At the base of mount Velino, in a small center, Rosciolo, where the smell of burned wood reigns in winter Enzo Carnebianca works. His studio looking over a valley, is a sort of workshop in which finished works dialogue with the unfinished ones and, amongst these, a grand circular structure who’s iron soul suggests the development to come. The studio of a sculptor, but Carnebianca is also a painter and designer of jewellery: painting, sculpture and jewels announce, within the variety of their means, the existence of only one language. We were saying that the studio of a sculptor possesses a unique charm, considering the fact that it is a place of research and creative inventive but also a place of handywork outside of which one doesn’t do sculpture. Hence in the untidy tidiness of the ambient, the works show themselves in their essential quality of interlocution. In the logic of reminiscence and sedimentation of proceeding solutions, matured in the conviction that memory always plays a fundamental role, insured against a reality interpreted live. It is within this space that the sculptor knowingly orchestrates his own images, allowing himself to be dictated by passions and moods, doubts and decisions. All this of course is a problematic outcome.
There is no doubt that Carnebianca’s nature draws him towards a consolidated surrealism. It becomes obvious through the formal solutions but, above all, through insertions, in those prevailing and seemingly anthropomorphic images, of significant and explicit details. How can one not think of some of Dalí’s inventions for example: drawers opening on foreheads and on the chests of the subjects: how can one not think about other authors when one is confronted with monstrous mechanisms? How can one not think, and it is purely conceptual surrealism, to be in front of androgens that, surely, do not live on the planet Earth, but in substantially different dimensions where everything, like the azure-green backdrops of the paintings witness, is atmosphere?
But historical memory is, even for Carnebianca, a result of sculptural matter, so clean and smooth, without obvious smudges, so much that upon passing the palm of the hand over those bronzes one only feels a surface beyond which one perceives the palpitating construction, although restrained, of a body. This means that Carnebianca’s artistic capability, in his own way rooted in history, make him meditate on the present; from which, at the end, he takes his distance.
During 1994, a year that has been particularly intense for Enzo Carnebianca, four of his anthological exhibits have been put on display: in Rome, Celano, Pescara, and finally this one in L’Aquila. This could mean that he has reached a “critical” stage and therefor he intended, in the most articulate fashion, to recapitulate the sense and dimension of his own path, considering his art direction experience for feature films at the end of the Sixties, thus having in front of him, in an ordered fashion, all that his creativity has yielded in more than thirty years. The outcome is, as much iconographic as the other specific elements, offered in a substantial linguistic unity. However, this does not mean that he has not had his own natural evolution all within their own dimension. We want to assert that the sculptor has not been taken by the legitimate fears of reiteration. It is not, as the title and the evidence of a work such as “La pelle” (92, strictly influenced by Magritte), that he has “come out of his skin”. Within it he has conducted his figurative analysis that in our judgement have resulted both mature and convincing. Four great exhibitions that have obviously allowed the same number of critics, writers and poets (Dario Bellezza, Giorgio di Genova, Mario Lunetta and mysem to go back over his “walk” offering a first historical cross-section. Therefore to reach the end of the fortuitous exhibitive cycle, means for the person writing this note, to have plainly before us the fundamental movements of the sculptor. It is said, of his possible influences, his intents, his orientations that need to be briefly assessed, that on one side the memory and historical memory, for which its cosmos seems to develop along the arc that implies apparent moments of contradiction but in no way in collision: particular attention trained on the quality of the “interpreted real” merged as we said, for matter that is nearly at the extreme of an ideal range. On the other a narrating motivation that is contemplated in an emblematic fashion that fuels mystery. We believe that, beyond and together with what was previously observed, a space for furthering the logic behind Carnebianca’s sculpture has been left to the fourth interpreter of Enzo Carnebianca’s sculpture.
Roma, ottobre 1994