Page 39 - Studio International - September 1969

able, Monet was able to transform the
`disintegrated' nature of the Impressionists
into an integrated view of nature as 'colour-
structure'. But from this point two alternative
developments were possible. On the one hand,
the artist could assert his freedom from
nature, even if he continued to make some use
of natural objects. This was the course, in
Biederman's terms, which all but a handful of
artists chose to adopt, and which was charac-
terized by Juan Gris's statement: 'It is not the
picture X which manages to correspond with
my subject, but subject X which manages to
correspond with my picture.'
The other course, which was adopted pre- ties, it seems worthwhile to make a direct
eminently by Cézanne, involved the continua- comparison between these two artists.
tion of Monet's 'search into nature as an Vasarely has not written so systematically or
entirely new view of reality'. Where Monet so lengthily as Biederman on the evolution of
had restored an integrated 'colour-structure', twentieth-century art. In fact his system must
Cézanne went one stage further and saw to a great extent be pieced together from a
nature as 'spatial-colour-structure'. In his series of chronologically ordered notes. But
system, the artist was not superior to nature, he shares Biederman's desire to proceed in
but simply 'parallel'. He no longer looked to accordance with a set of coherent principles
the natural world for objects to be mimetically and to set out these principles in an accessible
reproduced. Instead he was concerned with form. Where Biederman asserts the validity
`nature as a purely creative process which of Structurism, Vasarely puts forward the
underlies all objects alike'. To use the phrase doctrine of Cinétisme'.
which Biederman chose as the epigraph to his The most striking point which emerges from
Art Credo, Cézanne believed that: 'A new the comparison of these two doctrines is the
vision can be born, continued, perfected.' fact that each lays emphasis on a different
It is not difficult to see from this short account section of the spectrum of artistic theory, but
how Biederman's individual evolution as an that the same spectrum occurs none-the-less in
artist cannot be divorced from his analysis of both. I have already touched on Biederman's
the evolution of art in general. His com- historical and critical standpoint which
mitment to the relief construction can, in one emerges in his numerous published works.
sense, be seen as the direct and logical result Vasarely has a view of the evolution of con-
of an acquaintance with De Stijl and Con- temporary art which is hardly less consistent,
structivism. But at the same time the way in though it is presented with far less expository
which his use of this medium has developed skill. It is in relation to Mondrian that the
over the past twenty years can only be under- principles of Structurism and Cinétisme most
stood with reference to the 'spatial-colour- clearly show their points of divergence. In
structure' which he identified with Cézanne. Biederman's view, 'There was only one solu-
Through his distinctive medium, Biederman tion open to Mondrian after he attained the
has in effect materialized the element of spatial planes of 1917: turn to actual dimen-
structure, while allowing the creation of space sions which would then give structural corre-
through colour to acquire an increasing degree spondence to the reality structure of nature.'
of subtlety. The elements in relief have be- Biederman himself symbolically re-enacted
come more centralized and less evenly this turning point in 1937, when he painted a
dispersed over the surface, so that ultimately few canvases in the manner of Mondrian and
they appear as structural incidents in a uni- then had them executed as reliefs 'because
fied space, like the implied planes in a Cézanne they lacked adequate reality'. For Vasarely,
landscape. there was an equally symbolic re-enactment
Discussion of Biederman's work must there- of Mondrian's course between 1948 and 1952,
fore involve a great deal of reference to the when he was occupied with his Belle-Isle
models of artistic evolution which I have series. But where Biederman had felt the need
rapidly sketched. This may seem somewhat to turn back into nature, Vasarely followed
suspicious today, when the visual artist is Mondrian's 'slow and patient abstraction
expected to carry on his tasks in silence and from the world', finally achieving an wholly
leave to others the labour of setting his work autonomous vocabulary of 'colour-forms'.
in context. Biederman is close in this respect 2 If painstaking analysis of artistic evolution
Kenneth Martin Tunnel in the air, 1965 (first version),
to the pioneers and propagandists of the 3* x 6 x 3 in., brass is the most prominent feature of Biederman's
3
Modern Movement, and among contem- Mary Martin Dispersal 1967, 18 x 18 x 4* in., stain- doctrine, in the case of Vasarely attention is
porary painters there is perhaps only Vasarely less steel, painted wood (white), on blue perspex on deflected towards such problems as the multi-
wood support
who tries to provide so comprehensive a con- 4 plication of the art work and its application to
Gillian Wise 2 unit construction (positive-negative) 1968,
text for his own artistic activity. Since their 24 x 36 in., rubber, plexiglass and elastic a wider environment. But although circum-
respective views of contemporary art hold 5 stances have not allowed Biederman to put
Anthony Hill Constructional screen S2 1967-8, 7* X 63 in.,
interesting similarities as well as dissimilari- aluminium, perspex principles of this kind into operation, there