Lucijan Bratuš Risbe, listi iz skicirk, akvareli, keramika Elektronska knjižna zbirka $ e–71 Urednika zbirke Gorazd Kocijancic in Vid Snoj Lucijan Bratuš Risbe, listi iz skicirk, akvareli, keramika Izbor del 1970–2021 Spremni besedili Gorazd Kocijancic in Jožef Muhovic Prevod v anglešcino Tanja Cigoj in Jon Hatfull Slike, fotografije in oblikovanje elektronske izdaje Lucijan Bratuš Izdajatelj $ Za kud Logos Mateja Komel Snoj Ljubljana 2021 Elektronska izdaja e–71 Elektronski vir (pdf, epub) Nacin dostopa (url): http://www.kud-logos.si/e-knjige/ Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani COBISS.SI-ID 79135235 ISBN 978-961-7096-94-1 (ePUB) ISBN 978-961-7096-95-8 (PDF) Knjižna zbirkaArs $ 02 Gorazd Kocijancic Ce je tvoje oko cisto … – 4 If your eye is pure … – 7 Jožef Muhovic Lucijan Bratuš – risar nad samotnim breznom – 10 Lucijan Bratuš – drawer above the lonely abyss – 20 Risbe – 30 Listi iz skicirk – 48 Akvareli – 80 Keramika – 98 Lucijan Bratuš Biografija, razstave in bibliografija – 116 Gorazd Kocijancic Ce je tvoje oko cisto … V svoji pronicljivi analizi propada evropske kulture, resignirano naslovljeni »Kako smo izgubili Zahod« (How the West was lost, 2006) Alexander Boot ob raz­misleku o modernisticni umetnosti ugotavlja: »Za­hodni clovek je to, kar je bil, navsezadnje postal na­tanko zaradi svoje zmožnosti osredotociti se na bistvo stvari, ne na njihovo zunanjo lupino. Nic napacnega ni zatorej v razširjanju meja tonalnosti ali harmonije, nic takega, cemur bi lahko ugovarjali, se ne nahaja v razbijanju in ponovnem sestavljanju naravnih oblik v konstitutivne elemente – dokler za vsemi temi eks­panzijami, razbijanji in ponovnimi sestavitvami pac ni izgubljen sam smisel umetnosti. Izvoren in posled­nji smisel zahodne umetnosti je namrec v tem, da se izrazi duša zahodnega cloveka, da se prek nje zatrdi, da ta duša obstaja – in da zato obstaja Bog. Dejstvo, da se je na zacetku dvajsetega stoletja ta smisel bodisi izgubil ali pa je bil vsaj suspendiran, je imelo nasledke, ki so bili dosti širši od umetnosti – in so jih naredili ocitne topovi Verduna in Ypresa.« (str. 243) Na zacetku enaindvajsetega stoletja so – ob bobne­nju novih orožij – sledi tega boja za dušo paradoksno opazne ravno v delih umetnikov, ki se navezujejo na modernisticno revolucijo, a so jih nove umetniške prakse in tehnologije postavile v vlogo »konservativ­cev«. Lucijan Bratuš sodi med te sodobne donkihote. Slike na sploh lahko govorijo o tem, kar smo videli na svojih poteh ali nam je bilo izroceno – ali pa o Nicu vid(e)nega, o drugosti, ki privlaci in plaši vsake­ga popotnika. In vendar vedno govorijo predvsem o slikarjevem „pogledu“. O pogledu duše, ki je ves svet – in zato njen pogled pomeni zmožnost razbiranja nevidnih oblik. Bratuševe gra.ke razkrivajo boga­stvo notranjih možnosti nekega zrenja. Vanj vstopa celota sveta. Vse, kar privlaci slikarjevo oko, bitja in notranje prikazni v vsej svoji nedolocenosti in mno­gopomenskosti. Umetnik temu prihajanju sledi ne­pretenciozno, brez pretvarjanja, da sporoca kakršen koli dokoncen uvid v skrivnost bivanja ali odgovor na poslednja vprašanja, a vendar z izrazito odlocnostjo, s šcepcem pretanjenega humorja in kaligrafske non­šalantnosti. Prav izkustvo kaligrafa je odlocilno tudi za Bratuša kot gra.ka: v svojih stvaritvah nikoli ne pozablja ti­socletne verige skrivnostnih upredmetenj cloveškega duha, porojenih iz napetosti med nujo simbola in svobodnostjo simboliziranja, med nepredvidljivim vi­denjem kaligrafske ustvarjalnosti in neizprosnostjo izrocila, med obiljem pomenljivega in jedkostjo racio­nalizacije. Lepo–pis, priklicevanje lepote s pomocjo nepredvidljivih krasitev in zaobrnitev pisave, zanj na­mrec ni le frivolno poigravanje z možnostmi zapisa, ujetnica potrebe in poljubnosti, ampak ob–likujoc odziv na skrivnostno, izmikajoce se samorazkrivanje Absolutnega, socloveka in sveta. Kaligrafsko oblikova­nje, igra s premenami, prelivanji in prehajanji raznih crk zapisu odvzame njegovo samorazumljivost – in obenem problematizira pomensko izpraznjenost »ci­ste« podobe v gra.ki. Likovna igra nas nepojmovno vodi do skrivnosti Besede. Logosa, ki je obenem arhe­tipska Podoba. Bratušu pri tem ne gre za uvajanje v kakršno koli esoteriko, temvec za podobe, ki jih pozna vsakdo, za srecanja, ki so v globini istovetna z nami samimi. Pred nas, ki nam ni dobro, ce bivamo sami, zato seveda stopa predvsem uzrta skrivnost socloveka: obraz deklice in oblicje moža, golo telo ženske. Celo Bratuševi demoni niso perzijsko–poznojudovska ali novozavezna sfera duhovnega zla, temvec prej grške sile vmesnosti med božanskim in cloveškim, arhaicni daímones; prek njih in v njih se vidni svet raztaplja v plesu prepletenih arhetipov, nravno ambivalentnih, zapeljivih in razigranih, divjih in le vcasih nevarnih. V cem je ob tej neprikriti svetnosti pravzaprav „reševa­nje duše“ v tej gra.cni umetnosti? Paradoksno prav v zadržanosti, v sramežljivosti umetnikovega pogleda. Z osebno pisavo, kaligrafsko stilizacijo lastnega obzorja, umetnik dopušca vstopanje vsega v njegovi drugosti. Obcuteni mysterium tremendum et fascinans – skrivnost, ki zbuja strah, a nas obenem privlaci – vodi pogled k stiku s predmetnostjo na drugi ravni. Vecpomenskost videnega igrivo usmerja k poslednji vedrini, ki ni vec njegova stvar. Morda je to „preprosto oko“ evangeljske prilike: pogled, zaradi katerega ves telesni svet posta­ja „svetal“. In vendar prav skromna nezaupljivost do „teurgicno“ prevrednotene umetnosti navsezadnje, skozi tancice vseh svetov, sramežljivo dvigne pogled h Križanemu in Vstalemu. In tedaj lahko – nazaj, skozi omahujoce, sramežljivo pogledovanje, skozi vztraj­no, trmasto ponavljanje potez – spoznamo Strukturo, ki kljub vsemu nosi vse Lucijanove „svetne“ like v njihovi navidezni breztemeljnosti in razpetosti nad praznino. Preprosto oko v svoji izraziti o–sebnosti od­kriva Božjo agápe v globini vsega. In izpricuje dušo, ki ostaja, najsi to hocemo ali ne. Gorazd Kocijancic If your eye is pure … Alexander Boot in his sharp analysis of the decline of European culture, resignedly titled ‘How the West was Lost’ (2006), in his pondering on the art of mo­dernity claims the following: »Westman, after all, became what he was preci­sely because of his ability to concentrate on the es­sence of things rather than their outer shell. There is nothing wrong in expanding the limits of tonality or harmony, nothing objectionable in dissecting and rearranging physical shapes into constituent elements — provided that the purpose of art is not lost behind all those expansions, dissections and rearrangements. The original and ultimate purpose of Western art was to express Westman’s soul, stating that it exists and therefore God exists. That by the beginning of the twentieth century this purpose had been either lost or put on hold conveyed implications that went much broader than art, implications made clear by the guns of Verdun and Ypres.’ (p. 243) The traces of this battle for the soul are, at the beginning of the twenty–.rst century — alongside the booming of new weapons — paradoxically noticeable precisely in the work of artists who are tied to the modernist revolution, yet the new art practices and technology have placed them in the role of ‘conserva­tives’. Lucijan Bratuš belongs amongst these contem­porary Don Quixotes. Paintings can generally talk about what we have seen on our paths or was presented to us – or about the Nothingness of the visible / seen, about the other­ness that attracts and intimidates every traveller. Yet still they talk mainly about the painter’s ‘vision’, about a vision of the soul, which is the whole wor­ld — and that is why this vision means the ability to comprehend invisible forms. Bratuš’s prints unveil the riches of the inner possibilities of perception; into it the whole of the world enters, everything that at­tracts the painter’s eye, beings and inner apparitions in all their uncertainty and multiple meanings. The artist follows this intrusion without any pretentious belief that he can express the ultimate cognition of the mystery of being or answer the .nal questions, yet with a distinctive determination, with a pinch of subtle humour and calligraphic nonchalance. Precisely the experience of the calligrapher is de­cisive for Bratuš as a printmaker too: in his creations he never forgets the thousand–year–old chain of my­sterious objecti.cations of the human spirit, born from tensions between the necessity of the symbol and freedom to symbolise, between the unpredictable vision of calligraphic creativity and the inexhorability of tradition, between the abundance of signi.cance and the causticity of rationalisation. ‘Beautiful hand– writing’, the summoning of beauty with the help of unpredictable adornings and invertions of writing is, to him, not just a frivolous play with the possibilities of the written record, not just captive to the necessary and the arbitrary, but a form–giving response to the mysterious, elusive self–disclosure of the Absolute, fellow man and the world. The calligraphic design, playing with alternations, iridescences and traverses of various letters, takes from the written record its self– understanding – and at the same time problematises the semantic emptiness of the ‘pure’ image in prints. The .ne art game leads us non–notionally into the mystery of the Word; of the Logos that is at the same time archetypical Image. It is not about an in­troduction into any kind of esoterics for Bratuš, but about images that everybody knows, about the enco­unters that are in the depths identical with ourselves. Therefore to us, who are not well if we are alone, the visible mystery of our fellow man is revealed: the face of a young girl and visage of a man, the naked body of a woman. Bratuš’s demons do not belong to Late–Persian Jewish or the New Testament sphe­re of spiritual evil, but are rather Greek powers of the intermediator between the divine and human, archaic daímones; across them and in them the visual world dissolves into the dance of the interwoven ar­chetypes, morally ambivalent, charming and playful, wild and only now and then dangerous. With such unconcealed worldliness, where actually is a ‘salvation of the soul’ within this printmaking? Paradoxically, precisely in the restraint, the modesty of the artist’s vision. The artist allows, with his personal writing, calligraphic stylization of his own horizon, the All in its otherness to enter. A perceived mysterium tremen­dum et fascinans — mystery that rouses fear and at­tracts us at the same time — leads the vision into con­tact with the subjectivity on another level. Multiple meanings of the observed playfully direct to a .nal serenity, which is not its concern anymore. Maybe this ‘simple eye’ is of the gospel’s parable: a vision for which the whole of the material world is becoming ‘full of light’. And yet precisely this modest mistrust in the ‘theurgic’ revalued art after all, through the veils of all worlds, modestly rises to the vision of the Cruci.ed and Resurrected. And then — backwards, through the wavering, modestly reviewed, through the persisting, obstinate repetition of strokes — we can recognize the Structure, which carries all Bratuš’s ‘worldly’ .gures in their apparent groundlessness and spreading above the vacuum. The simple eye in its distinctive sense–of–self discovers God’s agápe in the depth of everything. And testi.es the soul that stays, whether we want it or not. Jožef Muhovic Lucijan Bratuš – risar nad samotnim breznom Sprašujem se: Kako se pokaže ustvarjalnost Lucijana Bratuša, ce nanjo pogledamo skozi instrument duha, ki mu pravimo risba? V kakšne okolišcine oblikujoce­ga uma, v kakšen predstavni milje, v kakšno oddalje­nost od znanega pripusti ta odlocitev naš pogled? Ker so odgovori v precejšnji meri odvisni od instrumenta in ker je ta instrument sprico impliciranega rokodel­stva v novomedijski eri postal sumljiv, si za zacetek v zgošceni obliki predocimo njegove performánce in njegov domet. * * * Tam, kjer se nevidnemu najprej zahoce ogledati v zrcalu vidnega, vidnemu v zrcalu bistvenega in ne­izrekljivemu v srcnem utripu prostorske sledi – tam je vselej mesto risbe. Risba je medij prehajanja in ro­jevanja: prehajanja od slutenega k prezentnemu in rojevanja v svet na nacin prihajanja v jezik (da pojav najprej poimenujem povsem splošno). Pravzaprav je risba diagram tega prehajanja in drama te znakotvor­ne majevtike. Risba je seme imaginacije. Risba je seme, ki vzkali. Vse lahko napravimo s semenom, lahko ga zalivamo, ogrevamo, gnojimo …, le tega ne moremo, da bi ga umetno izdelali. V tem pogledu nosi risba kot instrument duha na sebi od nekdaj nekaj prvinskega in unikatnega pa tudi nekaj eksplozivnega in kom­pleksnega. Kot bi racunala z dvojnim državljanstvom cloveka in od njega zahtevala tako nezaslišanost kot mero, tako ekstazo kot konstrukcijo. Ker risarske poteze — na primer v krokiju in skici — praviloma še niso zadržane s premislekom, tehniko, smotrom ali narocilom, se lahko v njih izrazijo naj­bolj necenzurirane pa tudi najbolj avtenticne umet­nikove slutnje, pogledi in vizije. Hegel v svoji Estetiki trdi, da pride v rocni risbi umetnikov duh neposredno v spretnost njegove roke in lahko ipso facto izrazi vse, kar je v njem, v njegovih zavestnih, podzavestnih in predzavestnih podkontinentih. Zato ne cudi, ce risbo spontano razumemo kot sredstvo, s katerim je mogo­ce vstopiti v skrajno prvinske in intimne okolišcine oblikujocega duha. Prav kakor ne cudi, da ob njeni impulzivnosti in igrivosti enako spontano pozablja­mo, da pravzaprav vsakokrat znova privre iz pogleda na strašljivo crno luknjo brezoblicnega, neznanega in neartikuliranega. Kot posledica in izraz dogajanj, ki jo pogojujejo, obraca risba proti nam najprej lice hitrega in koncen­triranega impulza, ki ga je — in kakor ga je — sposo­ben zabeležiti necenzurirani in nere.ektirani um ek­spresije, medtem ko s konico svincnika kljubuje valu brezoblicnosti, ki ga skuša s svojo nezmerno gravita­cijo povleci nazaj v amorfno. Ta afektivni in v bistvu re–aktivni vidik pa skriva pod gladino še neko bolj diskretno in predvsem bolj aktivno plat. Namrec to, ki povzroci, da risarska akcija ni le topi seizmogram umetnikovega trepeta ob srecanju z brezoblicnim, ampak katalizator tega soocenja. Katalizator tega, kar je umetnik v temnem osrcju ciklona neizrazitosti tan­kocutno ugrabil kot pobudo, namig, obris in izziv za artikulacijo. Pred risarsko akcijo in neodvisno od nje obstaja vsebina kot brezkonturna slutnja, kot nejasna, a mocno obcutena regulativnost, torej v nerazvitem stanju. Razvije in precizira se šele v procesu risarske artikulacije, brez katere bi je v tej razviti obliki sploh ne bilo. Z drugimi besedami: risba je arena, v kateri se, s Czeslavom Miloszem receno, impulzivno razvija »neimenovana potreba po redu, ritmu in obliki, teh treh stvarnostih, ki se zoperstavljajo kaosu in nicu« ... in pridobiva tajni pomen projekta, s katerim clovek spreminja samega sebe in svet, v katerem živi. Risba je fundament umetnikovega delovanja. Vse, kar ustvari na katerem koli drugem podrocju (v slikar­stvu, gra.ki, kiparstvu, oblikovanju), je na tak ali dru­gacen nacin izšlo iz nje in je z njo povezano. Plejade zarisov v skicirkah so Lovrencove solze oblikotvornih idej, ki se utrinjajo izpod temnega .rmamenta nearti­kuliranega. Mnoge bodo za vedno ostale v njih, roje­ne in odrasle v svojo abreviirano crtno .ziognomijo. Iz mnogih pa se bodo razprla nova otvarjanja sveta, porodila nova dramatica predocenja, ki v bližini epi­centra neartikuliranega preigravajo potenciale clove­kovega »samoprocesiranja« v prostoru in casu, da bi v njihovi novorojeni morfologiji mi, konkretni ljudje lahko odkrivali predstavne sfere, v katerih se nam je mogoce zadrževati z verodostojnimi motivi. * * * Ce pogledamo v predsobo odlocilne zadeve, torej proti najzgodnješim dokumentiranim zacetkom Bra­tuševe likovne ustvarjalnosti, ne cudi, da na njenih stenah kraljujejo risbe, saj se v likovni umetnosti, kot receno, z njimi skoraj brez izjem zacenja vse bistveno in vse novo. Bolj preseneti to, kar se nezgrešljivo svet­lika iz oblikovnega dna te zacetniške risarske morfo­logije: namrec za to stopnjo presenetljiva suverenost v duktusu, ki je nesporen odsvit naravne predispozi­cije (sliki 1a, b), in presenetljivo konsistentna notranja »arhitektura« oblik, ki je posledica zgodnje in dobre likovne izobrazbe. Na eni strani spontana nastavi­tev gest pobude, obcutka, eksperimenta in odpiranja, ki spadajo k talentu, na drugi geste institucionalne ojacitve, ki želijo poskrbeti, da bo talent zavarovan z zašcitnimi ukrepi vodenja in treninga, in bo skozi obo­je pridobil permanentno kondicijo konstruktivnosti. Matrica kontrapunktiranja ekspresije in konstrukcije, igrivosti in discipline, ki se spontano prikazuje iz prve 1a samopredstavitve male poetike Bratuševega likovne­ga sveta, je znamenje, v katerem se bo v tem svetu zmagovalo. Na Akademijo za likovno umetnost v Ljubljani je Bratuš v šolskem letu 1967/1968 prišel s solidnim predznanjem in polno torbo entuziazma. Prevratni elan »leta oseminšetdeset«, ki je iz Francije kot is­kra preskocil na drugo stran železne zavese in jo raz­burkal, ni mogel niti malo zmotiti njegove želje po poglabljanju epistemike, ki izravnava pot umetnosti. Bolj od politicne razviharjenosti družbenega prostora ga je v tem casu — deloma zaradi mladostnega idealiz­ma, v katerem je imela umetnost absolutno prednost, deloma zaradi politicne neizkušenosti — pritegovala površinsko– in globinskostrukturna razviharjenost prozaicnega naravnega prostora in oblik v njem. Dolgotrajno pozorno opazovanje oblik v prostoru je namrec, v popolnem nasprotju s prozaiko izhodišc, vodilo do izrazito neprozaicnih spoznanj: do razkri­vanja oblikovno–prostorskega »nacina biti« stvari in pojavov, do spoznanj, ki jih je bilo mogoce neposre­dno veri.cirati v uspehu risarske artikulacije, in z ve­liko .eksibilnosti uporabiti pri artikulaciji poljubne 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b 3c 3d motivne morfologije (slike 2a, b, c). Znanja, ki jih je Bratuš v akademijskih zacetkih osvajal, niso bila nova, ... bila pa so njegova; namrec: osvojena z duhom in telesom. Ker likovna inteligenca najpoprej ni teore­ticna postavka, zavezana brezmadežni virtualnosti lebdenja v neuresnicenem, temvec kvaliteta ravnanja in proizvajanja, mora ne le skozi šolo predavanj in seminarjev, ampak predvsem skozi šolo »izkušanja na lastni koži«. Kalí se v ozracju dotika in konfrontacije s stvarmi, saj oblike, v katerih zares za nekaj gre, arti­kuliramo v dvoboju in obcutenju; kalí se ob trcenju s situacijami, v katerih je potrebno lastnemu dosežku nasproti postaviti alternativo; kalí se avtodidakticno, ko smo sami z deli velikih predhodnikov, ki so pred nami razpirali oblikotvornost in svet. Vse te prvoosebne kalítve pa prinašajo s seboj ipso facto izzive, ki ustvarjalcu ne pustijo spati: naravno željo po suverenem in drznem preseganju lastnih preteklih rešitev, (slike 3a, b, c, d), prizadevanje za uporabo minimuma sredstev za maksimum ucinka (slika 4), iskanje nestandardnih pogledov na znane motive (slike 5a, b, c, d, e) in slo po cedalje bolj izvir­nih in neuhojenih poteh (slike 6a, b, c), ki sprva pona­vadi išce oporo v identi.kaciji z delom oblikotvorno in nazorsko sorodnih ustvarjalcev, ki so svoj prodor v neznano kronali s prepricljivo morfološko invencijo. Ko o tem govorim ob delu Lucijana Bratuša, lahko brez sleherne sence nad samosvojostjo njegovega opusa, omenim tri imena velikih — ime Marija Preg­lja (slika 7), Henrija Moora (sliki 8a, b) in Francisa Bacona (sliki 9a, b). Drugi, negativni vidik iskanja lastnih in neuho­jenih poti pa je seveda dejstvo, da nas z vseh strani obdajajo tuje oblike in oblikotvorne rešitve, ki jih vsr­kavamo s kulturo, in se vpletajo v naš individualni pogled, um in akcijo. V kulturi od povsod korakajo oblike, obkoljujejo nas s svojimi zasedenimi pomeni in zašcitenimi avtorstvi, postavljajo se pokonci, srkajo našo pozornost in s svojim plazom ogrožajo rojstvo novuma. Ta vidik terja od avtorja sistem razumnega odpovedovanja in disciplino ponižnega vztrajanja pri svojem. Ce si v tej luci pogledamo risarski, slikarski in gra.cni opus Lucijana Bratuša, lahko pri vseh treh ugotovimo, da je Bratuš avtor, ki zna izrazito dobro slalomirati med gestami zgledovanja in gestami od­povedovanja, med gestami kulturne inspiracije in ge­stami zvestobe lastnim potem, med gestami, ki vodijo v svetove drugih, in gestami, ki vodijo v samoto. Zato njegovim artikulacijam ne vrtinec aktualizma ne vr­tinec robinzonstva, ki bi lahko bila usodna za njiho­vo poietsko potenco, ne prideta do živega. Bratuš je, skratka, mojster ravnovesja, kar pa ne pomeni mojster kompromisa. Kompromis med tujim in lastnim, med ekspresijo in mero proizvede vselej — neizrazitost. Pre­prosto zato, ker je zmes dveh sestavin in zato slabitev obeh: tujemu jemlje poezijo ponižnosti in lastnemu poezijo ponosa, ekspresiji jemlje poezijo obvladanosti in meri poezijo invencije. Bratuševa ustvarjalna devi­za tako ni mešanje stvari in srednja mera, ampak trk oziroma kontrapunktiranje nasprotij. Morda najboljši dokaz za to je dejstvo, brez omem­be katerega bi bilo porocilo o Bratuševem ustvarjanju sploh podobno življenjepisu Krištofa Kolumba brez omembe Amerike. Gre za dejstvo, da Bratušev risarski opus že iz akademijskih let oscilira med .guralnim in kaligrafskim motivom. Figuralni motiv je po nara­vi zavezan oblikovnim standardom, zakonitim pro­porcem in trdni konstrukciji, vendar v ustvarjalnem