The harmony of the forms comes from the harmony of the proportions of the model (human body). The expression of the form is not neutral either, because it takes on the character of the expression of the posture retained.
Thus an expanding movement of the human body will result in a dynamic configuration of the support; a calm and restrained posture results in a support of calm configuration. We see that the figure we want to paint does not adapt to the shape of the support, but that conversely the support adapts its shape to the shape of the motif.
But it is also true that in practice (i.e. by reworking the sketches, by taking photos of the model to have more details (for the realistic effect) for the painting, by producing models), the enlargement of the latter to life size forces us to reinscribe, rework, rethink, the image of the model to make it coexist with its real support.
After having materialized the first part we come to the abstract part of our two-piece painting. Here again, we start from the model (human body) and take as a reference the support of our realistic part. This is important because we need a relationship of unity between the two, our aim being to show that we are in front of two pieces that form a single painting, where the opposite sides do not destroy each other in order to show themselves, but on the contrary, where they coexist while simultaneously showing their presence.
To achieve this, we thought of giving this abstract part the same form as the starting part.
We did this with a “slight” modification: we reversed the shape exactly as if one could look at the reflection of the shape in a mirror. In this way, we have avoided redundancy: it would have been superfluous, uninteresting and monotonous to simply make the same shape again and put it next to the original shape to say that the two supports were the same.
Of course, this would have given us two identical supports which we would have painted in two different ways: abstract and realistic. However, we thought it more interesting and appropriate to find a second form of support that was similar to the first, but not entirely identical.
This is why we propose an analogy of structure, i.e. a homology. Our abstract support is therefore like a homologue, with one difference: it is the inverse projection (like the image reflected in a mirror) of the realistic support, i.e. its inverted counterpart.
This seemed to us to be a way of unifying our two supports while at the same time giving them a character of opposition, which is in keeping with our initial idea of showing two things that are opposed, but identical at the same time. This inverted symmetry makes it possible to relate the two supports, which thus function as a single painting from the point of view of plastic structure.
