic as well as their conceptual completion are the best

evidence for a androgynous spirit. In this context, the „Elan“ completes the first visible and concrete realization .

The Neolithic cross is a symmetrical, not a formally aesthetic Christian cross of suffering, but it serves the

Egyptian as well as the Christian cross as an example, although it‘s meaning in the Christian version is reversed.

In the Egyptian version the variant of the up-side-down elliptic drop or „Loop“ can be found. Later on, many other

crosses appear in the modern art, in which they are emptied of their Christian meaning and in this way, liberated.

Antoni Tapies has decisively contributed to this subject, but the work of Malevitsch is also to be understood in this

concept, even if the interpretations of modern art claim otherwise. In this way, the Ginestet cross is an advanced

version of the already known, that differentiates itself from the already known in that it reaches a grade of

distinction, as described by Pierre Bourdieu. The cross of Ginestet is either very slightly asymmetrical, so that it is

barely notable, or created so that it resembles so much the contents of the Christian cross that it can only be

distinguished gradually by the title and recognized by the central figure in the cross of light. This closeness to the

Christian ethos has been chosen consciously. Through this the relation to the original message of Jesus is

clarified. The cross is proportioned to the depicted body, not the Christian proportion. The Christian cross usually

is the cross of torture of Jesus, the cross to which he allegedly was nailed high above the crowd.

Where the Christian cross takes on other proportions, it evades the androcratic principle, as Riane Eisler would

write, and nears itself to the original cross.

Ginestet crosses, asymmetrical and on a coloured background, made in the

sculptural Photo-technique. The cross is shorter on the right side and longer on

the left side. The difference is hardly perceptible.

The cross is drawn as cross by the limitation of space within the picture, by the

drawing of fields of light and colour. The cross itself is a cross of light, and the

woman in the picture implores the light, as told by the title of the work. The

proportion of the cross is such that it does not touch or cut the aura of the body.

One of the results of the research done by Ginestet is the conclusion that one of

the criteria why a painting feels more or less anxiety or pleasure depends on the

inclusion or exclusion of the aura in the painting.

Minoan cross simply

made in stone, symmetric

imploración de la luz– tríptico negro.Example for the

combination of twopostures on black.

imploración de la luz de día – exhalación + inhalación + exhalación – Example for the same combination on white

The posture of the figure by Andrés GinestetThe following pictures indicate a connection that was created ex-post. Ginestet has worked on his creation since 2001, since

9.11.2001 to be precise.

In connection to his scientific work, through which he was making an effort to characterize and create pictures, it is to be

understood that that he opposes the latent and visible violence to take position clearly, as it is also reasoned in his essay

„Epoch“. The fragment is supposed to be revitalised, create life-embracing spaces for soul and body and to retrieve them from

ignorance. Freedom is won through participation. His figural creations were formed, as already explained, as a part of his whole

work that is dedicated to the androgyny principle. It did not make sense, in the political and cultural surroundings in which the

author was situated, to create publicity. As always, art is the encoded key of a message. The redundancy aims to clarify the

cryptographic contents, as this automatically implicates the translation and the lexical definition.

In fact, the artist and scientist has been working inexhaustibly for years, together with his wife, to stop violence, in the scientific

as well as the artistic environment. Consider that the varying enrichment of the art-and-science couple is a method and not pure

show. It is part of the concept, like so often in art, of not just the final result but also the way to it: the working method. Also,

other scientists take the works of Ginestet for their own use as well as for a dialogue between theory and praxis. Accordingly, it

happens as in the present case, that a scientist sees the work of art, indicates the artist a defined trail, names a book title and

the artist then investigates and searches again what is written there, to, like in this case, discover the Minoan culture and Riane

Eisler.

His sculptures, in this way, transform along with the creation of the bust Lisa (1999), to which an equally named essay was

written „Lisa” or the “untouchableness of the untangible“ (2003). From that moment onwards starts a new cycle, that leads to

the results before you. The choice here is directly connected to the subject that is also shown theoretically.

His photographic work was created from the summer 2004 onwards, following the sculptural search of new vital contents,

regardless that it also holds a emancipation of photography as medium technically speaking.

Even more shocking is therefore the clearly visible connection between the Minoan art works and the art works of Ginestet. It is

almost as if a certain type of spirit leads inevitably to a certain aesthetic.

An owl and two snakes

• Minoan sculpture, showing the strength, the

attitude and the position of any woman in Minoan

society. She wears the owl and the snakes as

symbols of wisdom. This sculpture in particular is

an example of the late Neolithic refinement of the

Minoan culture. Her naked breasts are not

precisely a sign of weakness. The reader may

ask himself for the reason it had to be?

• The woman in this picture has exactly the same attitude as

the woman in the sculpture, only that the Minoan woman

holds symbols of wisdom, and Ginestet’s hands take or offer

light, or, call it transcendence. The similarity of concepts

between the Minoan and the work of Ginestet is astonishing

enough, knowing that the artist took the picture in 2005, a

year before he ever heard of Riane Eisler. The difference

between the two artworks is the reference in Ginestet’s work

to modernity, his context.