miljeju izkazuje stalno intenco po ekspresiji, osvobo­jenosti, subjektivnosti in transformaciji. Kaligra.ja je po naravi stvar ekspresije, akcije, razigranosti in subjektivnega, vendar v miljeju likovne ustvarjalno­sti izkazuje stalno intenco k oblikovnim standardom, zakoniti proporcioniranosti in konstrukciji. V Bratu­ševi ustvarjalnosti se oba vidika dopolnjujeta. Figu­ralna risba s kaligrafsko potezo pridobiva dinamiko, karakter in avtorsko identiteto (slika 10), kaligrafske artikulacije s .guralno izkušnjo trdno konstrukcijo in mero (slika 11). S tem pa, ko je Bratuš rešil težavo, kako združiti nasprotji .guralnega in kaligrafskega (od katerih se nobenemu ni bil voljan odreci), je isto­casno rešil tudi težavo, kako v svoji umetnosti trajno porociti poezijo unikatnosti in poezijo mere, to je univerzalnosti. To pa, tudi ce se uresnici enkrat sam­krat, ni majhna stvar. * * * Bratuš stoji z obema nogama v svetu. Vendar, kot vsi ustvarjalci, z risalom v roki sklonjen nad samotno brezno amorfnega. Brez besed zazrt v prepade nav­zdol in navzgor. Zdi se, kakor bi zaprl oci, da bi poku­kal v še neopaženi svet in videl neizrekljivo v njegovi oblikotvorni odprtosti, v njegovem velicastju. In bi potem ... tvegal krhki zaris vidnega. Zaris, ki nam go­vori o necem, cemur je bil izpostavljen avtor, preden se je sam lahko izpostavil v potezi. Jožef Muhovic Lucijan Bratuš – drawer above the lonely abyss I ask myself: how does the creativity of Lucijan Bratuš appear if we look at it through an instrument of the spirit which we call a drawing? Into what intellect– shaping circumstances, into what representing milieu, into what kind of distance from the known, the reso­lution admits our gaze? Because the answers depend to a considerable degree upon the instrument and since this instrument became, in the presence of im­plicated handicraft, suspect in the new–media era, let us .rst demonstrate to ourselves in a condensed form its performance and range. * * * There, where the invisible .rst longs to view it­self in the mirror of the visible, visible in the mir­ror of the essential, and indescribable in the heart­beat of the spacial trace — there is always the place of the drawing. A drawing is a medium of passing over and of birth: passing over from a premonition of the present and being born into the world by way of coming into a language (to .rst name the phe­nomenon entirely generally). A drawing is actually a diagram of this passing over and a drama of these mark–creative maieutics. A drawing is a seed of im­agination. A drawing is a sprouting seed. We can do anything with a seed, we can water it, warm it, ma­nure it …, we just cannot make it arti.cially. In this respect the drawing, as an instrument of the spirit; from olden times bearing in itself something primal and unique and also something explosive and com­lex; as if it would reckon on a double citizenship of the man, demanding outrageousness of him as well as moderation, a rapture as well as construction. Because the drawing strokes — for instance in a croquis or in a sketch — are not as a rule yet restrained by re.ection, technique, aim or an order, the most uncensored and also the most authentic of artist’s premonitions, views and visions can be expressed. Hegel, in his Aesthetics, asserts that in a handmade drawing an artist’s spirit comes directly through the skilfulness of his hand, and it can ipso facto express everything which is in him, in his conscious, subcon­scious and pre–conscious sub–continents. Therefore it is no wonder that we spontaneously comprehend the drawing as a means through which can be entered the extremely primal and intimate circumstances of a forming spirit. It is no wonder also that at its im­pulsiveness and playfulness we equally spontaneously forget that every time it actually gushes out afresh from the view onto the fearful black hole of shape­lessness, the unknown and the non–articulated. As a consequence and expression of an event, which creates the conditions for it, the drawing .rst turns towards us the cheek of a quick and concen­trated impulse, which is — and in the way it does — the uncensured and non–re.ective mind of expression ca­pable of registering, while, with the point of the pen­cil, it confronts a wave of shapelessness, which tries with its own immoderate gravitation to pull it back into the amorphous. Yet this affective, and in essence re–active, point of view hides under a smooth surface a certain more discrete and above all more active side. In other words, that which causes the drawing action is not just the blunt seismograph of an artist’s trem­bling at an encounter with the shapelessness, but a catalyst of this confrontation — a catalyst of when an artist, in the dark bowels of a cyclone of unexpres­siveness, is abducted by sensibility as an initiative, a hint, an outline and a challenge to his articulation. The contents exist as an ill de.ned anticipation, as a dim yet strongly perceptible regulation, therefore in a rudimentary state, before the drawing action and independently of it. It develops and de.nes itself only in the process of the drawing’s articulation, without which it would not exist in this developed form at all. In other words: drawing is an arena in which, as Czeslav Milosz puts it, impulsion develops »an un­named need for order, rhythm and form; these three realities, which resist the chaos and nothingness« … and acquires the secret meaning of the project with which a man changes himself and the world in which he lives. A drawing is a foundation of the artist’s activity. Everything he creates in any other .eld (in painting, print making, sculpture, design), is derived from it, in one way or another, and is connected with it. Pleiades of outlines in sketchbooks are the ‘Lawrence’s tears’ of form–creative ideas, which .icker beneath the dark .rmament of the unarticulated. Lots of them will stay for ever inside, born and raised in their abbreviation– like physiognomy of line. Fresh openings to the world will be drawn from many of them; new dramatic con­ceptions will be born, which in the nearness of the epicentre of the unarticulated re–plays the potentials of human ‘self–processing’ in space and time, so we concrete people might discover spheres of the concep­tions in their new–born morphology, and in which we can dwell upon credible motifs. * * * If we look into the ante–room of decisive matters, thus towards the earliest documented beginnings of Bratuš’s .ne art creativity, it is not surprising that on the wall drawings reign, since in Fine Art, as stated, with them (almost without exception) everything essential and everything new starts. What surprises more is (hard to miss as it gleams from the formal base of the drawing morphology of this beginner) a surprising sovereignity in ductus for this level, which is the undisputed re.ection of a natural predisposi­tion (pictures 1a, b), and an astonishingly consistent inner ‘architecture’ of form, which is the consequence of a good .ne art education. On one side there is the spontaneous engagement of gestures of initiative, sen­sation, experiment and opening, which belong to the talent, on the other the