Boro Mitrikeski’s evolution as a sculptor has not been marked by great stylistic variation and changes. He has avoided the challenges and risks of great artistic experimentation and has held to the path of artistic moderation. If our intuition is correct this then means that, on his showing to date (during those two decades just past which have influenced his individual position), we can be reasonably sure of Mitrikeski’s continued stability and his spiritual and plastic capabilities.
On the other hand Boro Mitrikeski was a member of that leading wave of artists who suggested, worked out and then launched the new artistic principles in modern Macedonian art. Together with Petar Hadzhi Boshkov, Mitrikeski (one of the generation schooled in Yugoslavia) attempted to give form and importance to the Dawns group during the Sixties while retaining links with the previous achievements of some other Macedonian sculptors. During those lively years of artistic turmoil he came to use those plastic forms and methods, which, on the whole, still distinguish his sculptural ideas today. However, in contrast to some other Macedonian artists such as Petar Hadzhi Boshkov and Yordan Grabul who turned to more courageous experimentation, Mitrikeski’s sensibility remained consistently attracted to the greater or lesser modification of objective visual reality. Thus we should regard his importance for Macedonian sculpture in terms of the skill and degree of his interpretations of reality based on the canons of figurative art. His work seems to represent a delicate balance between hard-cover academicism and free form: he attempts to bridge these two extremes, to form a link between the traditional aesthetic and today’s pure, concrete, abstract expression in a careful and restrained manner.
Boro Mitrikeski entered the artistic life of Macedonia as a representative of academic realism, which seems to be the traditional first step taken by every artist just out of the Academy. During the years from 1954 (when he left the Academy) to 1958 he continued his academic studies on his own initiative under the tutorship of his professors from the Academy: Vania Radaush, Antunats and Krstulovich. At that time the climate for new artistic formulations hardly existed in Macedonia: the quasi-classical canons of art still had a strong hold. Therefore the first appearances of his work in Skopje at exhibitions organized by the Association of Macedonian Artists was well received by the critics:
"A new name has appeared in sculpture — Boro Mitrikeski. His sculpture Head I is one of the best things in this exhibition".
"Among the sculptures at this exhibition those by Ljubcho Stefanovski.
and Boro Mitrikeski stand out; Mitrikeski’s Portrait of Tito shows in its details an exceptional grasp of plastic forms".
The sculptor’s first works: Head I (1954), Portrait of Tito (1955), Tsar Samuil (1956), Composition, The Sirdar, Tobacco Worker, Portrait of a Girl (1957), Sketch for a Nude (1958), etc. — besides their thematic relationship to traditional sculptural motifs (portraits, figures, nudes) show careful attention to the concepts of classical process allowing themselves, in the best cases, discreet intervention, a gentle stylization of the basic lines of the portrait heads and contours of the nudes and an attempt to synthesize the forms.
During 1958 and 1959 this modest simplification began to give way to the more courageous stylization of intense volumes and the deformation of the figure. In this manner Boro Mitrikeski began to move still further from the ideal canons of Greek tradition. He used contemporary implications in his modeling while retaining some archaic features. This attitude towards sculptural problems invigorated the plastic concepts of the sculptor and left him free to come to an individual understanding of artistic structures based, with few exceptions, on anthropomorphism (Torso and Poet’s Head, 1958, Portrait of Slavko Yanevski, Camp Inmate and Basketball Players, 1959, Portrait of Dragutin Avramovski and Horseman, 1960, Sleepwalker, 1961).
Critical reviews of the exhibitions organized by the Association of Macedonian Artists, in particular, held in 1959, 1960 and 1961 point on the one hand to Mitrikeski’s sculptural intuition, a qualitative judgment, and on the other to the special features of his sculptures. Thus Elena Matsan talks of "the excellent sculpting and psychological depth of his portrait of Slavko Yanevski", and Boris Petkovski notes that "he uses the material itself to advantage to give form to his theme, stresses the details and follows the forms of the human body only in its basic elements".
Some of the sculptures, which we have mentioned above together with others, created during the period lasting till 1965 were shown at his first one-man exhibition in the Workers’ University in 1965. Here we saw clearly the definitive artistic orientation of this artist, his contextual and theoretical position as a "positive realist". He has remained faithful to his humanist constructions to this day. The years from 1968 to 1974 were to introduce a period of even less experimentation, deformation and stylization: his figures lose even the degree of expressionistic impulse which he had shown formerly, his modeling expresses respect for smoothness and the dominant impression is of surface carving and calmness (Seated Nude, 1968, Torso, 1969, Pride, 1974, Mother and Child, 1974).
