© 2015 Nino Ovan | all rights reserved

designed by Officina11 Studio


nino ovan



(english translation by Valentina Bolani)


Excerpt from “VEDERE IL VEDERE”, by Roberto Masiero on Ovan's catalogue FORMACOLORELUCE, “Anti” gallery, Mestre Venezia 2011


... Ovan finds himself to be a mathematician when he substructs to bring close together shape and concept. He can, without a doubt, create a theorem featuring his name, his own signature, but that theorem will just be a mathematical theorem. In other words, in this case is not about the author's will , about his personality or style but art itself as logo-technic, like building a construction that, being useless, can only be itself, like art is firstly a production of an identity logic, a thing in and of itself. Just like a mathematician's theorem belongs to math, Ovan's work belongs to art. In this sense Ovan's work is humble: completely dedicated to art for art. In order to achieve this result, the author must negate himself, refuse the author's idolatry, let go of becoming the work style or to justify himself or justify the work throughout rhetorical forms. Work is dedication, strictness, maximum  availability to technical technique. The author cannot chase himself and his egotism if he wants to encounter reality, as well known as the power itself of factuality. From this point of view, Ovan's attitude is neither modern (the reign of knowing how to do) nor post-modern (indifference towards the 'how-to-do', at the point where the work of art can be done by others, whilst the artist puts the idea or the mis-en-scène), but ancient, he still wants to be one who knows how-to-do, the “best blacksmith”, like Eliot apostrophized Pound, another author looking for reality in a timeless space.

... These shapes are looking for truth in themselves, in evidence only, and thus becoming objects with a logic status. They are concepts-objects that constitute themselves like an identity in the relationship within light and color. They try to be a genre in the same way an apple is a fruit or in the same condition as pebbles of a stream. They allude to dematerialization so that matter must be support only. These objects-works take away Kant's aura from uselessness and lead art before world purposelessness (nothingness) showcasing that from this comes the possibility of self-reference and hence the meaning. It is as if Ovan (knowing it or not, is inessential) crossed the  line placed between technology and art pieces, among work and object, regressing until the ontological reason of the object’s existence itself, thus showing that this line is completely artificial. Art is that artifice with only itself as purpose and so lets the world be. It is as if Ovan brings art to the deepest roots towards a vertigo, where thinking and doing (combined) meet the object itself, which needs no words of explanation and does not ask to be interpreted, but to be seen (wonder, amazement, contemplation do not take away the word?).

... The critical issue with Ovan's work is whether they should be interpreted within a defined, historical context, and, if so, how it should be taxonomically placed, or if it raises unforeseen issues.  Processes that these movements had neither identified nor defined, moments of fracture or disaster within a specific historical process, or even refer to a meta-historical horizon in which art is not part of some anthropology or sociology but ontology.

Art pieces give you more answers than philosophy: why is there something and not nothing? How? Addressing a thought that makes you do something, do something that thinks, in identity and difference.