gestures of the institutional strengthener, which wants to take care that talent will be assured by the protective measures of lead­ing and training and it will, through both, acquire a permanent condition of constructiveness. The matrix of counter–puncturing of expression and construc­tion, playfulness and discipline, which spontaneously reveals itself from the .rst self–representation of the .ne art world of Bratuš’s poetics, is a sign of a winner in this world. Bratuš entered the Academy for Fine Arts in Ljub­ljana in the school year 1967/1968 with a solid prior knowledge, and a bag full of enthusiasm. The revo­lutionary spirit of ‘the year of sixty–eight’, which jumped as a spark from France to the other side of the iron curtain and stirred it, could not even slight­ly disturb his desire to deepen the epistemic, which straightens the path of art. More than the political storm of the social arena, in that time he was – partly because of youthful idealism, in which art has an ab­solute priority, partly because of political inexperi­ence – attracted by the surface– and depth–structure storm of prozaic natural space and forms within it. A lasting attentive observation of forms in space is thus, in total contradiction with the prosaic nature of the starting–points, a guide to the distinctly un– prozaic cognitions: to the disclosure of the formal– spacial ‘way of being’ of things and phenomena, to the cognitions which were possible to directly verify in the success of the drawing articulation and, with a lot of .exibility, use them with articulation of an arbitrary motif morphology. (pictures 2a, b, c). The knowledge which Bratuš gained at his academic beginnings were not new … but they were his; i.e: gained by mind and body. Since a .ne art intelligence is not a theoretical item at .rst, obliged to immacu­late virtuality of .oating in the un–executed, but the quality of treatment and production, it needs to go not only through the school of lectures and semi­nars, but mainly through the school of ‘learning .rst hand’. It tempers within the atmosphere of touch and confrontation with things, since the forms in which something really counts, we articulate by duel and perception; it tempers in the clashing of situations in which the alternative should be placed in the face of one’s own achievement .rst; it tempers auto–di­dactically, when we are alone with the work of the great precursors, who have represented before us the form–creativeness and the world. Yet all these .rst–person temperings bring with them ipso facto challenges, which do not allow the creator to sleep: the natural desire for the sovereign and daring exceeding of somebody’s own past solu­tions (pictures 3a, b, c, d), aspiration to the use of the minimum of means for maximum effect (cf. pic­ture 4), searching for non–standard visions of known motifs (pictures 5a, b, c, d, e) and the lust for more and more original and non–beaten tracks (pictures 6a, b, c), which at .rst usually look for support in identi.cation with the work of the creators of similar form–creativness and points of view, who crowned their breakthrough into the unknown with a cogent morphological invention. When I talk about this re­garding the work of Lucijan Bratuš, I can, without casting any shadow upon his opus, mention three names of the great — the name of Marij Pregelj (pic­ture 7), Henry Moore (pictures 8a, b) and Francis Bacon (pictures 9a, b). The second, negative point of view of the search of one’s own and non–beaten tracks is of course the fact that we are surrounded from all directions by strange forms and form–creat­ing solutions which we absorb through culture and they intertwine with our individual vision, mind and action. Within our culture forms are marching from everywhere, they encircle us with their occupied meanings and protected authorships, they rise up, sap our attention with their avalanche threatening the birth of the novum. This aspect demands from an author a system of reasonable self–denial and the dis­cipline of humble persistance with one’s own. If we observe Lucijan Bratuš’s drawing, painting and print–making opus in this light we can, for all three of them establish that Bratuš is an author who can ‘slalom’ remarkably well between the gestures of emulation and gestures of self–denial, between ges­tures of cultural inspirations and gestures of devotion to one’s own track, between gestures that lead into worlds of others and gestures which lead to solitude. Therefore neither a whirl of actualism nor a whirl of the ‘Robinson Crusoe life’, away from civilisation, which could be fatal for their poiets potency, can harm his articulations. Bratuš is, in short, the mas­ter of balance, yet which does not mean a master of compromise. A compromise between the foreign and one’s own, between an expression and measure al­ways produces – unexpressiveness. Simply because it is a mixture of two components and consequently a decline in both: it takes from the foreign a poetry of humility and from one’s own a poetry of pride, from expression the poetry of control and measure the po­etry of invention. Bratuš’s creative motto is therefore to not mix things in half measures but a collision or counter–puncture of contrasts. Maybe the best proof of this is a fact, without which any mention of Bratuš’s creativity would be similar to Cristopher Columbus’s biography without a mention of America. It is the fact that Bratuš’s draw­9a ing opus, even from his school years at the Academy, oscilates between .gurative and calligra.c motifs. The .gurative motif is by nature tied up with formal standards, legal proportions and solid construction, however within the creative milieu it demonstrates a consistent intention of expression, liberation, sub­ jectivity and transformation. Calligraphy is by na­ ture a matter of expression, action, playfulness and subjectivity, yet in the milieu of .ne art creativity it demonstrates a consistent intention for formal stand­ ards, legal proportionality and construction. Both viewpoints supplement Bratuš’s creativity. Figurative drawing with calligra.c strokes acquires a dynamic, character and an authorial identity (cf. for instance 10) and calligra.c articulations with a .gurative ex­perience acquire a solid construction and measure (picture 11). With that, when Bratuš solved the prob­lem of how to combine the contrast of the .gurative and calligra.c (he was not willing to give up either of them), he simultaneously solved the dif.culty in his art of how to permanently marry the poetry of uniqueness and the poetry of measure, that is uni­versality. And this, even if realised only once, is no small thing. * * * Bratuš stands with both legs in the world yet, as for all creators with drawing–pen in hand, he is bowed above the lonely abyss of the amorphous. Speechless, he views the abysses upwards and down­wards. It seems like he would close his eyes to peer into a yet unseen world and see the indescribable in its form–creative openness, in its magni.cence. And he would later risk a fragile sketch of the visible; a sketch which tells us about something to which the author was exposed before he himself