84 as if it were a mantle covering the muscular and bony structure of the sculpted animal. In addition, these slight wrinkles speak to the observer of the time that inexorably passes and marks the creation that becomes genesis (cf. P. Klee, op. cit.) in prolonging the original creative act from the past to the future, reaching towards becoming the actual work of art that does not want to see its lifeblood exhausted in a short period of time, but instead aims to pass itself on to the next generations. In other words, Canins’ works carry out a maieutic procedure in which what could be called personality, the intimate essence of the object, is exteriorized, becoming, as Graham Sutherland would say, visual metaphors that want to represent nature in a new way. It is clear that here we want to remove this figure from the limits it has in rhetoric. In Canins, metaphor highlights an original way of animating the creative process, creating what Sutherland defines as emotional paraphrases of reality. In this process the artist is not, however, completely free because Canins never reaches the abstract work, loving the natural form deeply. It almost seems that in Canins there is what Paul Nichols called “an innate formal predilection”that conditions the choice of images, a kind of unconscious inner determinism, a pledge of the artist’s freedom. Sutherland, speaking of his paintings, compared them to kites and reminds us that a kite only flies if it is tied to a thread. If the thread is severed the kite either falls
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDMxMQ==