Page 34 - Studio International - September 1969

The climate apparently unknown in the United States.' So what are the 'arbitrary', 'repugnant' and
In George Rickey's recent book on construc- `doctrinaire' views held by Biederman ?
of Biederman tivism3 the question of Biederman is certainly From Rickey's account, they amount to:
not ignored. He rates a six line biographical
(1) Painting is obsolete (2) It is replaced by the
note and two reproductions (he obviously relief (3 )Symmetry, and the spectator's move-
rates poorly, as Kenneth Noland gets no less ment around it, is a more important theme for
Anthony Hill than six reproductions, as does Diller, both the development of non-mimetic art than
surpassed only by Gabo with twelve). Rickey Kinetics (4) All you need is the right angle.
makes no overt charge of crankyness or But not one of these statements constitute the
obscurity, but as might be expected, the key thesis of Biederman, the reason he holds
references are brief, and what is said concern- to the 'views' listed. Furthermore I do not
ing Biederman's influence is notably mis- for a moment imagine that Rickey is ignorant
Until quite recently one could have seen leading. There is a minor parenthetic refer- of what it is he has omitted to mention. Why
Charles Biederman as someone almost fitting ence concerning his influence, which for me he omits it is another matter.
the description of a proscribed artist in his pin-points the tip of an argument only lightly The theory of Structurist art is not to be
own country. The Arts Council's retrospective touched on; it is a phrase casually employed explained merely by reference to a style or
is a unique event, for seldom, if ever, has there at one stage in his account when describing technique—the making of relief structures —it
been a major exhibition of a living artist the work of two Dutch sculptors, Visser and is a theory of art grounded in the belief that
concerning whom interest and knowledge has Volten: according to Rickey, 'They both the non-mimetic development of art should
been restricted to so few. It is therefore natural work now in the climate of Biederman, perpetuate an important continuity: that
to enquire into a situation as rare as this and emphasizing a vertical-horizontal balance'. reality/nature remain the true source and
to seek the basis for an explanation. Well, what is 'the climate of Biederman' ? Is it model for artistic creation. This is achieved
The uniqueness of the exhibition reflects on something one knowingly and deliberately by the non-mimetic artist taking as his model
the uniqueness of Biederman's position since chooses (as I and others are erroneously the structural process level of reality. But turn up
it is on account of the views he holds, and not supposed to have done—according to Rickey), the reference, in the index, to 'Nature, use of
his work, that he has remained so long an or is it simply a description conferred on and we find in the twenty lines devoted to
isolated figure. This fact alone would seem artists if they 'emphasize a vertical-horizontal this topic, no mention whatever ofBiederman's
quite extraordinary and to run counter to the balance' ? view or of any comparable view (viz Gabo).
general climate of freedom of thought that is What can we discover about Biederman (and This year yet another compendious history of
supposed to be the heritage of the 'free world'. `the climate of Biederman') from the dis- modern art has been published;4 its author is
The reason turns out to be simple enough; it cussion in Rickey's book ? Principally that H. H. Arnason, a curator at The Guggenheim
had to do with the response he encountered Biederman was indeed the author of a Museum. How does Biederman fare in this
for the views in his book Art as the Evolution `Compendious book, begun in 1938, in which veritable 'over-kill' of naming the names?
of Visual Knowledge. These views did in fact he called for a non-mimetic art of right By name alone and with no reproduction
become sufficiently known in certain circles angles in relief space, which was to win some —and he is mentioned only through the entry
for Biederman to have been then forced into staunch adherents in England and Holland'. on another artist:
choosing isolation. Further on there are some scattered references `Victor Pasmore, is the leading English Con-
Since Biederman's position in the world of art to 'spatial planes' and 'symmetry' and the structivist in the tradition of Mondrian.
is quite unique one would be cautious in fact that 'Biederman now [!] considers Pasmore was a painter, first Impressionist and
citing comparable cases in other fields; say in painting "obsolete" '. He quotes from an then Neo-Plastic until 1951, when he came
science. Nevertheless one is reminded of the article of 1960 to show that Biederman's under the influence of Charles Biederman, a
rumpus in academic circles meted out to views have developed, but points out, `... how Neo-Plastic Constructivist and theoretician of
Korzybski, Reich and Velikovsky. limited these recent views have become is Constructivism living in Red Wing, Minne-
If one mentions these names it is only to sug- demonstrated by his assertion that the move- sota. Biederman's book Art as the Evolution of
gest that, while for them the epithet 'crank' ment of the spectator in front of the relief is Visual Knowledge advances his version of
was all too naturally earned, it did not result "the only true problem of 'motion' in art at Constructivism, named Structuralism, and
in isolation and obscurity. And also to imply the present time".' He adds that 'In spite of has had a remarkable impact on younger
that Biederman holds views of a comparably the arbitrariness of Biederman's views, repug- Constructivists in England and Canada.'
challenging kind. nant to those outside the group, the interest in The note on Pasmore is as brief as it is in-
Indeed when one American 'establishment' relief space is widespread ... ' implying that accurate, so it is no surprise to find reference
critic found it necessary to mention Bieder- somehow Biederman alone must take the to Biederman little more than ill digested
man in a review' he restricted his comments credit for this ! And yet this is not the key to hearsay. (Biederman's 'version of construc-
to the following: `the climate of Biederman' since the phrase tivism' is not called `Structuralism'; this
`Charles Biederman who is only just now was used to describe work by two sculptors, much could have been checked.) Arnason's
emerging from cranky obscurity merely most of whose works are fully volumic and statements are typical of the standard Ameri-
materializes Mondrian's facade paintings', utilize the three dimensions of space. can 'check note' on Biederman, with the
adding in a coy and contradictory parenthesis : The last occasion to pick up a clue is found in built-in implication that the least said about
`But Biederman, who makes succinct use of the bibliography where AEVK is described as him the better.
colour, is a special case which cannot be `A copiously illustrated tome ... emphasizes The longest and most patient review of Bieder-
studied here'. potentialities arising from a science-machine man's work came from Don Judd. (I have
A year earlier, another reviewer commenced culture'. already quoted his opening lines.) This dates
with the following:2 It is true that Rickey had already given an from his small showing at Columbia Uni-
`In 1948 Biederman published a history of art indication that Biederman was a polemicist versity in 1963, which marked his return to
entitled Art as the Evolution of Visual Knowledge. when he wrote, 'He had [!] some doctrinaire the New York art scene. From Judd's review
He is said to have influenced certain English views and it is not surprising that other one can sense that the event was both signifi-
and European constructivists after the War. artists should diverge from his path ... ', but cant and curious, and as a result the attempt
He is 57 and lives in Minnesota. His work is this is highly equivocal. is made to give a cautionary rather than