The present exhibition by Eduard Moreno uses a very peculiar term as an entry word. It is the verb to terrify. I would like to talk to you about this word. "Aterrar" has to do with burying, with grounding, with contacting the earth. To a certain extent, to put pole to ground has to do with to land. I also think that terrifying has a lot to do with territorializing, a term used by Deleuze and Guattari, as a call to anchor oneself to the earth, to recognize oneself in the territory, to locate oneself. To terrify has a connection with the idea of rooting, of putting down roots.
In turn, the other term that Eduard puts into operation is the word horizon. In this regard, I would like to comment on three or four things that for me are fundamental. For some theorists, the horizon is part of that spatial organization of the given, called landscape. It orders, from a visual regime and therefore, incorporeal, that which it looks at. The landscape genre, like all pictorial genres, has a formulaic grammar, constructed through conventions. In the landscape, the observer sees from afar a territory divided by the horizon line, which by the way, is nonexistent, between an above and a below, that is, by a spatial and aerial zone and by a material and organic one. The former expands upwards and towards the bottom, the latter downwards and forwards. In the different landscape traditions, the height at which the horizon line is placed offers very different results and semiotic consequences. If the horizon line is high, all importance is given to the terrain represented; if it is placed in the middle of the composition, as in the early landscapes of Hendrick Goltzius, a harmonious and calm image is obtained; if the line is low, most of the composition is occupied by ethereal elements, the atmosphere, the clouds.
The horizon, on the other hand, is abundantly used metaphorically. Perhaps the most frequent sense would relate it to a certain compression of the future, of promise, which from today is gradually configuring what is to come. Therefore, the notion of horizon, in this case, orders time and links it to a certain idea of progress in which, on the horizon line, there is the desirable, that on which expectations are placed, but, also, there may remain the unattainable with which capitalism plays so much. In the famous work of Francisco Antonio Cano, "Horizons", which has interested us so much, a kind of mythical image of colonization and progress is expressed, tied to a land to be exploited. In this work, the image-myth of the horizon can be seen working under an extractivist and anthropocentric wake. The horizon, thus, is part of a symbolic form of domination of the territory, objectifying, disembodied, aestheticizing.
In this way, terrifying the horizon would have to do with disobeying the convention of the landscape, understanding the horizon in a new way, disordering the whole compositional and ideological system. It would suppose to think the horizon from the corporal, from the specific, from a situated body, connected with the senses and the affections. Perhaps, to terrify the horizon would have to do with a performative gesture, from which the gesture of looking into the distance would be replaced by looking down, towards the detail of what is under the feet or, also, closing the eyes to allow oneself to feel part of the territory with all the senses. I see in the phrase "To terrify the horizon", then, the search for gestures that desublimate something that has been idealized, to, instead, try to put it in contact with the organic world, with the world of humus, with the seed, with life and death, with the diverse existence of things, of beings.
Now, Eduard has been delving into the practices of pagamento, so alive in many of our ancestral cultures. Pagamento, from this perspective, has to do with thanking the territory, with ritually returning to it what it has generously offered. Pagamento is linked to the need to honor the earth, understanding it as a force, as an entity with which living beings relate. For this reason, in this exhibition the witness of the pagamento and certainly, the trace of the ritual event is made expressive. In the development of this, Eduard uses words, like the ones we have been elaborating to understand differently, from another place, from another logic. Thus, he rolls up the word, chews it, brings it and carries it, ruminates and elaborates it. The word, thus rolled up, nests in the ground, and in that transe, the word also terrifies and navels itself, merges and re-melts with the territory. I explain this last idea. In a large number of rural, indigenous and peasant communities, the navel of a newborn is buried in a significant place for the community. Sometimes, a tree is planted there, which, throughout its life, will have deep connections with that human being with whom it is connected from the most intimate, through the navel, through the center of the coordinates of life. Hence the idea of being naveled with the territory, of being part of it from the deepest part.
Ana María Lozano