In this historical picture and representation

it is not just a piece of clothing that is

being represented. It is a whole concept of

life. This is not the only form of life that

has been transmitted from the past. One

of the most interesting aspects is the

representation of what could be meant as

cereals on the skirt.

The architectural structure within the skirt

also tells a lot about the spirit and the

intellectual capacities of the Minoans.

These pictures drawn by Ginestet show the second collection of

·Picadoras” as he designed it. Any comment can be spared. The similarity

of concepts is obvious, as much as the small differences are. Mainly, the

female body is standing loose in a skirt that is “rigid” and self sustaining.,

as culture is.

First sketch from 2002 of the theme „Picadoras“ that holds a clear connection to 9-11. It deals with the architectural design-

alternatives concerning the Twin Towers New York as well as the designs of Liebeskind, which express more pain than

anything else. Although being understandable as a model, his designs are a torture as an actual piece of architecture. These

sketches instead do not want to show any architecture, but aesthetic principles, that could be the base of the architecture.

Architecture is a relevant part of communication between genders through all times. Architecture is an expression of the “zones

of influence” of genders, be it communication-,work-,society-,or freedom zones. Architecture, more than any thing else,

structures communication. For this reason Ginestet creates his architecture as a mirror of the communicational ability and the

quality of dialogue between genders. Architecture is an articulated speech following shapes, materials, colours, sound, smell

and texture.

This is nothing more than a clarification of what is presented in his sculpture „Seiltänzer“. It is the second human stage after the

emancipation, which serves as basis for the dialogical capability. Verbal and real fully responsible communication is only

possible after emancipation. Previously, all form of dialogue is to be attributed to the process of definition of personality. In

these sketches a clear attribution of the genders and of dialogue is constructed. In contrast to this idea, the consideration in the

previously realized collection „Picadoras“ serves for emancipation and personality-definition.

A third Life-work is intentional, of which the plan is not even an existing idea. These works were all constructed during large

periods of time and will continue being created in this manner.

Three more examples of

the development of the

second collection of

„Picadoras“.

Another example for the similarity between the works of Ginestet and the Minoan art is the choice of materials.

Ginestet, as well as those ancestral Minoan artists, work in gold and precious stones, putting the emphasis not

only on the value of the materials, but mainly making sure that the quality of the materials will carry the message

that they express a long way, lasting through times.

Further, not only the attitude of the women is similar, dancing and holding arms up, but also the fact that all the

women are bear-breasted and wear skirts down to the floor, dresses that are even very carefully made and

similar, containing representations of fertility as decoration in the Minoan case and being a symbol of male

fertility and strength represented by the bull’s horn in the Ginestet work..

See previous page

Two examples of an open and giving attitude.

Two Minoan rings in gold with different

representations of women and clothing, all

bare-breasted and all dancing or acting in

a ritual.

Three different representations of bare-breasted women, richly embellished

and ornamented, wearing no head cover, but with a very embellished

hairstyle, fitted with jewels and dressed in transparent sensual clothing.

The position and behaviour of the woman in this photograph shares a similarity to the one of the Minoan statue, self embracing.

The single horn and it’s meaning

The clear up-date in comparison to the Minoan objects

consists in that Ginestet creates his statuettes out

of two separate elements: The horn and the torso of

the woman, that form a unity together. With this, the

articulation of the figures, as representatives of

seven emotions, feelings and handlings, which are

an advance to creative work, as well as not entirely

obvious gender - determinated beings, therefore

androgynous beings, are obviously to be classified

with the Elan and emancipation.

It may seem to many a visitor as if the artist is dressing

himself and his art in a tight corset.

But the artist is merely following his free interpretation of

the world, as he cannot live according to the ideal. It

is and will stay as an expression of desire and

longing.

First collection „Picadoras“ in created with bronze, gold and precious stones. The 7 positions are held in the following

photographic works as well as being explained in the following text.

• These works are dedicated to the „Admiration of light“ and its seven main colours.Theseven colours appear in seven precious stones in another collection of the artist andsymbolize seven feeling or emotional levels, meant for any kind of creation, be itartistically or humanly.

• The installation encases nine pages. The first - the white one - represents daylight.The last - the black one- is a symbolization of night. In between you will find:

• Orange is for pre-disposition.

• Pink is for inspiration.

• Blue is for development.

• Green is for perfection.

• Violet is for reflection.

• Yellow is for Happiness and vanity.

• Red is for emancipation.

• The grey tones of the cross awaken the „Admiration of light“. Grey lights awake alonging for colours. Grey is the absence of colour. The picture “light-flower II” thenbecomes a revelation and a completion of what “light flower I and III cannot complete.Light-flower II becomes coloured light, because there the connection between the twonegatives reaches closer to perfection and becomes something “new”, so that theimage itself becomes something vital. The cross is a wide-spread artistic symbol, andin this case slightly asymmetrical.

The imploration and import of the light

imploración de la luz – siete cristales más día y noche

Over-layering of embraces

The over-layering turns into the picture in the next page. This photo

will become a new sculpture and by these means becomes the photo

itself a sketch, and photography a new way of sketching.

flor de luz I-III