Gerardo Echevarría

The work that best represents me is “El puñal y el corazón” ("The dagger and the heart",) from 1996, and it has a bit of everything. It is painted on printed fabric, has typography, bits of crashed car, a pallete limited by bad taste, a frame of knives, a masked person, that's my mom with a crown of thorns, veils of an image from a holy card and a very humble house which has some sheen however, now I also paint more contemporary architecture but with no shine whatsoever. This painting comes from a very beautiful and important encounter. It was the first of several others that I dissected in some clinic. From this painting on, I did more or less the same thing, taking myself into account, selecting elements and ruling out others, I educated myself to have a more professional eye, but I never did another work like this… because this painting was done by someone that had their whole life in front of… of everything, with no complexes.

In my works there is no new or old content, the same things happen in all painting, what's of value is that there is always a new form born to illustrate some point, after centuries of paintings, there are many that have still not been done, this is why it is urgent that I try to do some of those paintings that we are still lacking. The spectator that stops and faces my work, or the work of any other artist, has their life so much in their sight, that to suggest to them how they should read is to intercede unnecessarily… in the enjoyment of contemplation. I believe and I make. We are in different planes. Assuming that what we make is visual art, that's basic and good, I think that there is no work worse than that which requires the artist to stop and decode, to have to explain procedures and unclear qualities to ensure readability, the majority of the works of the world are destined to remain there alone, most of the time. I am not against the communicative evolutions of these times, but the catalogues are not the work, they are only a complement.

3. To place me in some tradition would require serious work for some theoretician. (To be disagreed with later, probably.) A musician said that artists, all of them, are decorators of this great work that is life. So then, a boxer with style can move a clavichord composer, and me, I watch the Tour de France with the volume turned down. My most influential artists of these last 5 days are: Fedor Emelianenko, Amadeo Azar, Paul Thomas Anderson, John Nadador, Daniel Richter, Gerhard Richter, Antony Hagerty, Chuck Liddel, Proyecto Fauna, Lucrecia Martel, Bruno Stagno, Peter Doig, Jorg Immendorff, Snoop Doog, Francis Mallman, Wanderley Silva, Laura Owens, Neo Rauch, Inés Drangosch and Karlheinz Stockhausen.

4. One of the exhibitions that in its moment moved me most, was “Pictórica” (Pictorial) (I believe that's what it was called), they did it here in Mar del Plata, the first group of recipients of Kuitca, were Burgos, Bazan, Besaytaorube, Esnoz, Hasper, Jitrik, Trigo and various others that I don't remember now. Julio Galán in PROA, better than that of Kieffer in PROA. Daniel Joglar in Dabbah Torrejon; the Chileans Caja Negra and Confesionario (the worst work I did in my life) in MOTP; Marcelo Pombo in Ruth Benzacar I believe in 98 or 99; Omar Schiliro in one of the final shows of the Fundación Banco Patricios; the last of Gorriarena in his life here in Villa Victori; Mondongo in Maman, although they had hung too much work; various in the Flor Braga Menéndez gallery (Salamanco, Max Gómez Canle, Juan Tessi); Eduardo Capilla in the Castagnino of Mar del Plata; Diana Aisenberg with her paintings of fruit in Villa Victoria and artists that exhibit in any which way but always make me stop to see what they're doing, Londaimbere for example. There is also the question of viewing works via publications and now via Internet, making us more informed and less objective, for me many works turned out to be ordinary upon seeing them in person and caused me to change my opinion… and vice versa.

They could be endless. Much of the classifications are observations of all that's been seen over the course of years, with more or less happy results. There are a few very influential artists or ones that should be. The common element would be the singularity of their work. For example: The artists of Roja. Beauty and Happiness. The artists of Roja that later wanted to separate from the aesthetics of Roja and repented for having loaded their work with knicknacks. The ambitions and spaces of artists. The recipients of Kuitca. The undertakings of artists that didn't last a year, only to present a portfolio to the young neighborhood of Arteba. Pablo Siquier. The gradual transformation of the Young Neighborhood of Arteba in montages of Beauty and Happiness. The students of Bazan's workshop. Jorge Macchi. The workshops of Barracas. The momentary attention to and passage of the wave of artists from the interior, tucumanos, rosarinos, marplatenses, mendocinos, etc. The kids of Jorge Macchi. (Whom he is responsible for). The art clinics. The innumerable artists that are barely a 6 or 7 and that some critic or curator friend insistently promotes them as if they were a 10. The sketchers in A4 Ledesma. The final arrival of the videoartistas. The multidisciplinary parlors. The video artists that do seemingly thankless actions and that we see for free, but with more appreciation on youtube. Those that accord to the criterion of the curator of the moment (Glusberg artists, Victory Noorthoorn artists, etc) (I say this without a qualified opinion). The multidisciplinary salons that are obligatorily given to reward some new mediim no matter how loose the orbit. Political art. The open study; Gorriarena (who died and still nobody realizes that he was the best… How come he's still not in the better collections?). Eloisa Cartonera. The artists that appropriated some trick, some little ball, black line, something found in some hardware store, wallpaper, weird painting, skins, various formicas, some crayon, chapita, fairy-light, a little editing effect, etc. The women of the Eseiza jail. Pablo Suarez. Luis Benedit. The artists that constantly pay homage to the old, to the past, to infancy, to what they saw in their infancy, to the little toys in the display cases. The artists in catalogues… publications: making bracing and very boring lists of media graphics and personal catalogues where their names sometimes appear in writing, when honestly, nobody cares. The poseur artists. The artists that at one time saw the work of Fabián Lebenglik and neither understood him nor were able to tell if it was good or bad. Daniel Juglar. Agustín Inchausti; The artists that made concessions to contemporary art, to do their work, directly on the wall. The works of types: of women, of Jews, of gays, etc. The artists that do work that dematerializes and afterwords they take a picture and make a 2 X 3 meter copy;The mass-obstructed. The solution of the loop; the ones that with some simple action give a new sense to the objects. The ones that "invite to reflect upon. ..”. The ones that build their work from "accidents". The artists that speak of themselves, of what they like and how they made the work when they speak of their own work. Alfredo Londaimbere. Santiago Garcia Saenz. The artists with more presence in inaugurations than work. The installationists that do work less original than a glass window. The artists that write ambitious research projects, trips, many photos documenting the process and then the final work ends up being a photocopy, explaining how their research went on the back, their trips and their documentation. The generic artists; The derivative artists. The artists disillusioned with art.