”OF CINEMA”
←

Explanation “A”
 
With a higher degree of mimicry towards models of reality than other series of mine, in these works I explore the visual possibilities of cinematographical and audiovisual syntaxis and diction (secuences, shots, travellings, panoramics, strobes, fading... ), y their relation to the static image of painting, as well as a certain ironic assimilation, by the latter, of narrative resources, clichés or tricks of cinema (ellipsis, credits, special effects).
 
Explanation “B”
 
If you have understood anything of Explanation “A”, I am enormously glad, for it has taken me a fair while to draw it up. Nevertheless, all the above is true.
I believe I belong to the last generation of Sapnish that has suckled movies and television as a decisive source of knowledge, and I suppose therefore they have also has become an instrument to explain the brush with reality. Mi childhood was plagued with tangible games, of the kind that leave you with bruises and scratches on the knees. I never saw a Play Station until my children had one, and my familiarity with the cybernetic world and its cross-breeding with telephonies and other social communications is recent and superficial.
Nevertheless I “protagonise” (or not) stories of “film” that develop by means of “montages”, sometimes “in parallel”, and whose “sequences” are followed by “fadings”, in “white”, in “black” or “linked”. I “focus” my attention, with or without “zoom” on “close-ups”, although I also avoid parts of my “script” thanks to less note-worthy “ellipsis”, or remember with opportune “flash-backs” those that I think are unavoidable. I admire in a “low shot” certain “characters”, which I can't help but follow with a stubborn “travelling”, despite the fact that there isn't always a “happy ending” or that my “role” in its vital “plot” hardly appears in the “credits”.
A “panoramic” view, in painting, as in life, can be something cinematographic, but with a stronger smell of turpentine than of popcorn.