Lucijan Bratuš, s, 70, 02, 95 x 95. g orazd Kocijančič, l ucijan bratuš, sodobni don Kihot 265 gorazd kocijančič Lucijan Bratu Š, Sodo Bni don kihot č e je tvoje oko či Sto … V svoji pronicljivi analizi propada evropske kulture, resignirano naslovljeni »k ako smo izgubili z ahod« (h ow the West was lost, 2006) a lexander boot ob razmisleku o modernistični umetnosti ugotavlja: »z ahodni človek je to, kar je bil, navsezadnje postal natanko zaradi svoje zmožnosti osredotočiti se na bistvo stvari, ne na njihovo zunanjo lupino. n ič 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 ekspanzijami, razbijanji in ponovnimi sestavitvami pač ni izgubljen sam smisel umetnosti. izvoren in poslednji 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. d ejstvo, 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) n a začetku enaindvajsetega stoletja so – ob bobnenju 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 po- stavile v vlogo »konservativcev«. l ucijan bratuš sodi med te sodobne donkihote. s like na sploh lahko govorijo o tem, kar smo videli na svojih poteh ali nam je bilo izročeno – ali pa o n iču vid(e)nega, o drugosti, ki privlači in plaši vsakega popotnika. in vendar vedno govorijo predvsem o slikarjevem „pogledu“. o po- gledu duše, ki je ves svet – in zato njen pogled pomeni zmožnost razbiranja ne- vidnih oblik. bratuševe grafike razkrivajo bogastvo notranjih možnosti nekega zrenja. Vanj vstopa celota sveta. Vse, kar privlači slikarjevo oko, bitja in notranje prikazni v vsej svoji nedoločenosti in mnogopomenskosti. u metnik temu priha- janju sledi nepretenciozno, 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 nonšalantnosti. prav izkustvo kaligrafa je odločilno tudi za bratuša kot grafika: v svojih stva- ritvah nikoli ne pozablja tisočletne verige skrivnostnih upredmetenj človeškega duha, porojenih iz napetosti med nujo simbola in svobodnostjo simboliziranja, pasijon s Ki Dones Ki 2021 16 266 med nepredvidljivim videnjem kaligrafske ustvarjalnosti in neizprosnostjo iz- ročila, med obiljem pomenljivega in jedkostjo racionalizacije. l epo–pis, pri- klicevanje lepote s pomočjo nepredvidljivih krasitev in zaobrnitev pisave, zanj namreč ni le frivolno poigravanje z možnostmi zapisa, ujetnica potrebe in po- ljubnosti, ampak ob–likujoč odziv na skrivnostno, izmikajoče se samorazkriva- nje a bsolutnega, sočloveka in sveta. k aligrafsko oblikovanje, igra s premenami, prelivanji in prehajanji raznih črk zapisu odvzame njegovo samorazumljivost – in obenem problematizira pomensko izpraznjenost »čiste« podobe v grafiki. l ikovna igra nas nepojmovno vodi do skrivnosti besede. l ogosa, ki je obenem arhetipska 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, zato seveda sto- pa predvsem uzrta skrivnost sočloveka: obraz deklice in obličje moža, golo telo ženske. celo bratuševi demoni niso perzijsko–poznojudovska ali novozave- zna 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 „reševanje 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. o bčuteni mysterium tre- mendum 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 postaja „svetal“. in vendar prav skromna nezaupljivost do „teurgično“ prevrednotene umetnosti na- vsezadnje, skozi tančice vseh svetov, sramežljivo dvigne pogled h k rižanemu in Vstalemu. in tedaj lahko – nazaj, skozi omahujoče, sramežljivo pogledovanje, skozi vztrajno, trmasto ponavljanje potez – spoznamo s trukturo, ki kljub vsemu nosi vse l ucijanove „svetne“ like v njihovi navidezni breztemeljnosti in razpeto- sti nad praznino. preprosto oko v svoji izraziti o–sebnosti odkriva božjo agápe v globini vsega. in izpričuje dušo, ki ostaja, najsi to hočemo ali ne. g orazd Kocijančič, l ucijan bratuš, sodobni don Kihot 267 if y our eye iS pure … a lexander boot in his sharp analysis of the decline of european culture, re- signedly titled ‘h ow the West was l ost’ (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 noth- ing wrong in expanding the limits of tonality or harmony, nothing objectionable in dissecting and rearranging physical shapes into constituent elements — pro- vided 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 g od 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 ‘conservatives’ . l ucijan bratuš belongs amongst these contemporary d on Quixotes. paintings can generally talk about what we have seen on our paths or was presented to us – or about the n othingness of the visible / seen, about the other- ness 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 cogni- tion 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 decisive for bratuš as a print- maker too: in his creations he never forgets the thousand–year–old chain of mysterious 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 pasijon s Ki Dones Ki 2021 16 268 form–giving response to the mysterious, elusive self–disclosure of the a bsolute, 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 empti- ness of the ‘pure’ image in prints. The fine art game leads us non–notionally into the mystery of the Word; of the l ogos that is at the same time archetypical image. it is not about an intro- duction 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 fel- low 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 l ate–persian jewish or the n ew Testament sphere of spiritual evil, but are rather g reek powers of the intermedi- ator 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 styliza- tion of his own horizon, the a ll 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. mul- tiple 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’ . a nd yet precise- ly this modest mistrust in the ‘theurgic’ revalued art after all, through the veils of all worlds, modestly rises to the vision of the c rucified and r esurrected. a nd then — backwards, through the wavering, modestly reviewed, through the per- sisting, obstinate repetition of strokes — we can recognize the structure, which carries all bratuš’s ‘worldly’ figures in their apparent groundlessness and spread- ing above the vacuum. The simple eye in its distinctive sense–of–self discovers g od’s agápe in the depth of everything. a nd testifies the soul that stays, whether we want it or not. g orazd Kocijančič, l ucijan bratuš, sodobni don Kihot 269 Lucijan Bratuš, poliptih, 1979. pasijon s Ki Dones Ki 2021 16 270 Lucijan Bratuš, 1981, kp, 01, 48 x 58 cm. g orazd Kocijančič, l ucijan bratuš, sodobni don Kihot 271 Lucijan Bratuš, 1981, kp, 02, 48 x 58 cm. pasijon s Ki Dones Ki 2021 16 272 Lucijan Bratuš, 1981, kp, 04, 48 x 58 cm. g orazd Kocijančič, l ucijan bratuš, sodobni don Kihot 273 Lucijan Bratuš, 1981, kp, 06, 48 x 58 cm. pasijon s Ki Dones Ki 2021 16 274 Lucijan Bratuš, 1981, kp, 13, 48 x 58 cm. g orazd Kocijančič, l ucijan bratuš, sodobni don Kihot 275 Lucijan Bratuš, 1981, kp, 14, 48 x 58 cm. pasijon s Ki Dones Ki 2021 16 276 Lucijan Bratuš, Mb, Ars, S, 15, 70 x 90 cm. g orazd Kocijančič, l ucijan bratuš, sodobni don Kihot 277 Lucijan Bratuš, Pt–1991–04, akril platno, 183 x 138 cm. pasijon s Ki Dones Ki 2021 16 278 Lucijan Bratuš, 1981, g, 88, 11. g orazd Kocijančič, l ucijan bratuš, sodobni don Kihot 279 Lucijan Bratuš, Križani, g, 70, 19. pasijon s Ki Dones Ki 2021 16 280 Lucijan Bratuš, 1978, 48 x 58 cm.