In this essay I will investigate the Italian movement ‘Arte Povera’ which occurred from the late 1960s to the 1970s. I am going to prove the connection between Marcel Duchamp, the Dada movement and Arte Povera and why they are all connected. I will also research into what this movement was aimed to achieved why it was created. I will investigate two pieces of work then talk about my own opinion of this movement. Arte Povera was considered a contemporary art style inspired by the unconventional artworks of Piero Manzoni. The reason Arte Povera movement started was because artist wanted to create a reaction against of the abstract paintings that dominated art in the period.
Arte povera was a radical Italian art movement from the late 1960s. The movement focused on a group of young, anti-elitist artists who were determined to break away from the status quo of the mainstream art world. The artists explored a range of unconventional processes and non-traditional such as everyday materials such as chairs or old clothes. Arte povera translates to ‘poor art’ but the word poor here refers to the movement’s exploration of a range of materials beyond the traditional ones of paint, pencils and statues. It was not a fixed, unsympathetic movement, it would have been very contradictory to its views on society to construct a set of codes. My top 3 artists included in the art movement would have to be Alighiero Boetti, Giulio Paolini and Michelangelo Pistoletto as there works shows so much symbolism like in Pistoletto’s ‘Venus of rags’P1 he uses second hand rags to pile in front of a traditional roman statue. Many artists will find this work strange and maybe even not art as they do not use ‘traditional’ materials however there is clear symbolism in this movement saying that anything you find or own could be created into art and become famous one day. Some of the key artists that showed this includes Giovanni Anselmo, Mario Merz, Gianni Piacentino and Alberto Burri. My favourite artists out of all the artists would be Pistoletto as I feel I can understand his work clearly and he shows the clear meaning of Arte Provera. I feel like I can connect with this movement the most as it shows how easy you can make art with both expensive and random materials.
Francesco Bonami created an exhibition focusing on Italian art including Arte Povera. He wanted to correct with his new exhibition as Arte Povera is widely considered the most significant movement to happen in Italy. It would have made great starting points, yet we come at it about midway through. This movement was a rejection of the very techniques and media that put Italy on the cultural map centuries ago which would have caused many people to be upset according to many critics towards this movement. The reason Bonami picked 1968 as his starting point was because of three reasons. One was because it was during the founding of Arte Povera. Another was the tragic earthquake that hit Sicily that same year which in turn ruined many homes leaving 100,000 homeless and at least 231, possibly even 400, dead. Finally, it was also due to the young Italian stance against the then-escalating Vietnam war as during the Vietnam War, Italy only recognized South Vietnam as it is aligned to the West. There are still some contemporary artists following in the footsteps of the Arte Povera main artists while others embraced but also made fun of Italy’s art history. I can see why some artists make fun of Italy’s art history as Arte Povera did almost the same to the art traditional materials from centuries ago, but it is good to embrace it as there are many things to learn from this movement such as minimalist art work and how anything can be used to make art. Michelangelo Pistoletto said ‘it became a movement. In fact, I believe that arte povera was the last true movement. Since then all artists have been individuals.’
I personally believe that this art movement shaped many pieces or work as Arte Povera, while often ignored, cleared the way for much of today’s conceptual work. This movement can be seen in some of other movements such as Mono-Ha, a Japanese movement of the mid 1960s. This movement gained international recognition, and through its association with arte povera, mono-ha came to be widely respected as a movement that was critically engaged.
Two pieces of work I am comparing would be Michelangelo Pistolettos ‘Venus Of Rags’ and Alighiero Boettis ‘Game Plan’P2. Pistolettos ‘Venus Of Rags’ is possible the most noticeable work that came from Arte Povera however Boettis ‘Game Plan’ is not as widely known but still is very noticeable. In my opinon I like both pieces of work however I think Pistolettos work has a deeper meaning compared to Boettis work as ‘Venus Of Rags’ shows a classic statue turned to a pile of old and used clothes which clearly shows the rebellion of the artists involved in Arte Povera as they almost defeated the meaning of the classical statue used in Venus Of Rags. Boettis ‘Game Plan’ however is just normal everyday materials such as wood put in to stacks and placed in the shape of a circle. Yes, it shows the rebellion, but I personally think the meaning of the movement could have been shown better however his work did engage with the world political situation of his time. His travels to places such as Ethiopia, Guatemala and Afghanistan greatly influenced his work during this time.
Here i will compare Arte Povera to the Dada movement. In many articles that mention Arte Povera will most likely also mention Dada as they are considered similar due to the theme and meaning behind the two movements. Arte Povera can be a movement that can fit into both international art history, given its similarities to Dada, US minimalism and Japan’s Mono-ha movement, as well as political history closer to home. One of the key artists in the Dada movement, Marcel Duchamp, could have inspired Manzoni’s ‘Artist’s Shit’P3 as it is named to be a reprise of the famous avant-garde provocations as Marcel Duchamp’s presentation of a urinal as a work of art, in FountainP4 (1917). Arte Povera however, focuses less on the aspect of war and more on how they could break away from traditional art materials whereas Dada was formed during the First World War in Zurich and in turn created a negative reaction to the horrors of the war which the artists show in their artwork. Both movements had an impact, to some extent, on the artwork that is produced today.
Overall, I believe that this movement was successful as they easily signify the meaning of this movement and why it was created as they were able to change many things about art such as what materials can be used and why its ok to use everyday objects such as chairs or old clothes. I think that they were able to show many sides of this movement and in many unique ways as well as no two pieces were the same and some had no connection to each other in the way they used the objects to create art. In my opinion I really like this movement as it shows anything can be art no matter what other people think as they continued to create art like this and leave a huge impact on the rest of the art world especially conceptual art and many artists out there however this art movement mocked most of Italians oldest artwork which does leave a negative impact on many people and on me slightly. Another reason I really enjoyed this movement was because some of the artwork was really pleasing to the eye and it left a positive impact on me as I could understand the meaning of the artwork and how it was created. In conclusion I enjoyed this movement and it left me knowing more about the history of art.