Lucijan Bratuš Risbe, listi iz skicirk, akvareli, keramika Elektronska knjižna zbirka $ e–71 Urednika zbirke Gorazd Kocijančič in Vid Snoj Lucijan Bratuš Risbe, listi iz skicirk, akvareli, keramika Izbor del 1970–2021 Spremni besedili Gorazd Kocijančič in Jožef Muhovič Prevod v angleščino 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) Način 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) Gorazd Kocijančič Če je tvoje oko čisto … – 4 If your eye is pure … – 7 Jožef Muhovič Lucijan Bratuš – risar nad samotnim breznom – 10 Lucijan Bratuš – drawing above the lonely abyss – 20 Risbe – 30 Listi iz skicirk – 48 Akvareli – 80 Keramika – 98 Lucijan Bratuš Biografija, razstave in bibliografija – 116 Knjižna zbirka Ars $ 02 4 V svoji pronicljivi analizi propada evropske kulture, resignirano naslovljeni »Kako smo izgubili Zahod« (How the West was lost, 2006) Alexander Boot ob raz-misleku o modernistični umetnosti ugotavlja: »Za-hodni človek je to, kar je bil, navsezadnje postal na-tanko zaradi svoje zmožnosti osredotočiti se na bistvo stvari, ne na njihovo zunanjo lupino. Nič napačnega ni zatorej v razširjanju meja tonalnosti ali harmonije, nič takega, čemur bi lahko ugovarjali, se ne nahaja v razbijanju in ponovnem sestavljanju naravnih oblik v konstitutivne elemente – dokler za vsemi temi eks-panzijami, razbijanji in ponovnimi sestavitvami pač ni izgubljen sam smisel umetnosti. Izvoren in posled-nji smisel zahodne umetnosti je namreč v tem, da se izrazi duša zahodnega človeka, da se prek nje zatrdi, da ta duša obstaja – in da zato obstaja Bog. Dejstvo, da se je na začetku 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 očitne topovi Verduna in Ypresa.« (str. 243) Na začetku enaindvajsetega stoletja so – ob bobne-nju novih orožij – sledi tega boja za dušo paradoksno opazne ravno v delih umetnikov, ki se navezujejo na modernistično revolucijo, a so jih nove umetniške prakse in tehnologije postavile v vlogo »konservativ-cev«. Lucijan Bratuš sodi med te sodobne donkihote. Slike na sploh lahko govorijo o tem, kar smo videli na svojih poteh ali nam je bilo izročeno – ali pa o Niču vid(e)nega, o drugosti, ki privlači in plaši vsake-ga 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 grafike razkrivajo boga-stvo notranjih možnosti nekega zrenja. Vanj vstopa celota sveta. Vse, kar privlači slikarjevo oko, bitja in notranje prikazni v vsej svoji nedoločenosti in mno-gopomenskosti. Umetnik temu prihajanju sledi ne-pretenciozno, brez pretvarjanja, da sporoča kakršen koli dokončen uvid v skrivnost bivanja ali odgovor na poslednja vprašanja, a vendar z izrazito odločnostjo, s ščepcem pretanjenega humorja in kaligrafske non-šalantnosti. Prav izkustvo kaligrafa je odločilno tudi za Bratuša kot grafika: v svojih stvaritvah nikoli ne pozablja ti-sočletne verige skrivnostnih upredmetenj človeškega duha, porojenih iz napetosti med nujo simbola in svobodnostjo simboliziranja, med nepredvidljivim vi-denjem kaligrafske ustvarjalnosti in neizprosnostjo izročila, med obiljem pomenljivega in jedkostjo racio-nalizacije. Lepo–pis, priklicevanje lepote s pomočjo nepredvidljivih krasitev in zaobrnitev pisave, zanj na-mreč ni le frivolno poigravanje z možnostmi zapisa, ujetnica potrebe in poljubnosti, ampak ob–likujoč odziv na skrivnostno, izmikajoče se samorazkrivanje Absolutnega, sočloveka in sveta. Kaligrafsko oblikova-nje, igra s premenami, prelivanji in prehajanji raznih črk zapisu odvzame njegovo samorazumljivost – in obenem problematizira pomensko izpraznjenost »či-ste« podobe v grafiki. Likovna igra nas nepojmovno vodi do skrivnosti Besede. Logosa, ki je obenem arhe-tipska Podoba. Bratušu pri tem ne gre za uvajanje v kakršno koli esoteriko, temveč za podobe, ki jih pozna vsakdo, za srečanja, ki so v globini istovetna z nami samimi. Pred nas, ki nam ni dobro, če bivamo sami, Gorazd Kocijančič Če je tvoje oko čisto … 5 zato seveda stopa predvsem uzrta skrivnost sočloveka: obraz deklice in obličje moža, golo telo ženske. Celo Bratuševi demoni niso perzijsko–poznojudovska ali novozavezna sfera duhovnega zla, temveč prej grške sile vmesnosti med božanskim in človeškim, arhaični daímones; prek njih in v njih se vidni svet raztaplja v plesu prepletenih arhetipov, nravno ambivalentnih, zapeljivih in razigranih, divjih in le včasih nevarnih. V čem je ob tej neprikriti svetnosti pravzaprav „reševa-nje duše“ v tej grafični umetnosti? Paradoksno prav v zadržanosti, v sramežljivosti umetnikovega pogleda. Z osebno pisavo, kaligrafsko stilizacijo lastnega obzorja, umetnik dopušča vstopanje vsega v njegovi drugosti. Občuteni mysterium tremendum et fascinans – skrivnost, ki zbuja strah, a nas obenem privlači – vodi pogled k stiku s predmetnostjo na drugi ravni. Večpomenskost videnega igrivo usmerja k poslednji vedrini, ki ni več njegova stvar. Morda je to „preprosto oko“ evangeljske prilike: pogled, zaradi katerega ves telesni svet posta-ja „svetal“. In vendar prav skromna nezaupljivost do „teurgično“ prevrednotene umetnosti navsezadnje, skozi tančice vseh svetov, sramežljivo dvigne pogled h Križanemu in Vstalemu. In tedaj lahko – nazaj, skozi omahujoče, sramežljivo pogledovanje, skozi vztraj-no, 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 od-kriva Božjo agápe v globini vsega. In izpričuje dušo, ki ostaja, najsi