alone could expose it to the stroke. Risbe Izbor del 1970 –1986 Listi iz skicirk Izbor del 1970 –2021 Akvareli Izbor del 1970 –2021 Keramika Izbor del 1979–1983 Lucijan Bratuš akad. slikar in gra.k Rojen 16. februarja 1949 v Vipavi. Osnovno šolo je obiskovalv Vipavi, nato se je vpisal na Šolo za oblikovanje v Ljubljani. Je­seni 1967 je bil sprejet na Akademijo za likovno umetnost v Lju­bljani in leta 1971 diplomiral na oddelku za slikarstvo (ProfesorjiNikolaj Omersa, Maksim Sedej). Nadaljeval je študij in leta 1973koncal specialko za gra.ko pri prof. Marjanu Pogacniku. Od leta1974 do 1995 je imel status samostojnega kulturnega delavca.V pedagoški proces na aluo ul je bil aktivno vkljucen od leta 1987 (najprej kot zunanji sodelavec, od leta 1995 pa kot rednozaposleni). Leta 2001 je bil izvoljen v naziv izredni profesor inleta 2007 je postal redni profesor za podrocje vizualnih komu­nikacij. Kot gostujoci profesor je sodeloval s tujimi akademijamiv okviru programa ceepus (Cluj, Skopje, Krakov, Zagreb). Leta1997 je zacel s tipografsko delavnico za študente Tipo Brda. Ukvarja se s slikarstvom, umetniško gra.ko, kaligra.jo, gra­.cnim oblikovanjem in teorijo likovne umetnosti. Tipografski in oblikovalski opus obsega oblikovanje novih crkovnih vrst,znakov, grbov, logotipov, in knjižno oblikovanje. Ves cas študija na Akademiji se je poleg slikarstva velikoposvecal gra.ki, predvsem litogra.ji. Imel je možnost tiskati v zasebnem ateljeju. Po diplomi, leta 1971, se je vpisal na gra.cnospecialko. Za mentorja je izbral prof. Marjana Pogacnika. Bil je njegov prvi študent na podiplomskem študiju in obenem edini vtem letu. Zacel je z lesorezom. Nastal je ciklus, ki ga je poimeno-val „Bežeci pejsaži“. Naslednje leto se je posvetil litogra.ji. Prviciklus crno belih litogra.j je poimenoval „Mrtvi cas“. Sledile soše barvne litogra.je ekspresivnih .gur. Že v casu študija mu je uspelo kupiti litografsko prešo, ki jo je sestavil in usposobil v Vipavi. Po odsluženi vojašcini je dolgovztrajal v samostojnem poklicu. Ukvarjati se je bilo treba tudiz gra.cnim oblikovanjem. Kot vzporedna dejavnost ga je že od srednje šole spremljala kaligra.ja in oblikovanje s crkami, kar gaje pozneje pripeljalo na akademijo, na oddelek za oblikovanje,kjer je od leta 1987 predaval tipogra.jo. Tako je globoko zabredelv oblikovanje knjig, crkovnih vrst, kaligra.jo in pedagoško delo. Bila so obdobja, ko se je bolj posvecal slikarstvu in obdobja, ko je tiskal gra.ko. Nastali so ciklusi litogra.j, zakljucenih enotna neko temo. Vedno ga je privlacilo neposredno risanje na litografski kamen s kredo ali tušem. Litogra.je je tiskal pretežnov crni barvi in s tem skušal doseci dramaticnost in ekspresiv­nost izraza. Podoben nacin dela je uporabil tudi pri poslikavikeramike. Pri svojem delu se je srecal tudi s sitotiskom; to je medij, kizahteva barvo. Za manjše formate gra.k je doma razvil prepro­sto in inovativno tehniko, ki je omogocala tisk v vec barvah. V Mednarodnem gra.cnem likovnem centru pa je nastal ciklusgra.cnih listov vecjega formata, ki se po barvitosti približujejo njegovemu slikarstvu. Od leta 1970 razstavlja samostojno ter sodeluje na razstavah slikarstva, gra.ke in oblikovanja doma in v tujini. Izbor obse­ga osemdeset samostojnih in vec kot sto osemdeset skupinskih razstav doma in v tujini. Za svoje delo je prejel petnajst na-grad in priznanj. Udeležil se je tudi številnih likovnih kolonijin simpozijev. Lucijan Bratuš painter and graphic artist. Born on the 16th February 1949 in Vipava, he attended theprimary school in Vipava, then entered the Šola za oblikovanje(School for Design) in Ljubljana. He was accepted to the Akade­mija za likovno umetnost (Academy of Fine Arts) in Ljubljana in autumn 1967 and in 1971 he graduated from the Department of Painting (Prof. Nikolaj Omersa and Maksim Sedej). He con­tinued his studies and 1973 he .nished the postgraduate studiesof graphic arts under Prof. Marjan Pogacnik. He had the status of an independent cultural worker from 1974 to 1995. He hasbeen actively incorporated within the pedagogical programme at (Academy of Fine Arts & Design, University of Ljubljana)since 1987 (.rst as an external co–worker, and from 1995 as apermanent employee). He was elected as senior lecturer in 2001and, in 2007 he became a professor in the .eld of Visual Com­munications. As a guest professor he co–operates with foreign academies within the ceepus (Central European Exchange Pro­gram for University Studies) – Cluj, Skopje, Krakow, Zagreb. Hestarted the typographic workshop ‘Tipo Brda’ for the students in1997. He is engaged in painting, the print–making, calligraphy, graphic design and .ne art theory. His typographic and design opus comprises the design of new fonts, signs, arms, logotypes,and book design. During full–time study at the Academy he devoted a greatdeal of time, alongside painting, to the graphic arts, above allto lithography. He had the opportunity to print in his privatestudio. After the degree, in 1971, he entered postgraduate studiesof graphic arts. He chose Prof. Marjan Pogacnik as a mentor.He was his .rst and only student at post–graduate studies that year. He started with woodcut. The series, which he named‘Bežeci pejsaži’ (‘Fleeing Landscapes’), came into being. Thefollowing year he devoted himself to lithography. The .rst seri­es of black and white lithographs he named ‘Mrtvi cas’ (‘DeadTime’). Colour lithographs with expressive .gures followed. Hemanaged to buy a lithographic press, which he put togetherand got working in Vipava during his studies. He persisted asan independent professional for a long time after time spentin compulsory military service. He needed to occupy himself with graphic design, too. Calligraphy and the design of fontsas a parallel activity accompanied him from secondary schoolonwards, which brought him to the Academy, to the DesignDepartment, where he has been lecturing in typography since1987. Thus he has been deeply involved in the design of books, fonts, calligraphy and pedagogical work. There have been periods when he devoted himself more topainting, and periods when he printed graphics. The series oflithographs came about, comprising thematically linked units. He was always attracted by direct drawing onto lithographicstone with chalk or ink. He printed all lithographs predomi­nantly in black, trying to achieve the drama and ful.lment ofhis expression with it. He used a similar mode of working with the decoration of ceramics. Silk screen printing also features within his work; this is amedium which demands colour. He developed a simple andinnovative technique for smaller formats of graphics at home,which made it possible to print in several colours. The series of graphic prints of a larger format which, by their colour approachhis painting, came into being at the Mednarodni gra.cni likovnicenter (International Graphic and Fine Arts Center). He has exhibited personally from 1970 and collaborates in pa­inting, graphic arts and design exhibitions at home and abroad.The selection involves eighty personal and more than a hundredand eighty group exhibitions at home and abroad. He has rece­ived .fteen prizes and awards for his work. He has also