Symbolic forms do not always have a message to give to the viewer. They can leave the viewer the freedom to draw on their own story and emotional sphere to interpret them.
The work or the art object represent who produces them. That’s what we’re used to hearing, but is it really so?
If an artist depicts symbols that are dictated to him by his interiority, can we call it a representation of himself?
Works of art, from whatever culture they come from, are a boundless repertoire of symbols that represent the key to their interpretation. Very often the artistic artefact is presented as the simple vehicle of transmission of the symbol itself.
But can we consider these symbols personal or are they an ‘exemplary’ language, a universally recognizable relationship?
Art produces symbols in different ways in time and space and with the influence of elements that contribute to characterize a work as the product of a given culture.
Certain symbols and certain forms, however, are repeated in human history, disappear and then return, as if they were an inner inheritance that we handed down through epochs that are very distant from each other.
The way in which an artist represents emotions can thus have a universal link with his past but also with that of the whole of humanity.
Symbols and shapes represented in the works of certain artists can thus be impersonal, not representing a subjective intimacy but a common heritage, the interpretation of which is left to the beholder and to those who choose that artistic artefact.
The Unconventional Frame Opera (UFO) metal sculptures are the result of chaos, of the paths that molten metal takes on a flat surface such as that of the floor, but it is still the artist who decides its final shape, giving it an order, a border.
The decision on what form to give to this chaos is personal, but it is not a representation. Those who make it do not want to give it meaning, if not to pass on an artisan technique handed down from father to son.