to hočemo ali ne. 6 7 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 mo-dernity claims the following: »Westman, after all, became what he was preci-sely because of his ability to concentrate on the es-sence 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–first 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 ‘conserva-tives’. Lucijan Bratuš belongs amongst these contem-porary 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 other-ness that attracts and intimidates every traveller. Yet still they talk mainly about the painter’s ‘vision’, Gorazd Kocijančič If your eye is pure … about a vision of the soul, which is the whole wor-ld — 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 at-tracts 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 final questions, yet with a distinctive determination, with a pinch of subtle humour and calligraphic nonchalance. Precisely the experience of the calligrapher is de-cisive for Bratuš as a printmaker too: in his creations he never forgets the thousand–year–old chain of my-sterious objectifications 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 significance 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. 8 The fine 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 in-troduction into any kind of esoterics for Bratuš, but about images that everybody knows, about the enco-unters 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 sphe-re 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 ar-chetypes, 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 tremen-dum et fascinans — mystery that rouses fear and at-tracts us at the same time — leads the vision into con-tact with the subjectivity on another level. Multiple meanings of the observed playfully direct to a final 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 Crucified 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’ figures 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 testifies the soul that stays, whether we want it or not. 9 10 Sprašujem se: Kako se pokaže ustvarjalnost Lucijana Bratuša, če nanjo pogledamo skozi instrument duha, ki mu pravimo risba? V kakšne okoliščine oblikujoče-ga uma, v kakšen predstavni milje, v kakšno oddalje-nost od znanega pripusti ta odločitev naš pogled? Ker so odgovori v precejšnji meri odvisni od instrumenta in ker je ta instrument spričo impliciranega rokodel-stva v novomedijski eri postal sumljiv, si za začetek v zgoščeni obliki predočimo njegove performánce in njegov domet. * * * Tam, kjer se nevidnemu najprej zahoče ogledati v zrcalu vidnega, vidnemu v zrcalu bistvenega in ne-izrekljivemu v srčnem utripu prostorske sledi – tam je vselej mesto risbe. Risba je medij prehajanja in ro-jevanja: prehajanja od slutenega k prezentnemu in rojevanja v svet na način prihajanja v jezik (da pojav najprej poimenujem povsem splošno). Pravzaprav je risba diagram tega prehajanja in drama te znakotvor-ne 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 kom-pleksnega. Kot bi računala z dvojnim državljanstvom človeka 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 naročilom, se lahko v njih izrazijo naj- Jožef Muhovič Lucijan Bratuš – risar nad samotnim breznom bolj necenzurirane pa tudi najbolj avtentične umet-nikove slutnje, pogledi in vizije. Hegel v svoji Estetiki trdi, da pride v ročni 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 čudi, če risbo spontano razumemo kot sredstvo, s katerim je mogo-če vstopiti v skrajno prvinske in intimne okoliščine oblikujočega duha. Prav kakor ne čudi, da ob njeni impulzivnosti in igrivosti enako spontano pozablja-mo, da pravzaprav vsakokrat znova privre iz pogleda na strašljivo črno luknjo brezobličnega, neznanega in neartikuliranega. Kot posledica in izraz dogajanj, ki jo pogojujejo, obrača risba proti nam najprej lice hitrega in koncen-triranega impulza, ki ga je — in kakor ga je — sposo-ben zabeležiti necenzurirani in nereflektirani um ek-spresije, medtem ko s konico svinčnika kljubuje valu brezobličnosti, ki ga skuša s svojo nezmerno gravita-cijo povleči nazaj v amorfno. Ta afektivni in v bistvu re–aktivni vidik pa skriva pod gladino še neko bolj diskretno in predvsem bolj aktivno plat. Namreč to, ki povzroči, da risarska akcija ni le topi seizmogram umetnikovega trepeta ob srečanju z brezobličnim, ampak katalizator tega soočenja. Katalizator tega, kar je umetnik v temnem osrčju ciklona neizrazitosti tan-kočutno ugrabil kot pobudo, namig, obris in izziv za artikulacijo. Pred risarsko akcijo in neodvisno od nje obstaja vsebina kot brezkonturna slutnja, kot nejasna, a močno občutena regulativnost, torej v nerazvitem stanju. Razvije in precizira se šele v procesu risarske 11 artikulacije, brez katere bi je v tej razviti obliki sploh ne bilo. Z drugimi besedami: risba je arena, v kateri se, s Czesłavom Miłoszem rečeno, impulzivno razvija »neimenovana potreba po redu, ritmu in obliki, teh treh stvarnostih, ki se zoperstavljajo kaosu in niču« ... in pridobiva tajni pomen projekta, s katerim človek spreminja samega sebe in svet, v katerem živi. Risba je fundament umetnikovega delovanja. Vse, kar ustvari na katerem koli drugem področju (v slikar-stvu, grafiki, kiparstvu, oblikovanju), je na tak ali dru-gačen način izšlo iz nje in je z njo povezano. Plejade