February 2012
The artist’s house, Moscow

Transcript: Vladimir Prokhorov
Initial editing: Oxana Voronina

Francisco Infante on Wikipedia
Photo Gallery
Early works of Francisco Infante on the «non-conformist» web site
Francisco Infante on the ART4RU museum web site

What was your first work in contemporary art?

I consider my first consciously geometric works to be my creative debut. I recall the work of 1962 — «The Birth of the Vertical». It still looks quite interesting to me. I had been studying the problem of infinity and while looking for metaphors for infinity, I came to geometry. The work consisted of a sequence of horizontal lines, the middle line was split in half, and two areas were located at both sides of this segment. Those were likewise divided. So there appeared a vertical tendency, which consisted of horizontal lines, but shorten as much as possible. I would consider it to be a good metaphor for expressing an awareness of a metaphysical aspect of a part of the world. I have always had an inclination for metaphysics and still respect it very much. It’s been fifty years since I made it, but I understand now that this was my first real work, which I’m not ashamed of as an artist.

What was the first work of contemporary art you saw?

It was around 1960 when I still was in Art school. One of my classmates told me about a foreign language library. It was on Razin Street near Red Square.. It was impossible to get there without a special pass but, the art school’s administration could get them under the pretext of needing them for the Department of the History of Western Art. I got the pass and began going the library. What I saw there stoked my imagination with foreign images from the beautiful glossy magazines that printed, from our point of view, such strange artworks. Western magazines and the quality of their printing were something amazing. I saw the work of two abstract artists: Hans Hartung and Pierre Soulages. I didn’t really understand their work, but I realized one thing: the presence of such art in these magazines proved its necessity. I made drawings of geometrically diminishing shapes: circles, squares, triangles and so on. Maybe it had something to do with this art being kept a secret. This gave me a context, a meaning, a context for the art’s significance and a motivation to continue doing what I was doing. You know when you are doing something completely alone and everything else around you is totally different, it’s hard to persist, you must have this phenomenal powers to do so. And I possess some strengths, I’ve got obstinacy and stubbornness. I tried to never betray my impulses, and if I was interested in something I tried to get results. But apparently even this wouldn’t have been enough if there would have been only Socialist Realism. And suddenly I saw a corridor to another culture, which made me very pleased.

I learned later about Malevich. Then, during 1962-1963, artists from the Czech Republic visited us. They introduced us to the art of Malevich, which we didn’t know, of course. He was a forbidden, closed out artist. I didn’t have access, for example, to the State Tretyakov Gallery’s storage, where you could see Malevich’s works. I was absolutely uncultured, I had zero cultural background. I was just an artist who only knew how to draw. But when I saw Malevich and his «white nothing», it astonished me. This white nohing — altered my own conception of the infinite. But, of course, Malevich’s symbols for infinity and mine were different. I engaged the infinite, using all kinds of designs, spirals, creating them for myself. Malevich however conceived of his infinite as a vacuum white nothing. As Tevel Shapiro, an associate of Vladimir Tatlin, quoting Malevich: «This white terror of the yellow Chinese dragon». He brings such a mystique to everything he does. Malevich’s awareness finds its roots in Chinese philosophy. I had no underlying philosophy or knowledge, nothing. I had only inspiration which I brought to geometry, spirals and so on.

What was your education?

I don’t even want to remember my teachers. What is taught at Art school generally was reduced to imitation. I felt uncomfortable when I had to do what I was taught because there was nothing else. I was bursting inside with my own views that did not match theirs.

But the point is that the teachers really didn’t care about teaching. The teachers were surely being watched by the authorities. I understood that they were rather afraid to challenge and push their pupils some of the knowledge that they possessed. We learned the Chistyakov System, that was very good in and of itself, but only for realistic art. I drew well but due to my weak interest in it, it felt forced to fulfill my duty to my school. It was imitation and that’s all. I imitated Repin the best. They were noble examples. Nobody raised their hands on Surikov, as no one could achieve anything like his level. Vrubel was an odd bird, hanging there in State Tretyakov Gallery, but it seemed like something even beyond realism, and we never talked about Vrubel at school. A lot of Wanderer’s were there too. They could seem talented by imitating his disciples and still enjoy all the benefits of the setting of international exhibitions and so on. But it was an imitation, crystal clear. Simulation does not suit me. I wanted to participate in the arts on my own terms. Therefore I cannot recall anyone who would help me from among my teachers but there is a boy that I can remember: Pasha (Pavel) Antonov, a hooligan at my school. He was expelled during second grade. The school kicked him out even though he was a phenomenal landscape painter. I wasn’t good at that. One day he’d quickly show me something, and then I’d have a frame of reference: how to paint it all in realistic terms. He was just a simple boy, only one year older than me, but he was very adult: very self-confident and independent. He fought with the teachers all the time, paint better than them, and because of this he was expelled. It ended badly for him.

