VERSIÓN INGLESA ENGLISH VERSION - Fundación César Manrique

10. Ibídem, No. 16, p. 46. He never tired of condemning
progress and nationalism as two ideological currents in the
modern world whose consequences were particularly
pernicious and unwanted: “Arrogantly, man has always
wanted to impose his system on others through borders,
flags, nationalities, religions, political systems, armed forces,
mental superstructures and many more social and political
formulas which have nothing at all to do with the
elementary, biological principles governing nature. They have
chained the human race to an uncertain destiny, incapable of
making us imagine a future of happiness” (No. 37, p. 58).
human reference nearly always has an ethical and political meaning. These planes of meaning never
interested César Manrique, at least as a subject of his painting. In his oeuvre, primary significance
appears to lie on the biological or biogenetic plane. What interested him was the origin of life in all
its forms; so the frequent critical emphasis on the interpretation of these figures as fossil remains is,
in my view, completely erroneous; because what they actually proclaim is the beginning of life, not
death. They are embryos, not fossils.
The cosmos has its flags. Does it need them? César Manrique believed so, because that would
mean the abolishment forever of the false differences that prompt people to follow the patriotic flags
of human societies into bloody combat, which is always fratricidal; or to raise those flags, guided by
Baudelaire’s “baneful beacon of progress”, paying no heed to the damage caused to nature and
invoking the imperative to increase the wealth of nations. “The creation of flags, borders, anthems,
religions and political organisations has contributed to the progressive paralysis of any sane, peaceful
effort of human coexistence” 10 . The only fatherland is the cosmos, he appears to say. And that is what
he fought for. That was his idea of a “good combat”: the struggle for life.
From that perspective it might be concluded that painting was no more than a means for him.
But this was not the case, because his idea of painting implied the defence of nature; so any distinction
between ends and means is futile. This holistic view enabled him to sort out the contradictions arising
when the two domains are attributed instrumental value: painting is neither a means to define nature,
nor is nature a mere pretext to engage in painting. Painting and nature are one and the same thing.
For César Manrique, the opposition between organic and constructive is equivalent to the
opposition between life and reason. We must let life flow. The secret order of the cosmos must not
be altered. This is what César Manrique meant when he pitted the wisdom that governs the acts of
nature against the idiocy and haughtiness of reason. The instrumentalisation of painting (as a means to
defend nature) does not fit into his scheme, nor does a functional view of nature as a means to
nourish the artist’s imagination.
The recurrent reference to these biogenetic concepts is a fitting explanation for César
Manrique’s creative process and his constant obsession with the cosmic dimension of life. When he
199