NanoArt has passed the visual arts? Demand is necessary before the size of the current work such as
Size , an Africa-sized 300 x 280 nanometers, lithographed on a
silicon wafer. To give some benchmarks, or reference, just think that the smaller cells of our bodies - those bacteria - are about the size of 1 micron
, or one millionth of a meter, while the
nanometer is a billionth of a meter . Well, the short side of the current size
measure 280 nanometers. If one thinks that Africa is on a wafer
di silicio di circa due centimentri per lato, si comprende come riuscire a trovare la litografia sulla sua superficie, anche se dotati degli strumenti necessari, sia un’impresa nient’affatto semplice, se non disperata.
Il continente africano litografato è dunque inaccessibile all’occhio umano. A un’esposizione, lo spettatore vede solamente la placchetta di silicio e null’altro. Eppure l’Africa c’è, semplicemente la sua esistenza non è da noi percepibile. Potremmo allora decidere di mettere il
wafer sotto la lente di un microscopio ottico, ma anche in questo caso non vedremmo nulla:
Dimensione attuale è talmente minuscola that even a light microscope can reveal their existence. It is true that sometimes the researchers put the
markers - in other words, the signs - to mark the boundaries within which the work is, but also doing what the area is immense, and who should have an FESEM - Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope, a special microscope to scan elettreonico that is able to observe nanometer-sized objects - would in any case looking for a needle in a haystack.
Compared to any other work of art so far made and exhibited to the public, current
Size inevitably raises a number of questions rather disturbing. First, the work really exist? We have to trust the artist? Or is it all a farce, a mockery, a divertissement
, a stunt of two funny guys, yet another, sickening provocation - and nothing more - of contemporary art?
If one assumes that what is nano is not seen with the naked eye, let alone with the light microscope, Robin and I could in theory maintain that on that piece of silicon there is anything: try to prove otherwise. Of course, it would be a better villain, but they are made and certified by the Politecnico di Torino, and anyone - taking the precautions - may attend in person to the realization of the artifact itself within the clean rooms or laboratories of ChiLab Latemar.
So the skeptics can put your heart at peace, Africa is indeed on the surface of silicon, but the question still remains, to this effect: ok, the work is there, but if I can not see there? That reasoning makes no sense: would be to deny, for example, the existence of cells because the human eye. We must clarify that if it is true that the work is invisible to the eye, they are not in an absolute sense: with the instruments suitable, and with a good dose of patience and luck, you may be able to find and see Africa.
There is no doubt, however, that the current size
- taken by itself, not accompanied by images taken with electron microscopes that reveal the existence - causes a kind of aesthetic embarrassment. But how, display work that is there but not seen? And yet there is beauty. Simply return to the sense of the work itself - the invisibility of Africa: a fact, as much as its actual, concrete existence - to understand the significance of the contradiction and paradox. The invisibility in this case, not an end in itself, but it's functional significance of the work. Size
current is invisible because it should be, and not merely a display of virtuosity.
How to exhibit, then, a work that you do not see? We ask it every time we set up an exhibit. For current
Size - in the case of the exhibition NanoArt Bergamo - we used a trick
: we made a larger sample of the work, the size of a few microns, and we put this chip in the lens of a microscope, while the original work - the nano - was displayed alongside the enlarged reproduction. What viewers could not see, then, was the original work, but a sample with the same characteristics but larger, and therefore visible.
Another significant example of exceeding the limits of the visible is represented by
Beyond the Pillars of Hercules, not surprisingly NanoArt first work created by me and Robin. One set of footprints imprinted on a micrometer
silicon wafer just wanted to represent the first steps of the art in a mysterious universe, which although part of our law-governed, however, is often completely different, we seem paradoxical, contradictory, absurd . Is the universe infinitely small or invisible, of matter and quantum laws that describe behavior, quantum mechanics.
From the point of view of the size we can talk about first steps in comparison to the size of nanometer-size
present, one could say that beyond the Pillars of Hercules
work is huge: the prints are great few microns, and overall, the walk is about 2 cm long. In any case, to the naked eye it is hard to see something in particular conditions of light you can see a series of dots forming a line snaking, but nothing more.
Only four white images FESEM and black - exposed in the case of premium San Fedele in Milan, in addition to the work - reveal the details: on a lunar surface that is clearly distinguishable signs of the boots left by someone, but not limited to, the recognizes the pressure exerted by the weight of the body on the ground: the prints are not simply 'painted' really 'impressed', have depth.
are also, finally, the first steps of the art beyond the limits of the visible: there are works that exist but escape the eye, are denied the sight: there, the bulimic contemporary eye can not reach. Constantly bombarded by an endless sequence of strain, of invisible to the eye in front of works must surrender to his momentary worthlessness. At this juncture, the eye does
epochè , suspend the proceedings.
Although the eye is excluded by one of its territories privileged, I do not think that is the NanoArt
denial of vision. On the contrary, maybe the invisible art is an invitation not only to stop
look, but to observe
. A does not impress us / suggestions, but to examine in closer detail, more depth. The invisible art is the attempt to go beyond the simple, banal vision is, perhaps, the idea of \u200b\u200ba look active against una visione passiva, acritica, distratta, superficiale, preconfezionata. La Nanoarte vuole sfidare, contrastare, mettere in crisi la dittatura dell’occhio e dell’immagine per proporre un diverso tipo di osservazione che non coinvolga l’occhio in prima istanza, o che non si riduca esclusivamente ad esso.
L’occhio, in fondo, non vede nulla. È il cervello che interpreta gli stimoli provenienti dall’occhio trasformandoli in immagini. Paradossalmente
Dimensione attuale , o la NanoArte, o l’arte invisibile, non sono la negazione ma l’
elogio , l’
esaltazione della visione, ma di una visione che liberatasi dal vincolo dell’occhio, può rediscovering the role of all that, over and beyond the eye, allows human beings to see
, and thus to understand
.