My self-education started when I first visited the library of foreign languages. Somehow it naturally began to be a part of my life, and it went on and on and on. I was familiar with Alexei Borisovich Pevsner. He was the brother of two great artists: Naum Gabo and Antoine Pevsner He received all kinds of information from them in his house. There I saw all these foliates, artists’ retrospective exhibitions catalogues and so on. This is where I saw purely, for the first time, all the artists that I would be interested in, or all the artists I’m interested in general. These artists, such as Malevich and the Russian avant-garde constructivist, Lissitzky. Proun. By the way, I didn’t really like Proun, but I did really like Malevich’s Suprematism. And, of course, Mondrian. I liked him more than the others.
So far these are my idols, when looking at them I can only shrug and say — geniuses....

What should the viewer know to understand your works?

If it is art, then it has some unfathomable power over the human mind. It means that art gets into the mind, and a person consciously or unconsciously processes it. It is important this person understand or not the art in front of him .This synthesis takes place in the mind. Nobody can tell it what art is and what is not. In this sense , everyone, even the uneducated , a culturally ignorant and others may see art an equitable way.

What artist do you carry on a dialogue with?

In general, one could say many or with anyone. Our culture in «Officialism» was very autonomous; there were not a lot of artists. This was a community of artists reduced to this isolation, and brought together, not for ideological reasons but rather because of their existence. The fact is if you are rejected and if I’m rejected we meet each other, we can talk about art, in an everyday language without dogmas, falseness and so on. It pulls together. But at this level, it could not determine the depth of relationships of course. Within the non-conformism that I am categorized there are few artists I really like. I make different art than they do. To be honest, and without false modesty, I consider myself more advanced in terms of relevance to current artistic problems. This is not that important, because, ultimately, this quality does not give relevance and depth to understanding the meaning that the artist is trying to bring to their art or to the language he speaks. Finally, I mean there is no one I like among those I’m grouped with. I would say that to me modern Russian art — I mean only visual artists is not pleasant.

And what about other artists?

Take poets like Vsevolod Nekrasov, who has unfortunately already passed away. I’m not afraid to say: I think he was a genius. His genius, as it seems to me, is concentrated in the absolute and organic chemistry of his words, with the sensual deep loop contained therein. So my acquaintance with Seva’s poems and his critical texts impressed me very strongly.

Who interest you among contemporary foreign artists?

In Russia, most of the time, there is nothing that is not also in the West. Except such phenomena as the brilliant poet Vsevolod Nekrasov, who I have already talked about, of course. All the «isms» had already taken place in the West. We had a closed society; we lived behind the Iron Curtain. The information we had, well, what little we got, wasn’t truly normal in reality. It was artificial. There was a poor spiritual life. We had gotten Kineticism from the West. I remember how me and my comrades from the Commonwealth would say: «It would be nice if our design could move like that.» Just move, without any kineticism. But it wasn’t adequately perceived — it was only a word resounding in space, which — like a sparrow — eventually flew away. When Kineticism appeared in the West, we began to use techno-mechanical movement for our own things. The word «Kineticism» was brought here during summer 1964 by Dusan Konecny, an art historian from the Czech Republic. At the end of 1964 was the exhibition called «Towards a Synthesis of the Arts» where there were three of our kinetic designs: The first one was mine, the second was Stepanov’s, and the third was Nusberg’s. That’s how it all began. Next, we delved further into dealing with kinetic art. A certain dimension of our own emerged, quite a peculiar one, of course, but nevertheless it was following the lead of Western Culture.

What is the prevailing theme of your art?

I was tired of kinetic art classes, and I thought that I should return to myself. I shouldn’t make any artificial environment for the good of humanity, which is what I’d tried to do before. The lessons of the infinite that I have tried to integrate into my art led me to realize that infinity has a radical and positive nature.
The geometry of the Cantor...

