Page 34 - Studio International - May 1972

Desiderata lifetime, with the conviction of thus ensuring a similar situation with regard to the term
splendid edifice for when they are gone. Formalism. We have enough on hand with the
(1971) In 1970 the London Magazine's June issue somewhat culturally simpler art-historical
contained an article 'Read Paint' by William problem: `What was Constructivism ?' Even
Anthony Hill Feaver. I read the final paragraph with some if at present all the signs point to it being a
surprise: healthily contentious question.
`The real literary influences in art today stem For the purpose of these notes —one of which
from this completely flexible, fragmented and is to chart allegiances —I do not propose to
cross-referenced basis of imagery and ideas. enter into the art-historical debate, even less
And so written precepts apply as much as ever. into the linguistic and mathematical issues, but
Carlyle's "Poet and inspired maker who, I would simply state that my interests include
Prometheus-like, can shape new symbols" is some stake in all of them.2
now Duchamp counselling disengagement, Recently Gillian Wise has written: 'The
When I started out, in 195o, it took me a few Anthony Hill asserting modular purity, Yves polarization that emerged between a mystic
years to decide what kind of modern art to do. Klein proclaiming the void.' functionalism (Malevich, Mondrian,
During those years I was principally exposed It seemed odd to the point of incredulity to be Vantongerloo and direct social service (Tatlin,
to quite contrasting influences, of which the bracketed with two such charismatic figures, Lissitzky, and the Bauhaus) defines the very
strongest was undoubtedly the negative ethos— each of them retired from active work—since different ways of using a constructive
or so it seemed at the time—of Marcel Duchamp. they are no longer living. Imagining this to be a aesthetic'.3
In retrospect the first step seems to have been a one-line obituary, I wondered—had it been so— Of course to appreciate the point being made
Cartesian doubt—`I doubt it all, therefore I am if I shouldn't be grateful for having read it. The one has to be familiar with the work and ideas
an artist'. By 1954 I held very strong views and author, as it happens, is someone quite unknown of both categories—the artists mentioned and
these were for me then a kind of `assault kit'. to me and, to the best of my knowledge, has the background movements.
Today I find myself less concerned with never made any reference to me before. My own sympathies are rooted in both these
loves and hates, while at the same time Working as a geometric abstract artist since different `ways' of the C0nstructivist Aesthetic—
feeling my judgements to be a great deal 1950—as a formalist constructivist (to use a as one might call it. Together they constitute
sharper. This means that certain views I still canonic labelling)—has meant being aside of an immensely broad spectrum, and one can ask
hold are now more like clues in a crime hunt; the formalist movements which have come and if the single term Constructivism continues to
the more the evidence, the stronger my gone in recent times : 'Hard Edge', 'Op', be useful if one wishes to speak of a living
convictions about the endemic weakness of so `Systemic', 'Primary Structures'. Perhaps tradition.
much which passes for 'great'. However, I no labels have a dual function, as a battle cry first
longer feel committed to continuing what I and subsequently as a sanctuary. But what about In 1948 the American artist Charles Biederman
innocently undertook—doing battle against constructivist, the term which has been published his book Art as the Evolution of
delusions which at the time were dogmatically applied to my own works and direction, and Visual Knowledge, an analysis and
rejected by only a minority... admirable which I have tacitly accepted ? interpretation of the history of art
campaigners they still remain. In 1968 Jean Piaget wrote a little book emanating from Alfred Korzybski's General
What comes next ? The pattern suggests a called Structuralism, now published in an Semantics. This year another American artist,
form of dialectic the next phase of which has English translation.1 On page 13 of the English Jack Burnham, has published a book, The
to be a return to something like the same strength edition one reads : the relation between Structure of Art, an analysis of art based on
of conviction which once engaged me. So, Structuralism and C0nstructivism is no longer the `Structuralism' of Levi-Strauss.4 A
while I welcome the eventual outcome, I am avoidable'; later, page 135: `Foucault's publisher's handout singles out the following
at present in no great hurry to arrive there. corrosive intelligence has performed a work of quote: 'Artists have programatically destroyed
But to suspend judgement is not necessarily inestimable value : that of demonstrating that art in the name of "visual exploration" so that
what it could seem to be, for example there cannot be a coherent Structuralism apart the language of relationships within the visual
intransigency masked by a sceptical from Constructivism'. Finally, on page 121: arts exists today in only the most transparent
laissez-faire—to name one form of ongoing `Sartre's Constructivism we would defend terms. As a result, the disappearance of art as
adhocism. Indeed one may logically also despite Levi-Strauss's objections, except that we know it seems inevitable.' Barnett Newman
suspend judgement on this (i.e. the above we would deny what Sartre affirms, namely, once made the quixotic boast 'I busted
issue itself). Ultimately the 'problem' will be that Constructivism is peculiarly philosophical geometry'; now we have Burnham solving the
resolved (rather than 'solved') when one has and alien to science.' `Two Cultures' problem—as it applies in the
passed it through a series of 'sieves'—determined In all this term-turning we are left to note visual arts—and doing so by marshalling a
of course by oneself—so as to provide the kind how Piaget himself wishes to have his direction crypto-science to kill off art! (once more).
of result one is already aiming for, as well as identified with the term c0nstructivist—never Burnham's brand of aesthetic alchemy would
some form of valid extensiveness in proportion explicitly defined—and, to add a little confusion, appear to kick the doors of conceptual art a
to one's seriousness, and lying within the whoever compiled the index has chosen to omit little wider; whether such an iconoclastic tract
limitations of one's psychic make-up. the word constructivist, replacing it by has any wider significance remains, of course, to
Constructionism! Also, nowhere in Piaget's be seen (i.e. read). But perhaps we should read
At best this is to recognize essentially a form wide-ranging discussion does he mention the the former in the light of another Burnham
of self-analysis and resolution to be the nature of fact of the term constructivist having been in use message, viz : `If we are to believe the great
such a task, one interpretation of which might for years in the field of Foundations of linguist Naum Chomsky, we know next to
be that it shows a solipsist at work on building Mathematics; however, considering the nothing about language and intercommunica-
his tomb and aiming at the closest possible fit references to Gödel, Bourbaki and Brouwer, it tion. As long as this holds true, the
—corpse to coffin. An opposite case would be is obvious that Piaget is aware of the fact. survival of art is assured'.5
that of a majority whose unconscious strategy— So what do we say in approaching, once Does my work have any connections with
in perfect accord with an unmistakable conscious again, the topic of Constructivism in the Fine developments which are part of the current
strategy—is to solicit others to service them with Arts ? Clearly we can ignore all of the American scene ? Since 'American' still
memorials to their achievements during their preceding discussion, just as we can sidestep a doesn't seem to include Charles Biederman—of

204