zarisov v skicirkah so Lovrencove solze oblikotvornih idej, ki se utrinjajo izpod temnega firmamenta nearti-kuliranega. Mnoge bodo za vedno ostale v njih, roje-ne in odrasle v svojo abreviirano črtno fiziognomijo. Iz mnogih pa se bodo razprla nova otvarjanja sveta, porodila nova dramatiča predočenja, ki v bližini epi-centra neartikuliranega preigravajo potenciale člove-kovega »samoprocesiranja« v prostoru in času, da bi v njihovi novorojeni morfologiji mi, konkretni ljudje lahko odkrivali predstavne sfere, v katerih se nam je mogoče zadrževati z verodostojnimi motivi. * * * Če pogledamo v predsobo odločilne zadeve, torej proti najzgodnješim dokumentiranim začetkom Bra-tuševe likovne ustvarjalnosti, ne čudi, da na njenih stenah kraljujejo risbe, saj se v likovni umetnosti, kot rečeno, z njimi skoraj brez izjem začenja vse bistveno in vse novo. Bolj preseneti to, kar se nezgrešljivo svet-lika iz oblikovnega dna te začetniške risarske morfo-logije: namreč za to stopnjo presenetljiva suverenost v duktusu, ki je nesporen odsvit naravne predispozi-cije (sliki 1a, b), in presenetljivo konsistentna notranja »arhitektura« oblik, ki je posledica zgodnje in dobre likovne izobrazbe. Na eni strani spontana nastavi-tev gest pobude, občutka, eksperimenta in odpiranja, ki spadajo k talentu, na drugi geste institucionalne ojačitve, ki želijo poskrbeti, da bo talent zavarovan z zaščitnimi ukrepi vodenja in treninga, in bo skozi obo-je pridobil permanentno kondicijo konstruktivnosti. Matrica kontrapunktiranja ekspresije in konstrukcije, igrivosti in discipline, ki se spontano prikazuje iz prve samopredstavitve male poetike Bratuševega likovne-ga 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 is-kra preskočil na drugo stran železne zavese in jo raz-burkal, ni mogel niti malo zmotiti njegove želje po poglabljanju epistemike, ki izravnava pot umetnosti. Bolj od politične razviharjenosti družbenega prostora ga je v tem času — deloma zaradi mladostnega idealiz-ma, v katerem je imela umetnost absolutno prednost, deloma zaradi politične neizkušenosti — pritegovala površinsko– in globinskostrukturna razviharjenost prozaičnega naravnega prostora in oblik v njem. Dolgotrajno pozorno opazovanje oblik v prostoru je namreč, v popolnem nasprotju s prozaiko izhodišč, vodilo do izrazito neprozaičnih spoznanj: do razkri-vanja oblikovno–prostorskega »načina biti« stvari in pojavov, do spoznanj, ki jih je bilo mogoče neposre-dno verificirati v uspehu risarske artikulacije, in z ve-liko fleksibilnosti uporabiti pri artikulaciji poljubne 1a 12 1b 13 2a 2b 14 2c 15 3b 3d 3a 3c 16 motivne morfologije (slike 2a, b, c). Znanja, ki jih je Bratuš v akademijskih začetkih osvajal, niso bila nova, ... bila pa so njegova; namreč: osvojena z duhom in telesom. Ker likovna inteligenca najpoprej ni teore-tična postavka, zavezana brezmadežni virtualnosti lebdenja v neuresničenem, temveč kvaliteta ravnanja in proizvajanja, mora ne le skozi šolo predavanj in seminarjev, ampak predvsem skozi šolo »izkušanja na lastni koži«. Kalí se v ozračju dotika in konfrontacije s stvarmi, saj oblike, v katerih zares za nekaj gre, arti-kuliramo v dvoboju in občutenju; kalí se ob trčenju s situacijami, v katerih je potrebno lastnemu dosežku nasproti postaviti alternativo; kalí se avtodidaktično, 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 učinka (slika 4), iskanje nestandardnih pogledov na znane motive (slike 5a, b, c, d, e) in slo po čedalje bolj izvir-nih in neuhojenih poteh (slike 6a, b, c), ki sprva pona-vadi išče oporo v identifikaciji z delom oblikotvorno in nazorsko sorodnih ustvarjalcev, ki so svoj prodor v neznano kronali s prepričljivo morfološko invencijo. Ko o tem govorim ob delu Lucijana Bratuša, lahko brez sleherne sence nad samosvojostjo njegovega opusa, omenim tri imena velikih — ime Marija Preg-lja (slika 7), Henrija Moora (sliki 8a, b) in Francisa Bacona (sliki 9a, b). Drugi, negativni vidik iskanja lastnih in neuho-jenih poti pa je seveda dejstvo, da nas z vseh strani obdajajo tuje oblike in oblikotvorne rešitve, ki jih vsr-kavamo 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 zaščitenimi 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. Če si v tej luči pogledamo risarski, slikarski in grafični opus Lucijana Bratuša, lahko pri vseh treh ugotovimo, da je Bratuš avtor, ki zna izrazito dobro slalomirati med gestami zgledovanja in gestami od-povedovanja, med gestami kulturne inspiracije in ge-stami zvestobe lastnim potem, med gestami, ki vodijo v svetove drugih, in gestami, ki vodijo v samoto. Zato njegovim artikulacijam ne vrtinec aktualizma ne vr-tinec robinzonstva, ki bi lahko bila usodna za njiho-vo 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. Pre-prosto 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 devi-za tako ni mešanje stvari in srednja mera, ampak trk oziroma kontrapunktiranje nasprotij. 