That was Euclid’s geometric. Hyperbolic geometry made of twisted and curved space contrasting with Cantor’s Geometry which invoked infinity. It had infinite and multiple various strengths. I realized that I invented the wheel, but due to the fact that I was not a mathematician but an artist, this bike wasn’t pointless. I was creating metaphors and these metaphors really existed. I believe in knowledge that I can see in the world from my own perspective. You see, the artist has a place here. When you reach that place you say: I get it And there is something that you really see when the totality of your own presence is in this world. This totality can’t last long. It always takes place in an instant, an artefact, atmosphere that you have created for yourself like I have. An artefact takes place suddenly, instantaneously.

In general, I think: Why am tackling with infinity/the infinite? Nature is filled with it .Nature is one infinity to which we belong and will belong. There exists a second nature; it is the nature of technical products and technology.

I thought it was interesting to mentally conceive communications technology. This relationship between conscience, nature, and technology was something structural Art is always an act of symbolism. Symbolism is important: nature has this divinely infinite characteristic and technology has the artificial.

When did you learn about Land Art, which had developed abroad?

I am not a mystic and I don’t understand mysticism at all but at the same time I think that people can feel some vibrations. I didn’t know Robert Smithson. The first artist working in space that I learned from was Christo. I saw his albums and so on. I liked it all, except for one thing: he employed a very specific concept, which was to pack everything.

But in these packages, most of them paranoid movements, I’ve seen some very interesting things. First of all, I really liked when he packed Islands.
Because it was beautiful, grandiose and remarkable. I probably received support because of them. Then there was such a painter as Hein Mack from Zero group From what I know, they were doing things outdoors. I also know after them was Robert Smithson, who was the first one to use mirrors in nature.

But I did it entirely by myself and I had different sources/influences. I shared with him that same concept of artefact. I gave them the name «Artefact». When I began to think to think about the word artefact, I was working as a freelance artist in the publishing house called " WORLD" ( Mir) and was designing Clifford Simak’s book called «The goblin Reservation» There was a sort of a tale with dragons and artefacts as a symbol of mystery, certainly from old Persian origins. Ancient Persians had a black stele that would suddenly appear and disappear. When its presence was discovered, there were all sort of miracles. Moreover, not evolutionarily and discrete miracles. It looks like the artefact form. It seems that this world arose complex feelings within me. And then my foreign friends, seeing myinterest in this area, began to bring me books from abroad with any relevant information. When I saw Robert Smithson’s work, it was just like a revelation for me, because this artist was doing the same thing. I saw a kind of similitude. Like Smithson, I worked with spirals. Of course, we were different. Robert Smithson was using water, dirt, and stones, while I was only drawing. The principle of spirals, with different shapes , seemed to be really interesting .Then I also know a little bit about Richard Long whousing Scottish landscapes, and doing installations. This was all very interesting and the library of foreign languages created a context that didn’t make me feel alone. This culture was already there.

Is there an element of utopia in your work?

There is no utopia, because utopia is a stupid thing. It pretends that it is possible to fulfill it. For example, when I was building my project «The Reconstruction of the Firmament», it was crystal clear that I dealt with a pure concept. There was no desire to rebuild the world of stars according to some new ideal. I didn’t attempt to take up changing the world. I dealt with it at a conceptual level just by showing that the world could be like my consciousness in this particular case.
That’s all. This is not utopia. It is just a concept. There was no such word as «conceptualism.» I had this process in mind when we went in 1963 with Nonna to the Caucasus where I saw the stellar sky.

I had an idea — to create a sky made of geometric symbols. Well, because the idea was absurd, I put it aside, then in 1965 I carried it out and did more than a hundred such projects like that. They were interesting and later all of this strangely fit into my conceptual view.
It is important for artist to do what he wants to do inherently...

You know, as it is written in the Bible, it was only after God created the world that He realized it was good. He created it in 7 days — which is good. He understood: it is good. The same with the artist. He can make something, and then culture, by catching up with his level, begins to think whether it’s good and can be addressed in some kind of terminology — «conceptual art», for instance. That’s fine. Because the artist did something, he has no control over what other people could do with his work. This is good as well. They can see meanings that the artist didn’t feel himself or maybe that he didn’t feet consciously. It happens.

Are there artists who you’d consider your antagonists?

