06.06. – 20.06.
In the current work of Svilena Stefanova (1966, Sofia), the consequences of the decennial dialogue with the inheritance of European conceptualism and dilemmas that have emerged in the search for their artistic expression in the context of a sudden social change in Bulgaria after the fall of the Berlin Wall are visible clear. Today, this is a highly critical and still tragic painting artwork that has expounded a critical, often ironic dialogue with constant incentives or disruptions of free personal expression and social engagement, as significant effects of sincere dialogue with the total, and not only recent painting heritage. Stefanov is leading discussion within the boundaries of the media. With the tools, and the manner of their use, which will enable the composition of the direct quotations of the original bourgeois heritage (in style and the choice of the motif) to intertwine the old dilemma about the meaning of painting art that tormented and conceptualize. The only extreme he used to deal with the words in the paintings and some cases, the construction of objects and installations, are no substituted for painter tools and techniques for deceptive technological dentures.
With rising through the dialogue with an inheritance of conceptualism.
Texts beneath the painted objects are a frequent occurrence of the works of Silent Stefanova. These are some of the tautologies- what is already in front of the eyes as a show of objects on the canvas gets under the display and appointment. Or “parody of conceptual ideas” as Desislava Moneva observes (2016). On the other hand, this repeated fingerprint, as a doubling of the marker points to the aporia, as the other marked. Aporia has emerged as a necessary consequence from the achieved ideal of the self-sufficiency of the painting’s thinking. This ideal, precisely in the tautological principle of conceptual art, has one of its most impressive views. From the analysis of the skill (skill, skill) in which Stefanov works, one might argue that he is a follower of an integral humanistic narrative that does not separate the image experience from a social, aesthetic, metaphysical or pragmatic aspect of understanding the world. Especially this assertion could support the selection of things placed within the frames of his paintings. The selection is unrepresentative to the figures and motives of the classical understanding of the painting narrative. On the contrary, by the domination of things from ordinary life and the immediate environment and according to the manner of their plastic transformation, one can speak of the repentantly of the modernistic emancipation of similarity. The choices of painting styles, typical of the expressive freedom of painting in the 20th century, are a shortcut to which the presented things of the current human environment turn into plastic objects with the private status of the symbolism of super material meanings. In this sensitive area of performer transofrmation of obedience (things from the environment) into untouchability, Svilen Stefanov is aware of the danger of the fetishization of painting work. He is just a fetish substitute, a reality for the subject of faith, and a common and favorite target. The text in the painting that underlines the aporia in which the conceptual art infused entails the original use of a kind of painting seam.
Namely, the absurdity that carries the idea of an entirely autonomous creation of an (artistic) self-sufficient world, which the conceptualists have uncovered directly, can be understood only by insight into the whole reality in which this split occurs. As if Svilen Stefanov followed all the subtlety of Liotor’s observations on the irrevocability of schism (Le différend, 1983), which insists that we do not regard the whole as a final and unintelligible one. He returns all the objects displayed in his paintings as a newly produced artifact of a great emancipatory symbolism into the context of a new, meta artistic reality, precisely by writing the text below the display. In the dramaturgy of this compilation, the author most often serves as a skillful interweaving of a plastic experience and verbal warning, to clearly define the space in which he simultaneously exists both painting design and historical thought about him and the possibility of his understanding today. It must be said that way the author carries out a seam between the tradition of building a painting reality and the question of her competency for participation in the changing of the contemporary paradigm of the world derived equally from his painting, as much as the discursive experience. In fact, it appears as a fruitful outburst of humanistic heritage in the form of art.