Boro Mitrikeski’s themes arise, above all, from the subtle analysis of humanity. His basic preoccupation is to recreate various aspects of the human body (portraits, nudes, torsos, figures), which demand the individual services of the artist. Before we move to the analysis of his contribution which has been of particular importance to the birth and growth of contemporary sculpture in Macedonia we should first discuss some of the artist’s more emphatic predilections which spring more from the thematic characteristics of his work than from their ontological character. Both the recent and more distant cultural past have stimulated Mitrikeski, who felt himself to be in debt to the figures of the revival, and this led to a whole series of works between the years 1955 and 1974: Portrait of Tito, 1955, Composition, The Sirdar, 1957, Tsar Samuil, 1956, several variations on Clement of Ohrid, 1969-1974, Cyril and Methodius, 1969, Kiril Peychinovik, 1969, Kuzman Kapidan, 1969, Marko Tsepenkov Narrates, 1974, etc. The simplification we find in these works underlines the psychological component, the creative attempt to achieve the interior expression of the personality.
From time to time, perhaps as relaxation or from the desire for variety’ Mitrikeski turns to the creation of animal forms which are often accompanied by a human figure (Cat, 1960, Horseman, 1960 and 1974, Bull, 1961, Horse’s Head, 1962). It is in some of these works that we can find his small masterpieces: the robustness, powerful expression and the sense of tension in voluminous forms are brought to their maximum expression as are his rare dynamism and the energy of his carving.
Let us return to the question of those artistic features of Mitrikeski’s work, which divide it from traditionalism as a retarded aesthetic in contemporary sculpture. In this respect we shall concentrate on the following points:
1. Separation from the classical principles in art
2. Anthropomorphism as a starting point and base for the creation of a new artistic reality
3. Incompleteness as a dominant feature
4. The degree and role of deformation as one of the basic expressive factors
5. Inclination to primitive and archaic forms.
At first sight the visual and external impact of the basic stylistic conception of Mitrikeski’s sculptures leads one to think that they belong within the classical framework. This is particularly true if we concentrate on the compactness of his forms, his leaning towards classical materials: stone and wood, his starting point in the visual world, the use of volume and plan, the existence of the two elements, the visual and the suggested, out of which, according to the American aesthetician Thomas Monroe, arise form.
However, as we look more carefully these first impressions lose their intensity and reality. The tightness of Mitrikeski’s forms (which partly rejects the play of open and closed structures of modern art) and even their tension and volume show the effect of contemporary influences which are quite foreign to a classical conception of sculpture. Thus the skillful deformation of the bodies and limbs of his nudes and torsos negate the traditional ideals of proportion: symmetry gives way to asymmetry, visual description to stylistic simplification. Though Mitrikeski uses reality as his starting point his transcription of it is entirely individual. The basic elements of his figures are so changed as to negate any relationship with visual reality: Torso I, Torso II, 1962, Sketch, 1965. The use of classical materials, wood and stone, remains as a recollection of a former plastic ideal. The equilibrium between the representational and the non-representational is destroyed, sometimes to the advantage of one form, sometimes to the advantage of the other. To sum up: Mitrikeski’s works clearly show the modification of classical sculptural canons as a result of the metamorphoses of the artist’s conceptions. We exclude a large number of his sculptures created during the period 1968-1974.
Lazar Trifunovich’s opinion that "the humanism of the art work does not depend on the human form but rather from more complex and authentic principles which need, and find, a new, courageous means of expression", when applied to Mitrikeski does seem to confirm the truth that human representation based on complex interior principles succeeds in suggesting the humanism of the creative work through contemporary forms and means. Mitrikeski gives us a solution that shows even through the use of the oldest classical themes that the artist is still in a position to avoid the faded ideals of a past era through his own inventiveness; to fuse the visual representation of the human form with his own modern and subjective point of view. This interpretative anthropomorphism cannot be accepted as the reproduction of existing reality but as its artistic recreation.
Some contemporary artists are attempting to demolish the integrity of the artwork and pretend to express the ideal of our time. The disgust with traditional forms finds its counterpoint in incompleteness. The artist finds in this ideal the attraction of revelation and takes it as his base. As Dragan Yeremich says: "The art work always balances between completeness and incompleteness. These opposites are not dictated by any objective principle but by the artist himself". Incompleteness varies from artist to artist, from one stylistic principle to another. The very fact that the artist is particularly attracted to the description of torsos acts as a springboard from which he works out his aesthetic principles of incompleteness. Mitrikeski’s sculptures which follow this principle most exactly, in our opinion, earn the epithet original: Torso I, 1962, Torso III, 1963, Torso, 1965, Seated Nude, 1965, Pain, 1964, Sketch, 1965. In these works the human figure is reduced to its most basic elements, to the borders of association. It is often the case that Mitrikeski concentrates only on the body (torso) and top of the legs while only indicating or totally eliminating the upper extremities. We have already pointed out that Mitrikeski does not use a method of detailed and exact description and even those parts which are formed are only sketched in, so to speak, and it is left to the viewer to complete them. This gives the sculptures greater flexibility and attraction and activates the passive viewer, an essential component if we accept that "the creative act is only one more thorough and abstract moment in the creation of a work of art" (J. P. Sartre). The completeness of the sculptures lies in their ability to force the viewer to think creatively and concentrate his attention.