takenpart in numerous .ne art workshops and symposia. Samostojne razstave / Solo Exhibitions 1970 – Kranj, Galerija v Mestni hiši, lesorezi; 1971 – Kamnik, Razstavišce Veronika (Bratuš–Perko), litogra.je; 1972 – Nova Gorica, Galerija Meblo (Bratuš–Nemec), lesorezi; – Koper, Galerija Meduza (Bratuš–Nemec), lesorezi; 1973 – Kostanjevica na Krki, Lamutov likovni salon, litogra.je; – Abbiategrasso, Libreria Shalom, litogra.je; – Milano, Libreria Camponuovo, litogra.je; – Ljubljana, Koncertni atelje dss, litogra.je; 1974 – Ljubljana, Študentsko naselje, slike; – Hercegnovi, Galerija doma jla, slike in risbe; 1975 – Vipava, Avla kina, litogra.je; – Split, Klub Tribine mladih, slike in risbe; – Zagreb, ns Trešnjevka, slike in risbe; 1976 – Ajdovšcina, Pilonova galerija, slike; – Piran, Mestna galerija, slike; – Nova Gorica, Galerija Meblo, slike; 1977 – Solkan, Galerija OŠ, slike; – Gorica, Italija, Galleria La Bottega, slike; 1978 – Ljubljana, Galerija Labirint, slike; 1979 – Radenci, Razstavni salon Radin, slike; – Ljubljana, Mala galerija, slike; 1980 – Kranj, Galerija v Prešernovi hiši, risbe in skice; 1981 – Trst, Slovenski klub, slike; – Zemono pri Vipavi, Salon pohištva, litogra.je; – Ljubljana, Inštitut Jožef Stefan, slike; – Kranj, Mala galerija, slike; – Ljubljana, Železniški šolski center (Bratuš–Prokofjev), slike; 1982 – Postojna, Knjižnica Bena Zupancica, slike; 1983 – Preserje, Galerija Želva, slike; – Kranj, Galerija v Prešernovi hiši, slike; 1984 – Ljubljana, Galerija dslu, slike; 1985 – Ajdovšcina, Pilonova galerija, slike; – Novo mesto, Dolenjska galerija, slike; – Radovljica, Galerija Šivceva hiša, slike; – Nova Gorica, Galerija Meblo, slike; – Koper, Galerija Meduza, slike; 1986 –Trst, Galerija TK, akvareli – Ljubljana, Galerija Polje, slike in litogra.je; 1987 – Sežana, Kosovelova knjižnica, litogra.je; 1988 – Ljubljana, Galerija zdslu, predstavitev pesniške mape; 1989 – Sežana, Kosovelova knjižnica, litogra.je in pesniška mapa; – Škofja Loka, Knjižnica Ivana Tavcarja, litogra.je in pesniška mapa; 1990 – Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, razstava Manu scriptum, kaligra.ja; – Ajdovšcina, Pilonova galerija, slike; – Nova Gorica, Gimnazija, slike; 1991 – Nova Gorica, Kreativni atelje Klavdija Tutte, slike in kaligra.ja; – Ljubljana, Galerija Krka, slike; 1992 – Tinje, Avstrija, Dom kulture Sodalitas, gra.ke; – Mengeš, Osnovna šola, gra.ke; 1993 – Ljubljana, Galerija Lerota, gra.ke; – Nova Gorica, Galerija Artes, gra.ke; 1995 – Ljubljana, Inštitut Jožef Stefan, gra.ke; 1998 – Gorica, Italija, Galerija Ars, gra.ke; – Maribor, Galerija Ars sacra, gra.ke; – Škofja Loka, Knjižnica Ivana Tavcarja, gra.ke; – Ajdovšcina, Lavriceva knjižnica, gra.ke; 1999 – Skopje, Skopsko poletje, Galerija kulturnega centra, gra.ke in kaligra.ja; 2000 – Ljubljana, Zavod sv. Stanislava, kaligra.ja; 2005 – Recica ob Savinji, Avla osnovne šole, gra.ke; 2007 – Ljubljana, Atrij v Mestni hiši, Pogled v tipografsko delavnico; 2008 – Ljubljana, Finžgarjeva galerija, kaligra.ja; 2009 – Ajdovšcina, Pilonova galerija, risbe, skice, kaligra.ja; – Ljubljana, Galerija Lek, gra.ke; – Velenje, Galerija Velenje, gra.ke; – Sežana, Kosovelov dom, slike; – Solkan, Galerija Tir, Mostovna, tipogra.ja; – Novo mesto, Kulturni dom Janeza Trdine, tipografija; 2013 – Strunjan, Galerija Talassa, slike; 2014 – Pula, Galerija Milotic, Bratuš, Golob, Jejcic; 2015 – Sarajevo, Galerija Akademije za likovno umetnost, litografije; 2019 – Piran, piranske cerve, Križev pot; – Idrija, Galerije sv. Barbare, slike; – Ajdovšcina, Lokarjeva galerija, slike; 2021 – Domžale, Galerija Kulturnega doma Franca Bernika Pomembnejše skupinske razstave / Signi.cant Collective Exhibitions 1970 – Lesorez na Slovenskem, Slovenj Gradec; 1972 – I. trienale jugoslovanske gra.ke, Bitola; – Gra.ka mladih jugoslovanskih ustvarjalcev, Beograd; 1973 – VIII. ex tempore, Piran; 1974 – Razstava dslu, Beograd, Novi Sad; – VIII. modri salon, Zadar; 1975 – V. trienale sodobne jugosl. risbe, Sombor; – Primorski likovni umetniki, Westerbork, Schiedam (nl); – Razstava likovne kolonije Industrijski pejsaž, Katowice; – II. trienale jugoslovanske gra.ke, Bitola, Skopje; – Razstava 30 let Akademije za likovno umetnost, Ljubljana; 1976 – XV. likovna srecanja, razstava gra.ke, Subotica, Pécs, Opole, Lahti; – Bienale Intart, Celovec, Videm, Ljubljana; – Primorski likovni umetniki 76, Ajdovšcina, Treviso, Ferrara, Koper, Emmen, Delft, Piran, Nova Gorica; – Gra.cna zbirka Dravskih elektrarn, Celovec; – Likovni salon 13. november, Cetinje. 1977 – Likovna zbirka Bernardin, Ljubljana; – Sodobna mlada gra.ka, Pariz, Chateauroux; – IX. bienale mladih, Rijeka; 1978 – Prijatelji Vena Pilona, Ajdovšcina; – III. trienale jugoslovanske gra.ke, Bitola; 1979 – Slovenska likovna umetnost 1945–1978, Ljubljana; – X. bienale mladih, Rijeka; 1980 – Razstava mladih slov. umetnikov, rojenih po 1945, Ljubljana; – Razstava likovnih del kolonije Srebrenik 1977–1980, Srebrenik; 1981 – Sedemnajsta razstava slikarske kolonije Izlake, Zagorje; – IV. bienale risbe, Priština; – II. bienale akvarela, Karlovac; – XI. bienale mladih, Rijeka, Budimpešta, Lódz, Wroclaw; – VII. razstava suluj, Skopje; – Razstava skupine Laborattorio 7, Benetke, Passariano, Locnik, Gorica; 1982 – XX. lik. susret, Razstava ilustracija, tipogra.ja, pisava, Subotica; – Razstava gra.cnega oblikovanja ob 30–letnici dos, Ljubljana; – Razstava sodobnega gvaša, Radenci; 1983 – Mala gra.ka, Innsbruck, Schwaz, Beljak; – Razstava iv. nikšicki likovni susreti, Nikšic; – Šest slovenskih gra.kov, kic London, Pariz, Stuttgart, Dunaj, New York, Celovec; – Jugoslovanski trienale keramike, Beograd, Subotica; – Gra.cni trenutek Slovenije, Niš, Varaždin, Velika Gorica, Cacak, Koprivnica; – Aktualnost .gure, Razstava dslu, Ljubljana; 1984 – II. razstava sodobnega gvaša, Radenci; – Razstava slikarske kolonije Sicevo, Niš; – Razstava slovenske gra.ke, Esslingen, Velenje; 1985 – Jugoslovanska gra.ka 1950–1980, Beograd; – Razstava gra.cne mape primorskih umetnikov, Gorica, Trst, Nova Gorica, San Vendemiano; – VI. bienale risbe, Priština; – XXIV. likovni susret, Umetniške kolonije akvarela, Subotica; 1986 – Jugoslovanska gra.ka 1950–1980, Ljubljana; – Bienale slik malega formata, Split; – Razstava kolonije akvarela, Ecka; 1987 – IV. mednarodna razstava Mali format na papirju, Couvin, (B); – IV. razstava male gra.ke, Seul; 1988 – V. evropski bienale gra.ke, Heidelberg; – V. razstava male gra.ke, Seul; 1989 – xxvii. likovna srecanja, Gra.cne kolonije Jugoslavije, Subotica; – I. bienale slovenske gra.ke, Otocec; – VI. bienale akvarela Jugoslavije, Karlovac, Novi Sad, Ljubljana; – Razstava 10+10, Zagreb, Ljubljana; 1990 – Razstava gra.ke, Fridrikstad, Norveška; – VI. razstava male gra.ke, Seul; – 25 let Ex tempora, Piran; 1991 – I. gra.cni natecaj Alpe Adria, Beljak; – Slovenska gra.ka, Galerija likovnog susreta, Subotica; – Listi iz gra.cnega ateljeja Likovnih srecanj Subotica, Galerija Kulturnega centra Novi Sad; 1993 – Majski salon 93, Ljubljana; – XX. mednarodni gra.cni bienale, Ljubljana; – XII. mednarodna gra.cna razstava, Seul; 1995 – Razstava sodobne slovenske gra.ke, Singen, Nemcija; – Razstava del profesorjev