4 17 5b 5a 5c 5d 18 5e 19 Morda najboljši dokaz za to je dejstvo, brez omem-be katerega bi bilo poročilo o Bratuševem ustvarjanju sploh podobno življenjepisu Krištofa Kolumba brez omembe Amerike. Gre za dejstvo, da Bratušev risarski opus že iz akademijskih let oscilira med figuralnim in kaligrafskim motivom. Figuralni motiv je po nara-vi zavezan oblikovnim standardom, zakonitim pro-porcem in trdni konstrukciji, vendar v ustvarjalnem miljeju izkazuje stalno intenco po ekspresiji, osvobo-jenosti, subjektivnosti in transformaciji. Kaligrafija je po naravi stvar ekspresije, akcije, razigranosti in subjektivnega, vendar v miljeju likovne ustvarjalno-sti izkazuje stalno intenco k oblikovnim standardom, zakoniti proporcioniranosti in konstrukciji. V Bratu-ševi ustvarjalnosti se oba vidika dopolnjujeta. Figu-ralna risba s kaligrafsko potezo pridobiva dinamiko, karakter in avtorsko identiteto (slika 10), kaligrafske artikulacije s figuralno izkušnjo trdno konstrukcijo in mero (slika 11). S tem pa, ko je Bratuš rešil težavo, kako združiti nasprotji figuralnega in kaligrafskega (od katerih se nobenemu ni bil voljan odreči), je isto-časno rešil tudi težavo, kako v svoji umetnosti trajno poročiti poezijo unikatnosti in poezijo mere, to je univerzalnosti. To pa, tudi če se uresniči enkrat sam-krat, 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 nav-zdol in navzgor. Zdi se, kakor bi zaprl oči, da bi poku-kal v še neopaženi svet in videl neizrekljivo v njegovi oblikotvorni odprtosti, v njegovem veličastju. In bi potem ... tvegal krhki zaris vidnega. Zaris, ki nam go-vori o nečem, čemur je bil izpostavljen avtor, preden se je sam lahko izpostavil v potezi. 8a 8b 20 Jožef Muhovič Lucijan Bratuš – drawing 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 reso-lution admits our gaze? Because the answers depend to a considerable degree upon the instrument and since this instrument became, in the presence of im-plicated handicraft, suspect in the new–media era, let us first demonstrate to ourselves in a condensed form its performance and range. * * * There, where the invisible first longs to view it-self in the mirror of the visible, visible in the mir-ror of the essential, and indescribable in the heart-beat 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 first name the phe-nomenon 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 im-agination. A drawing is a sprouting seed. We can do anything with a seed, we can water it, warm it, ma-nure it …, we just cannot make it artificially. 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 com-lex; 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 reflection, 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, subcon-scious 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 im-pulsiveness and playfulness we equally spontaneously forget that every time it actually gushes out afresh from the view onto the fearful black hole of shape-lessness, the unknown and the non–articulated. As a consequence and expression of an event, which creates the conditions for it, the drawing first turns towards us the cheek of a quick and concen-trated impulse, which is — and in the way it does — the uncensured and non–reflective mind of expression ca-pable of registering, while, with the point of the pen-cil, 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 21 is not just the blunt seismograph of an artist’s trem-bling 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 unexpres-siveness, is abducted by sensibility as an initiative, a hint, an outline and a challenge to his articulation. The contents exist as an ill defined anticipation, as a dim yet strongly perceptible regulation, therefore in a rudimentary state, before the drawing action and independently of it. It develops and defines 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 Czesłav Miłosz puts it, impulsion develops »an un-named 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 field (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 flicker beneath the dark firmament 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 con-ceptions 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 concep-tions 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 fine 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 reflection of a natural predisposi-tion (pictures 1a, b), and an astonishingly consistent inner ‘architecture’ of form, which is the consequence of a good fine art education. On one side there is the spontaneous engagement of gestures of initiative, sen-sation, 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 lead-ing and training and it will, through both, acquire a permanent condition of constructiveness. The matrix of counter–puncturing of expression and construc-tion, playfulness and discipline, which spontaneously reveals itself from the first self–representation of the fine art world of Bratuš’s poetics, is a sign of a winner in this world. Bratuš entered the Academy for Fine Arts in Ljub-ljana in the school year 1967/1968 with a solid prior knowledge, and a bag full of enthusiasm. The revo-lutionary 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 slight-ly 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 ab-solute priority, partly because of political inexperi-ence – 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 flexibility, use them with articulation of an arbitrary motif morphology. (pictures 2a, b, c). The 22 6a 23 knowledge which Bratuš gained at his academic beginnings were not new … but they were his; i.e: gained by mind and body. Since a fine art intelligence is not a theoretical item at first, obliged to immacu-late virtuality of floating