Art Madrid'26 – Exhibition Le Corbusier, an atlas of modern landscape in Caixa Forum Madrid.

CaixaForum Madrid hosts until October 12 a special exhibition devoted to this creative, organized by the Museum of Modern Art in New York and in collaboration with the Fondation Le Corbusier in Paris. 
 
The exhibition offers a truly vital tour through Charles-Édouard Jeanneret's life with his early influences at his birthplace, in La Chaux-de-Fonds (Jura, Switzerland., 1887), and tracking of all his movements at the planet, which had a great influence on his work and his concept of architectura and urbanism. 
Jeanneret was more than an architect and furniture designer, was also a painter, writer and photographer, and, moreover, was a visionary, critic and ambitious, whose revolutionary projects were breathtaking for everyone. But what it was most fascinating in his works was the idea of questioning the status quo and ambition as a radical change in concepts, starting with the material used itself and following the organic character of the buildings. In 1920, already established in Paris, founded with poet Paul Dermée magazine of art and avant-garde culture L'Esprit nouveau, where he began signing his articles with the pseudonym Le Corbusier, not to link your real name to provocations contained in his writings. 
Its buildings are the aesthetic lines of the 50s, however, the zenith of his creations blossoms between 1920 and 1930 never would have said that some of their best ideas are from this period, but it is. The commitment reinforced concrete housing construction modular and expandable and movable plates, the vast redevelopment projects of European capitals ... The ideas of Le Corbusier soaked all their architectural conceptions and in them was always the deseeo of espetar dialogue with the landscape and the environment, and create a magnificent work which incorporate all the good that had been collecting throughout his many travels abroad. From this period are the groundbreaking proposals for redevelopment of the center of Paris or Moscow Kremlin, projects that never saw the light. 
 
The insatiable ambition of Le Corbusier not always (or rather never) coincided with the desire for change or reform who had to approve their projects. Le Corbusier was busy, tireless in attack the obsolescence of these thoughts and the obtuse and limited character who cercenaban, again and again, his view of revolution and urban transformation. Few of his extraordinary complete renovation projects were carried out, and that fruited did outside Europe. Indeed, Le Corbusier was almost bound to an intellectual exile. In his many lectures, in which he drew while setting out his ideas, to the amazement of the audience, did not hide his disappointment with the impositions of power and constant denials that he was a victim. 
Le Corbusier did not hesitate to go to South America, Africa and Asia. However always dreamed of returning to Europe. And he did, accepting projects 
lesser importance in which he could also implement some of his ideas, such as building known unités d'habitation, modular homes designed to facilitate the building and be functional, or designs in harmony with the landscape, such as the well-known chapel of Notre Dame du Haut, Ronchamp. 
 
In recent time, Le Corbusier became melancholic and nostalgic, and drastically reduced its activity, taking refuge in his painting studio at the foot of the Mediterranean, to live with what he called "my island".

 


ART MADRID’26 INTERVIEW PROGRAM. CONVERSATIONS WITH ADONAY BERMÚDEZ


The painting of Daniel Bum (Villena, Alicante, 1994) takes shape as a space for subjective elaboration, where the figure emerges not so much as a representational motif but as a vital necessity. The repetition of this frontal, silent character responds to an intimate process: painting becomes a strategy for navigating difficult emotional experiences—an insistent gesture that accompanies and alleviates feelings of loneliness. In this sense, the figure acts as a mediator between the artist and a complex emotional state, linking the practice of painting to a reconnection with childhood and to a vulnerable dimension of the self.

The strong autobiographical dimension of his work coexists with a formal distance that is not the result of conscious planning, but rather functions as a protective mechanism. Visual restraint, an apparent compositional coolness, and an economy of means do not neutralize emotion; instead, they contain it, avoiding the direct exposure of the traumatic. In this way, the tension between affect and restraint becomes a structural feature of his artistic language. Likewise, the naïve and the disturbing coexist in his painting as inseparable poles, reflecting a subjectivity permeated by mystery and unconscious processes. Many images emerge without a clearly defined prior meaning and only reveal themselves over time, when temporal distance allows for the recognition of the emotional states from which they arose.


The Long Night. Oil, acrylic, and charcoal on canvas. 160 × 200 cm. 2024.


The human figure appears frequently in your work: frontal, silent, suspended. What interests you about this presence that seems both affirmative and absent?

I wouldn’t say that anything in particular interests me. I began painting this figure because there were emotions I couldn’t understand and a feeling that was very difficult for me to process. This character emerged during a very complicated moment in my life, and the act of making it—and remaking it, repeating it again and again—meant that, during the process, I didn’t feel quite so alone. At the same time, it kept me fresh and connected me to an inner child who was broken at that moment, helping me get through the experience in a slightly less bitter way.


Santito. Acrylic and oil on canvas. 81 × 65 cm. 2025.


There is a strong affective dimension in your work, but also a calculated distance, a kind of formal coldness. What role does this tension between emotion and restraint play?

I couldn’t say exactly what role that tension plays. My painting is rooted in the autobiographical, in memory, and in situations I have lived through that were quite traumatic for me. Perhaps, as a protective mechanism—to prevent direct access to that vulnerability, or to keep it from becoming harmful—that distance appears unconsciously. It is not something planned or controlled; it simply emerges and remains there.


Night Painter. Acrylic on canvas. 35 × 27 cm. 2025.


Your visual language oscillates between the naïve and the unsettling, the familiar and the strange. How do these tensions coexist for you, and what function do they serve in your visual exploration?

I think it reflects who I am. One could not exist without the other. The naïve could not exist without the unsettling; for me, they necessarily go hand in hand. I am deeply drawn to mystery and to the act of painting things that even I do not fully understand. Many of the expressions or portraits I create emerge from the unconscious; they are not planned. It is only afterwards that I begin to understand them—and almost never immediately. A considerable amount of time always passes before I can recognize how I was feeling at the moment I made them.


Qi. Acrylic on canvas. 81 × 65 cm. 2025.


The formal simplicity of your images does not seem to be a matter of economy, but of concentration. What kind of aesthetic truth do you believe painting can reach when it strips itself of everything superfluous?

I couldn’t say what aesthetic truth lies behind that simplicity. What I do know is that it is something I need in order to feel calm. I feel overwhelmed when there are too many elements in a painting, and I have always been drawn to the minimal—to moments when there is little, when there is almost nothing. I believe that this stripping away allows me to approach painting from a different state: more focused, more silent. I can’t fully explain it, but it is there that I feel able to work with greater clarity.


Crucifixion. Acrylic on canvas. 41 × 33 cm. 2025.


To what extent do you plan your work, and how much space do you leave for the unexpected—or even for mistakes?

I usually feel more comfortable leaving space for the unexpected. I am interested in uncertainty; having everything under control strikes me as rather boring. I have tried it on some occasions, especially when I set out to work on a highly planned series, with fixed sketches that I then wanted to translate into painting, but it was not something I identified with. I felt that a fundamental part of the process disappeared: play—that space in which painting can surprise even myself. For that reason, I do not tend to plan too much, and when I do, it is in a very simple way: a few lines, a plane of color. I prefer everything to happen within the painting itself.