Page 61 - Studio International - January 1969

thing to be looked at for its own sake. It no able to ask literally any one to produce them We are no longer in the domain of art. But
longer represents, expresses, etc. It is no longer and claim them as their own. They had in fact we are faced with a questioning of the whole
an illusion. eliminated the artist's 'expression', since who- basis of art.
These canvases introduce a new concept of art ever produces one of these is not expressing Since this article was written, Buren in parti-
which means that the relations between the himself. If there were any self-expression, the cular has been able to demonstrate at what
work and the public will be changed. The work could only be imitated, but if in addition point his action was coherent. He continues to
problem of communication — even of non-com- to Buren and Toroni, absolutely anyone can prove that it is possible to elaborate a practical
munication— will no longer exist. There is no produce the 'same' canvas, this means that the theory in art, on condition that one ceases to
didactic intent. The spectator sees a work in painter never expresses himself on any level, be just an artist or, in other words, that one
itself, nothing else, nothing more. Buren, Mos- whether his name is Buren, Toroni or Any One has a total and specific vision of the innumer-
set, Parmentier and Toroni will not be there Else. If the canvas is always identical, it is able problems posed by the work and its
to entertain you because the entertainment because it is, immutably. The artist is insigni- communication. Using the same material,
aspect of art is the transformation of what is ficant. Thus the system of references which Buren has, since March 1968, produced the
all too true into illusion. Or, put another way, constitutes the language of art is no longer same stripes printed on paper. In April he
illusion is eliminated because no outside ele- acceptable. pasted pieces of paper on advertisement
ments are introduced. This contention supports—and is supported by— hoardings in Paris, showing nothing but the
What happens to technique in their painting? the fact that the very concept of art is fun- stripes themselves. At 'Prospect '68' in Düssel-
It can no longer be the means by which an damentally questioned and in course of being dorf he pasted similar pieces of paper on a
object is transformed into the representation replaced by a new proposition. Because, let us surface 26 by 32 ft (September 1968). In
of an object, into the illusion of an object, not forget, these pictures existed before we October, in an article in Galerie des Arts, Buren,
because there is no longer an object to re- came to talk about them. Logically (according discussing specific and marginal problems of
create. In fact their technique is extremely to their own lights), they have painted innum- art teaching, described the mechanics of crea-
simple, and if the work remains a composition erable copies of one canvas for nearly two tion as a social act. In the same month he had
(in that everything is 'composed') it has none- years. Logically, because if they limited them- an exhibition at the Galerie Apollinaire in
theless taken on a completely new meaning. selves to a single copy each this would have Milan, and used the gallery as a kind of back-
The technique is within the work but no longer to be considered as a unique work, as the ground support rather than as an exhibition
is the work. masterpiece, a concept they have also rejected. space. MICHEL CLAURA
To go back once again to the Buren-Toroni We do not have to consider their future. We
exhibition at Lugano, which was, I think, the can limit ourselves to what they show us, to
most important they have ever presented, their their canvases. Their existence-in-themselves
canvases are 'autonomous'. Hence they were could be related to formalist mathematics.
49