Copy of the detail from the Cave of Altamira, 1984, Graphic, 21,0 x 29,7cm, FILOART
At the very entrance of the hall of the presentation This is not an Exhibition but the Opposite of it!, a copy of one of the oldest saved drawings of the human kind was placed – a detail of the bull from the Altamira cave. The original drawing was made around 16.000 years BC.
Isn’t it a little bit absurd, to start a “Contemporary Art Exhi- bition” with a cave drawing of some anonymous stone-age painter, which has been copied on paper?
A drawing which could have been made by an elementary school child! Why would somebody make such a copy when we know that the original is painted on the wall of the cave? Why exhibit this work at all?
From the very first work of the presentation This is not an Exhi- bition but the Opposite of it! visitors have to deal with the main topics: What is copying? What is a copy useful for? What value does the copy have? Is a copy a distributor of knowledge? Does the copy pass basic ideas of the original work or does it also have other messages?
If we make a drawing of the detail of the cave drawing (which
in fact, looks very abstract), then this drawing can be called a realistic drawing or a realistic copy. But is it the same to make a copy of the cave drawing and a copy of an abstract work?
For example 18.000 years later, the work of a man (Juan Miro) who lived in the same area as the stone-age man, surrounded by similar animals and similar conflict situations (bullfighting), makes a similar looking work (“The Bullfight”). This work (“The Bullfight”) is an abstract work. But what happens, when you copy an abstract work*? Is that a realistic copy or an abstract copy or an abstract work? How do you call that? The question follows: what is the meaning of copying abstract art?