I have always had the suspicion, progressively made more convincing and always more deeply-rooted by the verification of tests and theoretical pronounciations, that all the extraordinary experiments born from the womb of the proto “avant-garde’ of our century has not only in reality broken a secular line of “closed” iconplastic narration and not only put into a critical crisis – according to procedures that are now ambiguously and ironically “soft” – now brutally iconoclastic the representation of the real foundation on imitation, but – much more radically – sought-after, on the ruins for a sense that after much time had established a Sacred Custom, the possibility of a New Realism. No, be very careful, of another realism among many, or simply, of a realism – another, a realism autre, in order to take back a Lucky 70’s formula; as I rather believe, of a Global Realism, not restricted to the contrast-even hard in comparison the so-called “barrier of naturalism”, and instead engaged in the hypothesis and practice of another invention of the world which is finally without frontiers or obstacles, according to a strategy of a formal and technical freedom that could not question itself on the function of being aestetic for production (again) produced by pulsations, dreams needs and utopia that are not exhaustible, tenaciously laden with the future and yet signed by a determination of presence actively problematic in the dark hyrog iyphics of the present. On the inside of the visual ‘avant-garde” effectively – the constancy of figurative arts as convention to truth (obviously denied, when it is not violently erased by the context) has never been completely cancelled. Deprived yes, liquidated – not all. This simply is part of the dramatic and glorious story of the art of the 1900’s. However that need of Global Realism that in the “avant-garde” is – according to me – correctly centralised, and finished in the acceptance of a residue that is never really burned with recognisable life in the normous majority of their products. Then in the tension in a world and existence that is really alternative to the one in force: and, in short, in that which the late Aragon tried to define with his formula of conjectural realism “The aspirations of a free society, where politics and culture, idealogy and aesthetism act together have undergone once again a blow”, wrote Filiberto Menna in 1970 (The Rule and the Case, Ennesse Ed.). “Yet, these are and continue to be decisive moments for architects, for artists, intellectuals in general notwithstanding everything, the facts are put around again all the cards with extreme impartiality and with exhuberant imprudence”.
As is known, old Hume, as an honest empiricist, puts down novelty and facility at the base of comprehension and appreciation of works of art. Today, being subjected for a grade of enormous conformity and progressive lazyness (superficiality of information, mass-media centres engaged in the industry of widespread agreements etc.), the public hopes for aesthetic products whose facility however coarse and the novelty possess above all characters of extreme decipherability. From here, the lucid consideration of Dorfies (The Oscillation of Taste, Einaudi Ed. 1970) today more than ever is valid and more pertinently applicable to the heaps of thermal weight to artistic consumption: “We must (?) take into consideration that the human mind grazes in a enormous universe of signs and stimulations more sonorous than visual and generally, formal – and such stimulations, so much for those “disinterested’ attributed to the art that those utilities known to agents who are not considered usually as artist, have an efficiency on germination of those constant forms that always dominated the human activity, and from this then they pull the initial impulse of the different aesthetic manifestations”. It is a matter of elements of reflection that a sculptor like Enzo Carnebianca, engaged in holly uniting the rule and the chance no longer according to the surrealistic autonomist but to the interior of a grid where certain surrealistic stimuli are grasped to a pressing requirement of global realism, and it manages to incarnate in its daily practice of plastic arid figurative artistry. His dimension is that of violent asymmetry and of fierce deviation with codes of the most reassuring composure. To a world that is only capable of producing destruction, Carnebianca opposed the overturned and extremist idolatry of man’s story (and of his body in primis which arrived at his catastrophic epitome. Issues of pure advertisement denounced by means of a historical grammar of a dream that that became a pure nightmare, messages harshly contradictory and “depressing” in comparison to the advertising optimism of society, of shows and expenditure, bitter care on cannibalism and the “autofagia” or our world. The post-surrealism of Carnebianca unfolds itself on a code of opposition and of hard intractability, and the anguish that emanates from it punctually send back to the daily condition of man who is humiliated and oppressed, in a sort of plastic ontology of universal torture “poetry must have as an aim practical truth”, Lautréamont affirmed; and Breton (1935) wrote: “In the actual state of crisis in the middle-classes, from day to day more conscious of their own collapse, I believe that art of today must justify itself as a logical consequence of yesterday’s art and at the same time submit itself as often as possible to an activity of interpretation that might cause a disagreement to explode in the middle-class society”. It is clear that a statement of this kind puts into discussion even the sphere of the formal syntax.