ob 50-letnici alu, Ljubljana; 1997 – Kaligra.ja v Sloveniji, Schriftmuseum Pettenbach (A); – Razstava zdslu, Fulda; – XVII. slikarski teden, Svece, Avstrija; 1998 – Slovenska gra.ka, Osaka, Japonska, Pias gallery, Kobe Art Aid; – Gra.cna zbirka mglc, Cankarjev dom, Ljubljana; 2000 – 35. mednarodni slikarski ex tempore, Piran; – Razstava mednarodne likovne kolonije Kicevo, Skopje; 2002 – Odtisi s kamna, mglc, Litogra.ja v Sloveniji po 1950; 2003 – Kdo uci, Ljubljana, Galerija Kresija; 2004 – Bookmark, razstava crkovnih vrst, Museum Meermanno, Den Haag, Nizozemska, Ljubljana; 2006 – Zakladnica slovenske gra.ke 1955–2005, Skopje; – Privlacnost matrice, Lesorez v Sloveniji v 20. stol. mglc, Ljubljana; 2008 – Zakladi slovenske gra.ke 1955–2005, Ljubljanski grad; – Primorski likovni umetniki, Galerija zdslu, Ljubljana, Pula; 2009 – Mestna galerija Ljubljana, risbe 2012 – Slovenia Open, razstave: Sežana, Idrija, Radovljica; – Primorski likovni umetniki, Lokarjeva galerija, Ajdovšcina; 2013 – Majski salon, Ljubljana, Maribor, Dunaj; – Zagorje, razstava likovne kolonije Izlake; – IX. mednarodno likovno srecanje, Vipavski Križ; 2014 – Majski salon, Ljubljana; 2015 – XVIII. mednarodna likovna kolonija, Ljubljana Festival, Križanke 2016 – Likovna zbirka Bernardin, Mestna galerija Piran; – Ajdovšcina, Mini Castra; 2019 – Kranj, Festival kulture; Bibliogra.ja predstavitev in kritik o delu Lucijana Bratuša / Bibliography of Presentations and Reviews of the Work of Lucijan Bratuš. 1970 – Andrej Pavlovec, Skromna – elegantna gra.ka, Dnevnik, 12. 11. 1970; 1972 – Marijan Tršar, predgovor v katalogu, razstava gra.k, Salon Meblo, Nova Gorica, 1972; 1973 – Milko Rener, predgovor v katalogu, razstava litogra.j, Milano; – Brane Kovic, Uspeh mladega gra.ka v Milanu, PrimN, 25. 5. 1973; – Aleksander Bassin, predgovor v katalogu, razstava litogra.j, Lamutov likovni salon, Kostanjevica na Krki, 1973; – Janez Mesesnel, Iskanje in boj, Delo, 6. 7. 1973; 1974 – Aleksander Bassin, Bratuševa gra.ka, Nrazgl, 8. 3. 1974; – Brane Kovic, Ekspresivna .guralika, PrimN, 24. 5. 1974; – Tilka Lavric, Bratuševo slikarstvo, Dnevnik, 24. 5. 1974; 1975 – Darinka Kladnik, Obtok, vracanje, Dnevnik, 8. 7. 1975; – Brane Kovic, Bratuševa in Cernigojeva gra.ka in poezija, PrimN, 27. 6. 1975; – Brane Kovic, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik in risb, Klub Tribine mladih, Split, 1975; 1976 – Brane Kovic, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Ajdovšcina, Piran, Nova Gorica, 1976; – Lojze Bizjak, Lucijan Bratuš v Pilonovi galeriji, PrimN, 27. 2. 1976; – Brane Kovic, Umirjen kolorit, Delo, 25. 3. 1976; – Janez Mesesnel, Napredek na mnogih ravneh, Delo, 16. 4. 1976; – Brane Kovic, Nove slike Lucijana Bratuša, PrimN, 1. 4. 1977; 1977 – Brane Kovic, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Galleria La Bottega, Gorica, 1977; – F. M. (Fulvio Monai), Lucijan Bratuš, Il Piccolo, 4. 6. 1977; – Blaž Ogorevc, Najtežje si je izmisliti naslov, Mladina, 23. 6. 1977; 1978 – Brane Kovic, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Galerija Labirint, Ljubljana, 1978; – Franc Zalar, Akt v spreminjanju, Dnevnik, 15. 7. 1978; – Brane Kovic, Novejša dela Lucijana Bratuša, Mladina, 20. 7. 1978; 1979 – Brane Kovic, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Mala galerija, Ljubljana, 1979; – Janez Mesesnel, Izrazne ikone, Delo, 8. 11. 1979; – Franc Zalar, Motiv je akt, Dnevnik, 8. 11. 1979; – Igor Gedrih, Lucijan Bratuš v Mali galeriji, Prosvetni delavec, 6. 12. 1979; 1980 – France Pibernik, predgovor v katalogu, razstava pesniške mape Nerezine, Galerija v Prešernovi hiši, Kranj, 1980; 1981 – France Pibernik, Gra.cni prostor poezije, Nrazgl, 16. 1. 1981; – Brane Kovic, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Institut Jožef Stefan, Ljubljana, 1981; – France Pibernik, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Mala galerija, Kranj,1981; – Franc Zalar, Cudež v Šiški, Dnevnik, 4. 12. 1981; 1982 – Brane Kovic, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Knjižnica B. Zupancica, Postojna, 1982; 1983 – Brane Kovic, predgovor v katalogu, Galerija Želva, Preserje, 1983; – France Pibernik, Iz slikarjevih skicirk Lucijana Bratuša, Nrazgl, 10. 6.; 1984 – Brane Kovic, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Galerija dslu, Ljubljana, 1984; – Franc Zalar, Barvna resnica o ženskem telesu, Dnevnik, 15. 12. 1984; 1985 – Maruša Avguštin, Lucijan Bratuš v Šivcevi hiši, Glas, 27. 8. 1985; – Maruša Avguštin, Iskanje novega, Delo, 31. 8. 1985; 1986 – Smilja Juras, Izreka resnice o telesu, Bilten ukc, Ljubljana; 1986 – Nives Marvin, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Galerija R, Ajdovšcina, 1989; 1991 – Milcek Komelj, Vprašanje Bratuševega kaligrafskega ekspresio­nizma (razstava v novogoriškem Kreativnem ateljeju Klavdija Tutte). Reprodukcije slik in gra.k. NRazgl, 22. 3. 1991; – Janez Mesesnel, Ekspresivni naglas sinteze. Delo, 25. 6. 1991; 1994 – Nina Klun, Lucijan Bratuš, clovek, ki v casu racunalnikov najraje piše s trstiko, Lucas, april 1994, leto 4, št. 1/2, str. 29–32. 1995 – Marijan Tršar, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik in gra.k, Inštitut Jožef Stefan, marec 1995; 1997 – Veliki splošni leksikon dzs, I. knjiga, str. 501, Ljubljana, 1997 1998 – Jurij Paljk, predgovor v katalogu razstave, razstava gra.k, Galerija Ars, Gorica, Italija, 1998; – Jurij Paljk, Trdna vera v cloveka v likovni pripovedi, Galerija Ars – razstava Lucijana Bratuša, Primorski dnevnik, let 54/ št. 74 (28. III. 1998) – Gorazd Kocijancic, predgovor v katalogu razstave litogra.j, Galerija Ars sacra, Maribor, 1998; – K. S. Svet, kot ga vidi Lucijan Bratuš, Družina, 28. nov. 1998; 1999 – Gorazd Kocijancic, predgovor v katalogu kaligrafske razstave, Skopje, 1999; 2000 – Gorazd Kocijancic, V zacetku je bila Beseda, predgovor v katalogu razstave, Ljubljana, 2000; 2004 – Gorazd Kocijancic, Tistim zunaj, Eksotericni zapisi 1990–2003, kud Logos, Ljubljana 2004; 2009 – Gorazd Kocijancic, Ce je tvoje oko cisto …, besedilo v katalogu razstave, Pilonova galerija Ajdovšcina; – Jožef Muhovic, Lucijan Bratuš – risar nad samotnim breznom, besedilo v katalogu razstave, Pilonova galerija Ajdovšcina; – Iztok Premrov, Med dinamiko in statiko, besedilo v zloženki razstave, Galerija Lek, Ljubljana; – Aleksander Peršolja, Je res, so prividi?, besedilo v zloženki razstave, Kosovelov dom, Sežana; – Anamarija Stibilj Šajn, Slikarstvo Lucijana Bratuša, besedilo v zloženki razstave, Kosovelov dom, Sežana; –Milcek Komelj, Barviti inkarnat Bratuševe kaligrafske slikarske risbe; 2012 – Jožef Muhovic, Lucijan Bratuš – risar nad samotnim breznom, v: S slikarstvom na štiri oci, Raziskovalni inštitut aluo, Ljubljana; 2013 – Dejan Mehmedovic, besedilo v katalogu razstave, Strunjan 2019 – Milcek Komelj, Bratuševa slikarska afirmacija življenja, besedilo v katalogu razstave, Lokarjeva galerija, Ajdovšcina; 2019 – Iztok Premrov, Likovne preobrazbe, besedilo v katalogu razstave, Galerija sv. Barbare, Idrija; 2021 – Jurij Smole, besedilo v zloženki razstave, Domžale, Galerija Kulturnega doma Franca Bernika; – Anamarija Stibilj Šajn, besedilo v katalogu razstave, Licna hiša, Ajdovšcina.