in the un–executed, but the quality of treatment and production, it needs to go not only through the school of lectures and semi-nars, but mainly through the school of ‘learning first 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 first; it tempers auto–di-dactically, 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 first–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 solu-tions (pictures 3a, b, c, d), aspiration to the use of the minimum of means for maximum effect (cf. pic-ture 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 first usually look for support in identification 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 re-garding 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 (pic-ture 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–creat-ing 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 dis-cipline 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 ges-tures 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 mas-ter 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 al-ways 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 po-etry 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 7 24 6b 25 6c 26 mention of America. It is the fact that Bratuš’s draw-ing opus, even from his school years at the Academy, oscilates between figurative and calligrafic motifs. The figurative 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 fine art creativity it demonstrates a consistent intention for formal stand-ards, legal proportionality and construction. Both viewpoints supplement Bratuš’s creativity. Figurative drawing with calligrafic strokes acquires a dynamic, character and an authorial identity (cf. for instance 10) and calligrafic articulations with a figurative ex-perience acquire a solid construction and measure (picture 11). With that, when Bratuš solved the prob-lem of how to combine the contrast of the figurative and calligrafic (he was not willing to give up either of them), he simultaneously solved the difficulty in his art of how to permanently marry the poetry of uniqueness and the poetry of measure, that is uni-versality. 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 down-wards. 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 magnificence. 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. 9b 9a 27 10 28 11 29 30 Risbe Izbor del 1970 –1986 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Listi iz skicirk Izbor del 1970 –2021 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Akvareli Izbor del 1970 –2021 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Keramika Izbor del 1979–1983 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 Lucijan Bratuš akad. slikar in grafik Rojen 16. februarja 1949 v Vipavi. Osnovno šolo je obiskoval v Vipavi, nato se je vpisal na Šolo za oblikovanje v Ljubljani. Je-seni 1967 je bil sprejet na Akademijo za likovno umetnost v Lju-bljani in leta 1971 diplomiral na oddelku za slikarstvo (Profesorji Nikolaj Omersa, Maksim Sedej). Nadaljeval je študij in leta 1973 končal specialko za grafiko pri prof. Marjanu Pogačniku. Od leta 1974 do 1995 je imel status samostojnega kulturnega delavca. V pedagoški proces na aluo ul je bil aktivno vključen od leta 1987 (najprej kot zunanji sodelavec, od leta 1995 pa kot redno zaposleni). Leta 2001 je bil izvoljen v naziv izredni profesor in leta 2007 je postal redni profesor za področje vizualnih komu-nikacij. Kot gostujoči profesor je sodeloval s tujimi akademijami v okviru programa ceepus (Cluj, Skopje, Krakov, Zagreb). Leta 1997 je začel s tipografsko delavnico za študente Tipo Brda. Ukvarja se s slikarstvom, umetniško grafiko, kaligrafijo, gra-fičnim oblikovanjem in teorijo likovne umetnosti. Tipografski in oblikovalski opus obsega oblikovanje novih črkovnih vrst, znakov, grbov, logotipov, in knjižno oblikovanje. Ves čas študija na Akademiji se je poleg slikarstva veliko posvečal grafiki, predvsem litografiji. Imel je možnost tiskati v zasebnem ateljeju. Po diplomi, leta 1971, se je vpisal na grafično specialko. Za mentorja je izbral prof. Marjana Pogačnika. Bil je njegov prvi študent na podiplomskem študiju in obenem edini v tem letu. Začel je z lesorezom. Nastal je ciklus, ki ga je poimeno-val „Bežeči pejsaži“. Naslednje leto se je posvetil litografiji. Prvi ciklus črno belih litografij je poimenoval „Mrtvi čas“. Sledile so še barvne litografije ekspresivnih figur. Že v času študija mu je uspelo kupiti litografsko prešo, ki jo je sestavil in usposobil v Vipavi. Po odsluženi vojaščini je dolgo vztrajal v samostojnem poklicu. Ukvarjati se je bilo treba tudi z grafičnim oblikovanjem. Kot vzporedna dejavnost ga je že od srednje šole spremljala kaligrafija in oblikovanje s črkami, kar ga je pozneje pripeljalo na akademijo, na oddelek za oblikovanje, kjer je od leta 1987 predaval tipografijo. Tako je globoko zabredel v oblikovanje knjig, črkovnih vrst, kaligrafijo in pedagoško delo. Bila so obdobja, ko se je bolj posvečal slikarstvu in obdobja, ko je tiskal grafiko. Nastali so ciklusi litografij, zaključenih enot na neko temo. Vedno ga je privlačilo neposredno risanje na litografski kamen s kredo ali tušem. Litografije je tiskal pretežno v črni barvi in s tem skušal doseči dramatičnost in ekspresiv-nost izraza. Podoben način dela je uporabil tudi pri poslikavi keramike. Pri svojem delu se je srečal tudi s sitotiskom; to je medij, ki zahteva barvo. Za manjše formate grafik je doma razvil prepro-sto in inovativno tehniko, ki je omogočala tisk v več barvah. V Mednarodnem grafičnem likovnem centru pa je nastal ciklus grafičnih listov večjega formata, ki se po barvitosti približujejo njegovemu slikarstvu. Od leta 1970 razstavlja samostojno ter sodeluje na razstavah slikarstva, grafike in oblikovanja doma in v tujini. Izbor obse-ga osemdeset samostojnih in več 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 kolonij in simpozijev. 