I’m trying to lift myself up on both legs in order to adopt a vertical posture, a spiritual elevation. I apologize for this terminology. Because, you know, even in the Gospel, it is said that «Born of the flesh is flesh, the spiritual ascent in itself. ». You cannot consider yourself a person only based on having parents who birthed you. That is not enough. You also be born in the Spirit, but it’s not an easy thing. When a human grows with the spirit, he is a real human and that is all. But if he didn’t grow up with spirit, then he is, I’m sorry walking all fours. This ascent is very important for humans. And when some artist such as Ilya Kabakov Begin to testify to art as a dump or to the death of art, then I’m not close to them. I think this is profane. In that sense, I think this art is more ideological.Ideology and art are different things. Ideology only spoils art. Therefore, I’m not with modern cultural studies. I do not take myself for an artist.I repeat: art, for me, is one of the most important of those pillars that are able to lift a man up onto his two feet, forcing him to take a vertical position. But if the artist starts to destroy that, everything will come down to cynicism, to the dump.
One says «Art is not of personality, but of taste» But if that character turns art into a finite substance there can be no art after it’s been defined. This character only feeds off of other people’s efforts. He is only a character. He is emulating. It can’t be art. The only option is to die. Nothing else left. It is false, false, sophistical, and there is no place for this in my work, this logic doesn’t suit me.

What is your attitude toward religion?

I believe in God, and I am Orthodox. I think that it is a terrific achievement of human creativity, when God came to this world and when he gave his only begotten son to people to show them the true state of things.

Can you call your art religious?

I don’t think so. I don’t think any art is religious. Moreover, I believe that the Church, as a religious institution, cannot be competent in the arts. Art, I mean, is a self-developing field. Religion is independent of our strategies, and it is independent of representations of one or another institute and its dogmas. Art is a self-developed system and it is impossible to predetermine as it will lead itself further. Therefore I do not like the ideology which asserts: «Only such art exists! Kabakov is art. Here it is art, yes. And this isn’t».

What are your political views?

There are none. I’ve always avoid politics like the devil. Well, you know, art and politics are completely different areas of the human activity. Pathos is actually a stupid thing. Only stupid people can give pathos. Why pathos? It is a thing divorced from reality, which is very similar to a sentiment. The same as a sentiment, in fact. Sentimentality — well, what’s remarkable about it at all? Nothing can be held within it, and there is nothing good to be had from it. By the way, politicians are very often sentimental. Therefore, they extol a false humanism. Marx & Lenin harbored a lot of sentimentality against humanity, against people. It is already bad enough that I know the artists who were doing sentimental humanism and considered it the highest degree of their achievements. Why? Because it was a false humanism. What is falsity? Any relationship that an atheist would have with another would be selfish. That is it’s, in principle, inhuman. And if the relationship is not human, and you proclaim the humanity, then there’s something wrong. So this is something false, very false. For example, a society of justice is principally based on false humanism. But a religious man does not need it.
There is another example— man of God, and he is not reachable. He is infinite, because He is God, and we are only simple humans. In this tendency itself and top humanism, signs consist, because this man of God preached, performed miracles and did no wrong in life, but only positive and wonderful .

What impact does technical progress have on your art?

Well, I talked about kinetic art. Mechanical and technical elements started to be applied. I was a young man, energetic.
To me space exploration was something remarkable.

What art movement do you belong to? How do you identify this movement?

For me those artistic movements have no value. For a long time to me art has been the ability of a person to imagine himself precisely as a person.

Do you have followers?

I know a perfect example of follower but it is an odd one. Nona and I are frequently invited to Japan. They really like our art there. A young man from Japan got carried away by our art and began to create something similar. It was very nice that thousands of miles away we have followers. This state of affairs makes me glad. If they steal my art and say that it is their property — that doesn’t make me feel glad. But generally it makes me glad.

What do you need to work?

Well, my health, first of all, and the completeness of my own presence. But this is something that won’t be there just because I wish it to be. Many things must coincide to bring forth such completeness. But I’m sure that without this completeness one can’t make art. That’s why only a liar alleges that he can be successful in creating art at all times. It doesn’t happen like this at all. It doesn’t spring up with a wish. For two reasons I won’t say that everything I do is related to art. First, it is none of my business to judge if what I do is even art, and secondly, because I know that the presence of fulfillment is marked by moments, which are the moments caused by the presence of artefacts. I let the people judge my work. Many things must coincide to make completeness arrive and I think this is what you have to understand. It is hard for a painter to get to know himself and an artist can rarely know if he is good or bad. It is necessary to resign oneself, and to possess the courage to understand the fact that it will come only after the ending of our lives, through the consciousness of those people that will say that it was. So, I can say nothing about myself.