Artistic taming of the symbolical sphere of life


The basic characteristic of Perdić’s artistic language is symbolic representation of paradoxicality of human existence. His artistic expression strives to strip the symbolics of what is represented in its expressive essence and offer insight into ambivalence of artistic perspective. Freed from redundant and needless his artistic depictions indicate the metaphysical rootedness of symbols. Thus conceptualized art aims to translate this tamed, denuded and artistically sobered sphere of reality into an area of forming new meanings.

 

The formal structure of Perdić’s paintings can be regarded as a semantically complete whole. Whether it is a fragmented depiction of a detail or an integral pointing to a context the roundedness and harmony of artistic perspective is evident.

 

In a sense, Perdić offers a foreboding rather than direct depiction, and precisely in that double play of the hidden and the visible lies the symbolical ambiguity of his paintings. Therefore, one could rightly argue that certain motifs of his work are conceptualized segments, fragmented paradigms, cut-off and contextualized meanings of that micro whole above all, striving to symbolically surpass the boundary from the real to the possible.

 

As an author of a diverse creative imagination Perdić is also greatly inclined to reinterpretations of canonical motifs in fine arts. His imagination calls for a learned interpretation and requires a space for establishing a dialogue, with the observer and the entire tradition of cultural and artistic legacy as well. Using symbolically determined abstraction he rethinks historically and culturally conditioned stereotypes of heritage and modernity. His work is in that sense thematically traditional but artistically distinctly expressive and contemporary, displaying that collective subconscious thrill and disappointment of a modern man in the manner of a psychoanalytical séance. By skillfully using symbols Perdić strives to rise above the clearly defined barriers of the real and the imaginary, determined to open new horizons of understanding and interpretation of meaning.

 

In spite of his artistic skill Perdić does not mimic aesthetically determined norms of expression. His means of artistic expression are flexible and consistent at the same time. In attempt to show what is hidden to the eye his thematic framework enters the semantic domain of the mental, tactile, philosophical, humane, edible, digestible, provocative and above all personal and congruous to his own calling. One might dare to say that before us we have an author minded to benevolent deception of senses in the purpose of questioning of the settled, commonly accepted mechanisms of visual consideration of tradition and modernity. In that sense Tino’s paintings are not intended for viewing but for visual pondering, and if our introductory assumption is correct the author in question is of serious and artistically dangerous intentions.

 

Alen Tomić