117 Lucijan Bratuš painter and graphic artist. Born on the 16th February 1949 in Vipava, he attended the primary school in Vipava, then entered the Šola za oblikovanje (School for Design) in Ljubljana. He was accepted to the Akade-mija 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 con-tinued his studies and 1973 he finished the postgraduate studies of graphic arts under Prof. Marjan Pogačnik. He had the status of an independent cultural worker from 1974 to 1995. He has been actively incorporated within the pedagogical programme at (Academy of Fine Arts & Design, University of Ljubljana) since 1987 (first as an external co–worker, and from 1995 as a permanent employee). He was elected as senior lecturer in 2001 and, in 2007 he became a professor in the field of Visual Com-munications. As a guest professor he co–operates with foreign academies within the ceepus (Central European Exchange Pro-gram for University Studies) – Cluj, Skopje, Krakow, Zagreb. He started the typographic workshop ‘Tipo Brda’ for the students in 1997. He is engaged in painting, the print–making, calligraphy, graphic design and fine 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 great deal of time, alongside painting, to the graphic arts, above all to lithography. He had the opportunity to print in his private studio. After the degree, in 1971, he entered postgraduate studies of graphic arts. He chose Prof. Marjan Pogačnik as a mentor. He was his first and only student at post–graduate studies that year. He started with woodcut. The series, which he named ‘Bežeči pejsaži’ (‘Fleeing Landscapes’), came into being. The following year he devoted himself to lithography. The first seri-es of black and white lithographs he named ‘Mrtvi čas’ (‘Dead Time’). Colour lithographs with expressive figures followed. He managed to buy a lithographic press, which he put together and got working in Vipava during his studies. He persisted as an independent professional for a long time after time spent in compulsory military service. He needed to occupy himself with graphic design, too. Calligraphy and the design of fonts as a parallel activity accompanied him from secondary school onwards, which brought him to the Academy, to the Design Department, where he has been lecturing in typography since 1987. 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 to painting, and periods when he printed graphics. The series of lithographs came about, comprising thematically linked units. He was always attracted by direct drawing onto lithographic stone with chalk or ink. He printed all lithographs predomi-nantly in black, trying to achieve the drama and fulfilment of his 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 a medium which demands colour. He developed a simple and innovative 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 approach his painting, came into being at the Mednarodni grafični likovni center (International Graphic and Fine Arts Center). He has exhibited personally from 1970 and collaborates in pa-inting, graphic arts and design exhibitions at home and abroad. The selection involves eighty personal and more than a hundred and eighty group exhibitions at home and abroad. He has rece-ived fifteen prizes and awards for his work. He has also taken part in numerous fine art workshops and symposia. 118 Samostojne razstave / Solo Exhibitions 1970 – Kranj, Galerija v Mestni hiši, lesorezi; 1971 – Kamnik, Razstavišče Veronika (Bratuš–Perko), litografije; 1972 – Nova Gorica, Galerija Meblo (Bratuš–Nemec), lesorezi; – Koper, Galerija Meduza (Bratuš–Nemec), lesorezi; 1973 – Kostanjevica na Krki, Lamutov likovni salon, litografije; – Abbiategrasso, Libreria Shalom, litografije; – Milano, Libreria Camponuovo, litografije; – Ljubljana, Koncertni atelje dss, litografije; 1974 – Ljubljana, Študentsko naselje, slike; – Hercegnovi, Galerija doma jla, slike in risbe; 1975 – Vipava, Avla kina, litografije; – Split, Klub Tribine mladih, slike in risbe; – Zagreb, ns Trešnjevka, slike in risbe; 1976 – Ajdovščina, 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, litografije; – Ljubljana, Inštitut Jožef Stefan, slike; – Kranj, Mala galerija, slike; – Ljubljana, Železniški šolski center (Bratuš–Prokofjev), slike; 1982 – Postojna, Knjižnica Bena Zupančiča, slike; 1983 – Preserje, Galerija Želva, slike; – Kranj, Galerija v Prešernovi hiši, slike; 1984 – Ljubljana, Galerija dslu, slike; 1985 – Ajdovščina, Pilonova galerija, slike; – Novo mesto, Dolenjska galerija, slike; – Radovljica, Galerija Šivčeva hiša, slike; – Nova Gorica, Galerija Meblo, slike; – Koper, Galerija Meduza, slike; 1986 –Trst, Galerija TK, akvareli – Ljubljana, Galerija