The contemporary artist is as attracted by deformation as he is by incompleteness. The aims of both these factors arise from the same root: the desire to escape from the sphere of convention and anonymity. Mitrikeski often uses deformation but he does not exploit it in the way that a large number of contemporary sculptors do (Moore, Arp, Zadkine, Dzhamonia, Hadzhi Boshkov). He introduces it almost discreetly and applies it to the remaining elements of the creative operation. He often makes use of this method when provoked by the natural form of the material (this does not exclude the reverse process, i.e. the choice of the material precisely because of its imaginative possibilities). The manner in which Mitrikeski uses deformation is reminiscent of the Italian sculptor Marino Marini. We can also find this relationship in the thematic interests of the sculptor — horsemen, portraits, female figures — in his use of detail, in his stress on only the most important psychological characteristics of his portraits, in the energy of his modelling and use of surface texture, in the simplification of the basic plastic blocks and, finally, in the positive relationship with his public.
The most striking results of deformation in the hands of Mitrikeski are:
1) elongation of the figures; 2) disproportion. The elongation of the human figure and other forms is a feature of some sculptures found in Etruscan and Iberian graves and the same form of stylization can be seen in the representation of certain female idols of pre-historic Europe. In modern art Pablo Picasso, that uncompromising destroyer of artistic convention, began to revive these forms in 1931. The integral deformation practiced by Mitrikeski is a synthesis of the deformation of individual details. If we analyze one of his sculptures e.g. a female figure, we find that the head is reduced to the minimum: a scheme of shallow carving in the structure of the wood or marble, or just the basic contours of the face and its features. The body and legs form elongated ovals and the hands, insofar as they are present (there is usually only one), follow the stylization of the rest of the body, or are treated as an integral part of the body in shallow relief using a method of discreet indication. Mitrikeski varies this pattern only slightly. The basic disproportions in his sculptures reduce the head to 1:18 in relation to the body. These proportions stress the effect of monumentality: the head appears as the most atrophied part of the work in contrast to the relatively hyperactive components such as the thigh, torso, back and stomach. The breasts of the female forms are not emphasized. Deformation usually arises from the discrepancy in size or disposition of the two breasts or even the complete elimination of one of them. These factors reflect Matisse’ opinion that "exactness is not truth". The cumulative effect of these deformations is a synthetic form, usually dominated by the vertical aspect, possessing compactness of volume, a condensed static rhythm in which we can feel the internal vibrations of the structure. With this understanding we can reject our surface impressions, which only reflect an outmoded wish for elegant, gracious and lyrical forms, which protect the viewer from the dangerous influences of aggressive concepts.
The simplification and reduction of the artwork to its basic elements has one source in the exotic styles which have influenced almost all modern sculpture. Herbert Read lists these sources as: "primitive (folk and chidren’s art), Etruscan, early Greek, African tribal art, early Christian art". The elementalism, which Mitrikeski practises, is closest to creations of folk art and the primitives. However Mitrikeski’s use of primitivism and simplicity and his freedom from complexes and prejudice, as is the case with most modern sculptors, is introduced intentionally and consciously. This voluntary initiative has been noted and pointed out by both Macedonian and foreign art critics. The archaic elements in Mitrikeski’s sculptures, which arise from his simplification of form, can be traced to the national tradition and his recognition of it. This interest in his native sources lends greater authenticity to his transcriptions of reality.
If Mitrikeski’s smaller works are created in the spirit of realistic intimacy with elements of restrained expressionism, his monumental works take the opposite course. For example, his sculpture in the Skopje Iron and Steel Works is worked in iron, a material quite foreign to the artist. It is in fact his only metal sculpture. In this first contact with an unknown agent he has tried to express himself in a new language. The consequences of this are visible in this sculpture. In turning in a new direction Mitrikeski has abandoned his well known closed forms and turned to the construction of open, transparent forms. The structure is harder to read and abounds in the abstract play of symbols. It suggests something magical in the sense that the philosopher Collingwood would describe that concept: "Magical activity is a form of dynamite which furnishes the mechanism of practical life with an emotional current which activates it".
The other of Mitrikeski’s monumental works is in marble and exhibited in the park in Skopje. It is distinct from both the former work and his other sculptures. It is constructed from two large marble blocks which are formed geometrically, the lower block tending more to function as a base while the upper block represents a closed form dominated by a symbolic register executed in shallow and deep relief. In this emblematic manner Mitrikeski creates a free play of geometric symbols, which leave an impression of decorativeness, which is quite free from any anthropomorphic representation even in terms of association.
However, we feel that Mitrikeski’s basic preoccuption should remain the artistic modification of anthropomorphic forms as it is these which arouse the artist’s most authentic, distinctive, creative reactions. He has made a specific contribution to contemporary art with his portraits, human figures and torsos and these are his most impressive creations in the context of sculptural expression in Macedonia.