Fabrício Lopez

From the artist’s own words, the work may seem to be a uto­pi­an pro­po­sal, invol­ving a ran­ge of issu­es both inter­nal and exter­nal to the aesthe­tic domain, so lar­ge that it would har­dly have effec­ti­ve groun­ding in an exhi­bi­ti­on hall, espe­ci­ally in our cur­rent envi­ron­ment. Its gene­sis con­tem­pla­tes mari­ti­me and ter­res­tri­al iti­ne­ra­ri­es, the use of public spa­ces in the artist’s home­town (San­tos, SP), rese­ar­ch into spe­ci­fic mate­ri­als for the unu­su­al use of a tra­di­ti­o­nal tech­ni­que, pho­to­graphic and writ­ten records, the expli­cit­ness of the means used in the making of the works – also with “didac­tic” objec­ti­ves –, the cre­a­ti­on of an ima­gery that advan­ces a mythi­cal dimen­si­on of a cer­tain Bra­zi­li­an regi­on… Fabrí­cio Lopez’s work con­sists in the use of a tech­ni­que usu­ally asso­ci­a­ted with the small sca­le – the wood­cut –, in dimen­si­ons that can be mis­ta­kenly com­pa­red to Mexi­can mura­lism or to the abs­tract expres­si­o­nism of the Uni­ted Sta­tes. He con­tem­pla­tes the com­plex con­di­ti­ons of its dis­cur­si­ve gene­sis without being paraly­zed by the fear that it demands a the­o­re­ti­cal sup­port that, befo­re any result, safe­guards the artist from the con­di­ti­on of the anony­mity of tho­se who “spend” an “aesthe­tic poten­ti­a­lity” in the stre­ets, spraying and pain­ting idi­osyn­cra­si­es in public pla­ces, from a spe­ci­fic mate­ri­al, of the­mes that are at times lite­ral and at others com­ple­tely schi­zoph­re­nic. In con­trast, this “incon­se­quen­ti­a­lity” is seen as pro­of that it is pos­si­ble if ide­a­lism is gra­du­ally sus­tai­ned, even in the midst of dis­pa­ra­te, ambi­ti­ous, almost mega­lo­ma­ni­a­cal, but prag­ma­ti­cally exploi­ted sti­mu­li. From the sim­plest, dual aspects, to the most intri­ca­te. The hardwo­od matrix and the paper. The black and whi­te, light and sha­dow; the “raw” and inci­si­ve engra­ving com­po­sed with a “pure” color. The ges­tu­re that finds its crys­tal­li­za­ti­on in the pre­ca­ri­ous­ness of the ins­tru­ment that engra­ves the plywo­od, almost unsui­ta­ble to the refi­ne­ments of that tech­ni­que – seems inci­si­ve, somewhat vio­lent in the deli­ne­a­ti­on of figu­res, but also spon­ta­ne­ous and unpre­ten­ti­ous in the com­po­si­ti­on of abs­tract ele­ments, of an eva­nes­cent chro­ma­ti­cism. The abs­tract mas­ses coe­xist with pho­to­graphic struc­tu­res and a few wri­tings in a game of inci­si­ve pre­sen­ce and loss of refe­ren­ti­a­lity. The figu­re con­su­med by the mass “of natu­re”, the frank mate­ri­a­lity of the works, their visu­al qua­lity laun­ching them to a mythi­cal level that we can no lon­ger neglect. A sim­ple demons­tra­ti­on against the announ­ced ban­kruptcy of an enti­re culture.