Polje, slike in litografije; 1987 – Sežana, Kosovelova knjižnica, litografije; 1988 – Ljubljana, Galerija zdslu, predstavitev pesniške mape; 1989 – Sežana, Kosovelova knjižnica, litografije in pesniška mapa; – Škofja Loka, Knjižnica Ivana Tavčarja, litografije in pesniška mapa; 1990 – Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, razstava Manu scriptum, kaligrafija; – Ajdovščina, Pilonova galerija, slike; – Nova Gorica, Gimnazija, slike; 1991 – Nova Gorica, Kreativni atelje Klavdija Tutte, slike in kaligrafija; – Ljubljana, Galerija Krka, slike; 1992 – Tinje, Avstrija, Dom kulture Sodalitas, grafike; – Mengeš, Osnovna šola, grafike; 1993 – Ljubljana, Galerija Lerota, grafike; – Nova Gorica, Galerija Artes, grafike; 1995 – Ljubljana, Inštitut Jožef Stefan, grafike; 1998 – Gorica, Italija, Galerija Ars, grafike; – Maribor, Galerija Ars sacra, grafike; – Škofja Loka, Knjižnica Ivana Tavčarja, grafike; – Ajdovščina, Lavričeva knjižnica, grafike; 1999 – Skopje, Skopsko poletje, Galerija kulturnega centra, grafike in kaligrafija; 2000 – Ljubljana, Zavod sv. Stanislava, kaligrafija; 2005 – Rečica ob Savinji, Avla osnovne šole, grafike; 2007 – Ljubljana, Atrij v Mestni hiši, Pogled v tipografsko delavnico; 2008 – Ljubljana, Finžgarjeva galerija, kaligrafija; 2009 – Ajdovščina, Pilonova galerija, risbe, skice, kaligrafija; – Ljubljana, Galerija Lek, grafike; – Velenje, Galerija Velenje, grafike; – Sežana, Kosovelov dom, slike; – Solkan, Galerija Tir, Mostovna, tipografija; – Novo mesto, Kulturni dom Janeza Trdine, tipografija; 2013 – Strunjan, Galerija Talassa, slike; 2014 – Pula, Galerija Milotić, Bratuš, Golob, Jejčič; 2015 – Sarajevo, Galerija Akademije za likovno umetnost, litografije; 2019 – Piran, piranske cerve, Križev pot; – Idrija, Galerije sv. Barbare, slike; – Ajdovščina, Lokarjeva galerija, slike; 2021 – Domžale, Galerija Kulturnega doma Franca Bernika 119 Pomembnejše skupinske razstave / Significant Collective Exhibitions 1970 – Lesorez na Slovenskem, Slovenj Gradec; 1972 – I. trienale jugoslovanske grafike, Bitola; – Grafika 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 grafike, Bitola, Skopje; – Razstava 30 let Akademije za likovno umetnost, Ljubljana; 1976 – XV. likovna srečanja, razstava grafike, Subotica, Pécs, Opole, Lahti; – Bienale Intart, Celovec, Videm, Ljubljana; – Primorski likovni umetniki 76, Ajdovščina, Treviso, Ferrara, Koper, Emmen, Delft, Piran, Nova Gorica; – Grafična zbirka Dravskih elektrarn, Celovec; – Likovni salon 13. november, Cetinje. 1977 – Likovna zbirka Bernardin, Ljubljana; – Sodobna mlada grafika, Pariz, Chateauroux; – IX. bienale mladih, Rijeka; 1978 – Prijatelji Vena Pilona, Ajdovščina; – III. trienale jugoslovanske grafike, 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, Łódz, Wrocław; – vii. razstava suluj, Skopje; – Razstava skupine Laborattorio 7, Benetke, Passariano, Ločnik, Gorica; 1982 – XX. lik. susret, Razstava ilustracija, tipografija, pisava, Subotica; – Razstava grafičnega oblikovanja ob 30–letnici dos, Ljubljana; – Razstava sodobnega gvaša, Radenci; 1983 – Mala grafika, Innsbruck, Schwaz, Beljak; – Razstava iv. nikšićki likovni susreti, Nikšić; – Šest slovenskih grafikov, kic London, Pariz, Stuttgart, Dunaj, New York, Celovec; – Jugoslovanski trienale keramike, Beograd, Subotica; – Grafični trenutek Slovenije, Niš, Varaždin, Velika Gorica, Čačak, Koprivnica; – Aktualnost figure, Razstava dslu, Ljubljana; 1984 – II. razstava sodobnega gvaša, Radenci; – Razstava slikarske kolonije Sićevo, Niš; – Razstava slovenske grafike, Esslingen, Velenje; 1985 – Jugoslovanska grafika 1950–1980, Beograd; – Razstava grafične mape primorskih umetnikov, Gorica, Trst, Nova Gorica, San Vendemiano; – vi. bienale risbe, Priština; – xxiv. likovni susret, Umetniške kolonije akvarela, Subotica; 1986 – Jugoslovanska grafika 1950–1980, Ljubljana; – Bienale slik malega formata, Split; – Razstava kolonije akvarela, Ečka; 1987 – IV. mednarodna razstava Mali format na papirju, Couvin, (B); – IV. razstava male grafike, Seul; 1988 – V. evropski bienale grafike, Heidelberg; – V. razstava male grafike, Seul; 1989 – xxvii. likovna srečanja, Grafične kolonije Jugoslavije, Subotica; – I. bienale slovenske grafike, Otočec; – VI. bienale akvarela Jugoslavije, Karlovac, Novi Sad, Ljubljana; – Razstava 10+10, Zagreb, Ljubljana; 1990 – Razstava grafike, Fridrikstad, Norveška; – VI. razstava male grafike, Seul; – 25 let Ex tempora, Piran; 1991 – I. grafični natečaj Alpe Adria, Beljak; – Slovenska grafika, Galerija likovnog susreta, Subotica; – Listi iz grafičnega ateljeja Likovnih srečanj Subotica, Galerija Kulturnega centra Novi Sad; 1993 – Majski salon 93, Ljubljana; – XX. mednarodni grafični bienale, Ljubljana; – XII. mednarodna grafična razstava, Seul; 1995 – Razstava sodobne slovenske grafike, Singen, Nemčija; – Razstava del profesorjev ob 50-letnici alu, Ljubljana; 1997 – Kaligrafija v Sloveniji, Schriftmuseum Pettenbach (A); – Razstava zdslu, Fulda; – XVII. slikarski teden, Sveče, Avstrija; 1998 – Slovenska grafika, Osaka, Japonska, Pias gallery, Kobe Art Aid; – Grafična zbirka mglc, Cankarjev dom, Ljubljana; 2000 – 35. mednarodni slikarski ex tempore, Piran; – Razstava mednarodne likovne kolonije Kičevo, Skopje; 2002 – Odtisi s kamna, mglc, Litografija