In that capital text that is Surrealism and Painting, a leader of the movements writes; “A conception which is too strict in the imitation given as a scope of art, is at the origin of the grave misunderstanding that has gone away immortalising in to the end of our days. In the faith that man is unable only to reproduce with more or less happiness on the image that the touches, artists have shown themselves to be too conciliating in the choice of their models. The mistake made was to think that the model could only be taken from the outside world, or al-so that could have been taken. Certainly human sensibility can confer in the most vulgar object a distinction which is quite unexpected, however it is no less true that it is doing a bad use of magical power in the figuration of which certain people possess the gift, making use of it by the conservation and reinforcement of that which would already exist even without them”. It is a blow to the worn-out idolatry of the probable and, at the same time, a halt there to an expressive practice attempted by evasion. Something that, in the works of Carnebianca finds an answer of enormous freedom and great contemporary strength just in the throw-back that the sculptor puts into practice a utopia which is not contemplative but active and protagonistic, so much more necessary the more his images emit (send out) sadness, impotence and grief. These anthropomorphous idols in solemn positions these inched and polished fossils torn by violence, skinned and unfinished by mysterious horrors, destined to receive enigmatic clocks in their burden, fruit pendulums, or to present zoomorphous features (Seat with a Serpent; Elephant Man), or reduced to pure empty containers of labby skin (The Mutes), they expressed a world dominated by pressurem twisted by an unnatural and blind violation. So, the sense of blindness, of the incompleteness of the existence and of the stolen measure is above all that communicates the decisive expressionistic onnirism of Carnebianca. So if the glance of the sculptor is diachronic, going through the continents of myth and symbol, of remote history and foetal gathering, of the cosmic aspiration and sacral urgency, and then superbly capable of fixing oneself in compelling allegorical visionary of our times really in the strength of dynamic energy that makes you vibrate its impeccable volume of unaccustomed outbursts, of outstanding beakages and of revealing waits. The most attentive critics of Roman sculpture, from Vivaldi to Apuleo, from Civello to Beilezza, from Calabrese to Tallarico to Riviello, Selvaggi, Domenico Guzzi to Mercuri, have, above all, underlined it with the necessary punctuality. Vivaldi spoke in his time of Carnebianca as a born sculptor gifted with a “plasticism that was a very subtle and at the same time vigorous”. A sculpture, that of Carnebianca, in which he makes himself known as “a dimension in exact space, a penetrating modelling and with very flexible fines, an elegance of distillation that makes one think of liberty examples of a Wildt, a surrealistic symbol very originally worked out in cadences and rhythms of air and dance, without his drama having anything excessive”. Riviello had already spoken of a genetic line of his research, and Civello had insisted on the “force of impact that finishes with being the connective magma of alia realisations” nucleating the “aberrant surrealism” of the artist. The metaphor of a world that hatches in itself the serpent of its own damption (ruin) and its own clearing out (materially and sensibility) results in Carnebianca’s sculpture and in different but coherent measure in his picturial art, or in his most elegant and cruel jewels – a voyage of horros and nothing with a sort of geometric wonder along places where expectation and affliction live withoud meeting each other, crowded with ambushes (traps) and mysteries, restless presence. So, the works of this Roman artist is developed like a cosmological and unreal passage, high and ritualistic in a clot of atrociously torn and lost material. Therefore it is this richest ambiguity that expressionistic surrealism of Carnebianca conquers with bright formal security the mark of magic and ferocious poetry, and we hope with his ruthless beats they might establish themselves in a way that is impassive and implacable.

Accademia Platonica, maggio 1994
Mario Lunetta