3 Questions by FP (Francesco Pedraglio)
3 Answers by NC (Nicolas Chardon)

1/3
FP - Your strict methodology could involve a certain degree of repetition.
Do you fear the possibility of reaching an end point, a moment when there will be nothing else to add or to comment upon, when there will be just empty tautology?
Do you think it could exist an “end of your practice”?

NC - The question of the end is central in my work, but not like an achievement, a goal or a menace. The fact, maybe paradoxical, is that I start from the end. I start with a totally finished painting, I mean a real modern painting with colors (the colors of the fabric), a pattern all over (the grid) and even a gesture (the deformation of the grid given the the tension). So, the tautology, I should say the modern tautology is already accomplished when I start to paint, following the lines of the pattern. Then I could say my pratice explore the unfinished side of modernism.

2/3
FP - As a viewer I found myself in the position of having to trust not just your work, but also (maybe even more) you as an artist, you as the persona you created around the work itself.
How important do you think is truthfulness in (and to) your practice? NC - Mmhh, it's very personal. I prefer answering with this quote of Quatremère de Quincy (De l'imitation, 1823):
"L'exemple du jeu expliquera plus clairement ce sujet. Personne n'ignore qu'il y a en ce genre des manières de tromper légitimes ; c'est ce qu'on appelle les finesses du jeu. II y a aussi des moyens de tromper illicites ; ce sont les supercheries du joueur. Dans le premier cas, où la tromperie a lieu selon les règles du jeu, autrement, dans ce cercle de conditions données où l'on est convenu de se pouvoir tromper réciproquement, l'erreur qui pouvait être évitée, est réputée la faute de celui qui se laisse tromper. C'est la nature du jeu. Dans le second cas, celui de la supercherie, l'erreur a été inévitable, puisqu'elle est du fait de la fraude, qui sort de la nature du jeu, et en est le néant."

3/3
FP - Your obstinacy is the first element a viewer is confronted with. The natural reaction is to concentrate the attention on the tensions you create between form and concept or between tradition and posterity. I wonder if in all this there is space for humour.
Do you think your work has humour or anyhow humour should be another key to look at it?

NC - Remember Bergson's "formula" of the comic, "something mechanical encrusted on the living". Yes, it's clear there is space for humour in my work, and it's probably this space between our generic representation of shapes and what the real make to it!

nicolaschardon.net