Page 43 - Studio International - February 1967

kinetic art a stage further, in one direction at least. 'What Concrete group MAM. At that time she was already
I am trying to do', she wrote in her notebook in 1957, 'is making 'Counter-reliefs'. These consisted of two super-
to compose in space.'1 In this she, in common with other imposed planes so arranged that the upper plane could
kinetic artists, is in the direct line of descent from fold back like a shutter. Thus an unlimited number of
Cezanne, the Cubists and the Futurists. But, whereas they compositions, according to the position of the upper
merely represented an object moving in space or as seen by plane, became possible. From the 'counter-reliefs' she
someone moving round it, she and the other kinetic artists progressed to what she called 'grubs' (bichos). These,
compose in actual space. Now, one feature of composition which are sometimes metal, sometimes rubber, already
in space is that it calls for greater participation on the part occupy space, that is, the planes, in their initial position,
of the spectator. He cannot remain passive but must unlike the 'counter-reliefs', never lie flat. Moreover—and
gather each momentary phase of the moving object and this is of the first importance—they respond to touch by a
built up a spatial composition (or should one say concep- movement of their own, like an organism stirring into life.
tion?) out of this transitory material. It is somewhat like This led Lygia Clark to call her next kind of construction,
apprehending a musical or dance composition, but there which was made of articulated metal, 'animal'. In 1960
is this difference: sound is essentially non-spatial (though she described these as follows :
a sense of space can be conveyed, e.g. distant sounds) and
`My latest works have been called "animals" because of
dance is essentially patterns of movement closely allied to
their essentially organic aspect. . . . The "animal" has his
sound, while in kinetic art, though patterns of movement
own, well-defined cluster of movements which react to the
play a part, their chief function is to define a definite area
promptings of the spectator. He is not made of isolated
of space. The earliest kinetic works (e.g. Gabo's Kinetic
static forms which can be manipulated at random, as in
Sculpture, 1920 cf. p. 66), did not call for a great effort on
a game; no, his parts are functionally related to each
the part of the spectator, it is true. The movement was so
other, as if he were a living organism; and the move-
simple that the eye could apprehend (and the camera
ments of these parts are interlinked. The first movement
could capture) all the phases at once. But the more com-
(yours) does not belong to the "animal". The inter-linking
plex the movement becomes the greater the co-operation
of the spectator's action and the "animals" immediate
demanded from the spectator.
answer is what forms this new relationship, made possible
Kinetic art, therefore, breaks down the barrier between
precisely because the "animal" moves—i.e. has a life of its
the object and the subject or spectator, and enables him
own.' 2
to enter into a closer, more intimate relationship with the
object. 'The work should call for the immediate partici- In moving one of these objects, then, we are conscious
pation of the spectator and the latter should be immersed of setting in train a process which goes forward with an
in it. The spectator should be projected into the work, impetus and according to principles of its own. In simpler
actually to feel in his own person all the spatial possibil- terms, we cannot mess about with these things. We cannot
ities suggested', Lygia Clark wrote in 1957. But in those arrange them as we like. Put them in a certain position
forms of kinetic art where the object itself moves, whether and they may flop over into another. It is like having
it is propelled by a motor or by natural forces, this one's pulse on the creative process itself, experiencing a
immediate participation is not possible. There is still a creative principle working itself out under the tips of your
distinction between the spectator and the work. The fingers. This is what Moholy-Nagy meant by an intensi-
spectator is passive to the extent that he merely contem- fication of the faculties, by becoming an active partner of
plates a work which is presented to him and is over against forces which develop of their own accord. This is what
him, so to speak. To become immersed in the work, to be Lygia Clark means when she says that the subject and
projected into it, he must take an active part in its move- object tend to disappear. The 'work' is no longer an
ment. In other words, he must move it. object to be contemplated. It is something which evolves
This idea did not originate with Lygia Clark. It was in time like music or a dance. But it is like music played
outlined by Moholy-Nagy as early as 1922 in his mani- or a dance danced, for it is the joint product of the activity
festo on dynamic-constructive systems of forces. Up till of both spectator and object.
then, he said, man had been merely receptive in observing Now it may be asked : what part has the artist in all this ?
works of art. Dynamic-constructive systems of forces `The Idea', says Lygia Clark, 'belongs to the artist, the
would enable him to experience 'an intensification of his expression to the spectator.' The movements of the object
faculties, becoming himself an active partner of forces are partly predetermined, partly indeterminate. Mario
which develop of their own accord.' But Moholy saw his Pedrosa in his article, already referred to, explains this
own works (the Light-space Modulators, for example) as (following Andreas Speiser) by applying the mathema-
only experimental, demonstrational devices, to explore tical theory of groups. According to this theory, what is
the relations between man, materials, forces and space. determined is not the individual movement but the
He foresaw—or at least hoped—that these experimental aggregate, or, as Lygia Clark calls it, the cluster of move-
results would be used in the creation of freely moving, and ments. No one, not even the artist, can foresee what the
not merely mechanically moved, works of art. Lygia actual movements will be. 'When asked what will come
Clark's work is the fulfilment of Moholy-Nagy's project. out of this 'going' (the name she has given to her latest
Lygia Clark was born in Brazil in 1920. She studied work), my answer is: 'I don't know, neither do you; we
first under the landscape-architect, Roberto Burle Marx, will see how it reveals itself.' But whatever these move-
and under Leger, Dobrinsky and Szènes, in Paris, from ments are, their structure has been determined by the
1950-52. In 1959 she was a co-founder of the Neo- artist. They adhere to certain basic principles which the