People say that when a person works with art, that person is an artist.
The terms of art are never defined or definite; they are always blurred
and in continuous change.
Working in the field of visual art I think I should call myself an
But from a certain point of view I would prefer not to define myself
an artist: I'd rather say I am someone who deals with diverse and
different disciplines which can be considered art.
Working in different fields is a large commitment but it also implies
receiving the criticism of those who see this movement from one discipline
to the other as lack of steady beliefs and precise ideas.
This is a criticism I have sometimes heard.
I do NOT agree: In the past there have been many people well known
and famous or much less known who have often operated in different
and many disciplines with reasonable results.
The process which concerns my activities
in art, design, architecture, music and cinema isn't separated in
distinct sealed compartments.
The differences one might notice are only apparent.
The various fields in which I work are of the same kind and emerge
from the same feeling but proceed undoubtedly with different techniques
that complete themselves and demonstrate the necessary and different
essence of each discipline.
An element which was taken to my notice and that often has been brought
to me as a criticism for many years, is that I also am inspired by
I'll immediately give an example of this.
My music partitions may be related to the Indian and Tibetan Mandala
and Yantra, supposing that my
music in its intentionality may have some elements in common with
oriental music: but if you listen to it, there is really nothing oriental
In the same way recalls from oriental art are present in other works.
Even if what I create is related to different disciplines and to oriental
art (as has often happened in our culture) these remain technically
and visually occidental products and I doubt anyone could define them
distant from our culture.