Ricardo Pinto’s work inextricably linked to the affirmation of the existence of a “perfect form” or to put differently this apparently simple idea as a statement, basic forms derived from more complex ones can capture, in the deconstruction process itself, a kind of common ground where the object and its representation are the affirmation of a similar reality in different contexts. A “situation” associated to a “diagram” would refer to a surrounding space of essential value in which the role of specific support materials and formal concerns are executed in relation to other elements, in a given composition, to open new readings of a certain object, form or a reference to a specific event.

On the premises of such intuition where one element can condense the properties of all other elements from which it’s related or associated, the reading of any type of literal or obvious homage to Luis Barragan, Mathias Goeritz or Sigmar Polke is irrelevant. There is no such transfiguration but the recontextualization of an intuitive architectonical tropism of both a method and the representation of an idea: how an initial bi-dimensional (cartesian plan) representation of an object can expansively define a more abstract space to resolve the fundamental principle of modernism by the alteration, delineation and intersection of solid forms and the plastic materiality of certain materials (paint, light etc.)? How can elemental forms can sometimes exist only as architectural models? How architectural models can be instruments of cognitive and visual reflection and, simultaneously having the specific purpose of questioning the arbitrary categorization between sculpture and architecture. And in many instances, those simplest forms derived from more complex (initial) associations become the “base unit” of a sculptural and painting language from which Pinto alters the experience of the physical space, a canvas, a landscape. Those deceptively simple structures in the forms of lines, gridded squares, architectural models create two-part variations of the same: how much of our reality was determined by our recognition of a specific form and how much of this perception is determined by our architectural environment. 

Ricardo Pinto Gollas’ drawings, paintings, sculptures and “models” derived from architectural maquettes have probably the same perceptive and intellectual intention than Robert Rauschenberg White Paintings (1951) and their conceptual variations, a combinatory and modular series of elements as receptive surfaces that shift the attention required by the viewer from the object itself to the change of the architectural landscape.