NOIMA – is an Romanian polyvalent word, that litteraly translates as SENSE
/NOIMA. At the begining there was painting; and painting was with NOIMA; and painting was Noima (t/n: sense)/
The road of NOIMA through noima (sense) begins with the year 2003 in Timișoara, Romania. The first nucleus forms in the workshop and studio of artist Constantin Flondor, a significant personality in the contemporary Romanian art scene and also an initiator of many artistic groups and movements, defined as the neo-avantgarde in the city of Timișoara during the 1960s (i.e.”Group 111”, ”Sigma”, and eventually, ”Prologue”).
Logos Spermatikus was for them the drawing and painting, like earth and water, the studio and mentor moulded as life-giving breath.
Mircea Nedelciu in his book “Zmeura de câmpie” proposes an alternative history defined not by events which compose it, but by a semantic inventory composed of certain words and concepts that constantly conduct it from its incipient form. “Noima” today stands as an archaic word, an autochthonic word, too much embedded in the local spectre surrounded by the new realities of the world-wide web. But it is this very archaic resonance amongst post-structuralist concepts, which gives this word its new meaning. Thus, it is no longer just a synonym for the words “meaning” and “purpose”, but becomes a concept in itself that is representative of an entire tradition of native “meaning”. “Noima” becomes a rigorous kind of “meaning”, that is pragmatic and non-reflective, structured after a gradual deduction. Following the deconstruction of the word, in its form “noima” becomes “noi” – us, but also “the new”.. By spelling the word in Romanian, we get “noi” and “mă” (which can be understood as an imperative word for “you”). These two words which compose “noima” become a motto while being pronounced slowly one after another they translate literally as “we!”.
Cu-Noi-MA (t/n: /With us/for a purpose) And all things were made for a purpose/with us ( (Noi-ma)/; and nothing that was made, wasn’t made without a purpose/without us.(Noi-ma)
“Noima” becomes a definite group in the year 2014, by defining its final component and its direction for which to follow. At the beginning the preference was to define itself as an artistic group through various formulas and formations, given the context and event. Now, we see a form of collaborative art a byproduct of relational aesthetics – where the five artists successfully practice performative actions (painting, happenings, public-space interventions, etc.), quintessentially defined by painting. A group is like a composition of similar objects, while a group of collaborative artists is defined by social constructs. A group of collaborative artists favours a more coherent explanation of a certain concept, but also a more sincere and significant orientation towards the spectator who becomes a participant in a relational art. If the artistic group of the twentieth century created a form of art that became devoid of its origin in an exhibition space that in itself retained an atmosphere of a prescribed concept, a group of collaborative artists utilize the exhibition space as an alternative world with its own narrative. Hence the international recognition these artists enjoyed in galleries and institutions around Europe.
Cu-noi-ma (With us) seems to stand as a manifesto delivered by NOIMA with every public interference made so far. Thus, the transgression becomes visible also in relation to the work itself, ranging from problems involving the observation of ones surroundings – nature, especially – to preoccupations which are more linked to the artistic process – the transformation of the studio and the artist’s purpose in today’s society.
/Fără Noimă (/Without meaning/Without purpose) There was no Meaning, and they came talk about MEANING/US!/
NOIMA is not all a structure and a meaning. It is also play. However, we cannot talk about meaningless play, but about that revelatory play that Johan Huizinga attributes to homo ludens. Play is a form of action that resonates with eastern culture and tradition, where the prologue to discovering the ontological mystery is endlessly postponed. This preference fortifies an apparently paradoxical characteristic: as long as you are more attached to spaces outside your native ones, the more you are inclined to wish encipher in yourself, like an enclave, national liberty and specificity.