v Sloveniji po 1950; 2003 – Kdo uči, Ljubljana, Galerija Kresija; 2004 – Bookmark, razstava črkovnih vrst, Museum Meermanno, Den Haag, Nizozemska, Ljubljana; 2006 – Zakladnica slovenske grafike 1955–2005, Skopje; – Privlačnost matrice, Lesorez v Sloveniji v 20. stol. mglc, Ljubljana; 2008 – Zakladi slovenske grafike 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, Ajdovščina; 2013 – Majski salon, Ljubljana, Maribor, Dunaj; – Zagorje, razstava likovne kolonije Izlake; – IX. mednarodno likovno srečanje, Vipavski Križ; 2014 – Majski salon, Ljubljana; 2015 – XVIII. mednarodna likovna kolonija, Ljubljana Festival, Križanke 2016 – Likovna zbirka Bernardin, Mestna galerija Piran; – Ajdovščina, Mini Castra; 2019 – Kranj, Festival kulture; 120 1970 – Andrej Pavlovec, Skromna – elegantna grafika, Dnevnik, 12. 11. 1970; 1972 – Marijan Tršar, predgovor v katalogu, razstava grafik, Salon Meblo, Nova Gorica, 1972; 1973 – Milko Rener, predgovor v katalogu, razstava litografij, Milano; – Brane Kovič, Uspeh mladega grafika v Milanu, PrimN, 25. 5. 1973; – Aleksander Bassin, predgovor v katalogu, razstava litografij, Lamutov likovni salon, Kostanjevica na Krki, 1973; – Janez Mesesnel, Iskanje in boj, Delo, 6. 7. 1973; 1974 – Aleksander Bassin, Bratuševa grafika, Nrazgl, 8. 3. 1974; – Brane Kovič, Ekspresivna figuralika, PrimN, 24. 5. 1974; – Tilka Lavrič, Bratuševo slikarstvo, Dnevnik, 24. 5. 1974; 1975 – Darinka Kladnik, Obtok, vračanje, Dnevnik, 8. 7. 1975; – Brane Kovič, Bratuševa in Černigojeva grafika in poezija, PrimN, 27. 6. 1975; – Brane Kovič, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik in risb, Klub Tribine mladih, Split, 1975; 1976 – Brane Kovič, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Ajdovščina, Piran, Nova Gorica, 1976; – Lojze Bizjak, Lucijan Bratuš v Pilonovi galeriji, PrimN, 27. 2. 1976; – Brane Kovič, Umirjen kolorit, Delo, 25. 3. 1976; – Janez Mesesnel, Napredek na mnogih ravneh, Delo, 16. 4. 1976; – Brane Kovič, Nove slike Lucijana Bratuša, PrimN, 1. 4. 1977; 1977 – Brane Kovič, 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 Kovič, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Galerija Labirint, Ljubljana, 1978; – Franc Zalar, Akt v spreminjanju, Dnevnik, 15. 7. 1978; – Brane Kovič, Novejša dela Lucijana Bratuša, Mladina, 20. 7. 1978; 1979 – Brane Kovič, 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, Grafični prostor poezije, Nrazgl, 16. 1. 1981; – Brane Kovič, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Institut Jožef Stefan, Ljubljana, 1981; – France Pibernik, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Mala galerija, Kranj,1981; – Franc Zalar, Čudež v Šiški, Dnevnik, 4. 12. 1981; 1982 – Brane Kovič, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik, Knjižnica B. Zupančiča, Postojna, 1982; 1983 – Brane Kovič, predgovor v katalogu, Galerija Želva, Preserje, 1983; – France Pibernik, Iz slikarjevih skicirk Lucijana Bratuša, Nrazgl, 10. 6.; 1984 – Brane Kovič, 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 Šivčevi 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, Ajdovščina, 1989; 1991 – Milček Komelj, Vprašanje Bratuševega kaligrafskega ekspresio- nizma (razstava v novogoriškem Kreativnem ateljeju Klavdija Tutte). Reprodukcije slik in grafik. NRazgl, 22. 3. 1991; – Janez Mesesnel, Ekspresivni naglas sinteze. Delo, 25. 6. 1991; 1994 – Nina Klun, Lucijan Bratuš, človek, ki v času računalnikov najraje piše s trstiko, Lucas, april 1994, leto 4, št. 1/2, str. 29–32. 1995 – Marijan Tršar, predgovor v katalogu, razstava slik in grafik, Inštitut Jožef Stefan, marec 1995; 1997 – Veliki splošni leksikon dzs, I. knjiga, str. 501, Ljubljana, 1997 1998 – Jurij Paljk, predgovor v katalogu razstave, razstava grafik, Galerija Ars, Gorica, Italija, 1998; – Jurij Paljk, Trdna vera v človeka v likovni pripovedi, Galerija Ars – razstava Lucijana Bratuša, Primorski dnevnik, let 54/ št. 74 (28. III. 1998) – Gorazd Kocijančič, predgovor v katalogu razstave litografij, Galerija Ars sacra, Maribor, 1998; – K. S. Svet, kot ga vidi Lucijan Bratuš, Družina, 28. nov. 1998; 1999 – Gorazd Kocijančič, predgovor v katalogu kaligrafske razstave, Skopje, 1999; 2000 – Gorazd Kocijančič, V začetku je bila Beseda, predgovor v katalogu razstave, Ljubljana, 2000; 2004 – Gorazd Kocijančič, Tistim zunaj, Eksoterični zapisi 1990–2003, kud Logos, Ljubljana 2004; 2009 – Gorazd Kocijančič, Če je tvoje oko čisto …, besedilo v katalogu razstave, Pilonova galerija Ajdovščina; – Jožef Muhovič, Lucijan Bratuš – risar nad samotnim breznom, besedilo v katalogu razstave, Pilonova galerija Ajdovščina; – 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; – Milček Komelj, Barviti inkarnat Bratuševe kaligrafske slikarske risbe; 2012 – Jožef Muhovič, Lucijan Bratuš – risar nad samotnim breznom, v: S slikarstvom na štiri oči, Raziskovalni inštitut aluo, Ljubljana; 2013 – Dejan Mehmedović, besedilo v katalogu razstave, Strunjan 2019 – Milček Komelj, Bratuševa slikarska afirmacija življenja, besedilo v katalogu razstave, Lokarjeva galerija, Ajdovščina; 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, Lična hiša, Ajdovščina. Bibliografija predstavitev in kritik o delu Lucijana Bratuša / Bibliography of Presentations and Reviews of the Work of Lucijan Bratuš.