France: Abstract Painting

Home

Since the time of impressionism, painting has shown proofs of vitality, of inventive power, of a spirit of discovery that are admirable, and may at first have seemed inexhaustible. We well know the series of transformations which occurred through the various and sometimes conflicting movements: an awareness of its own powers that led painting logically toward abstraction. In fact only a superficial view-point would regard the beginning of abstraction as an accident. Rather has it been the result (I would even say the foreseeable result) of a liberation of 'painting by painting' that started with freedom of color by the impressionists -- even before that with Turner, Delacroix, and a few others still more removed from us.

It should be noted, however, that it was with the impressionists that the whole thing really began; it was they who undertook the liberation of' color; they rejected the 'subject'; they abandoned pompous historical scenes to devote their attention to the most ordinary and everyday aspects of nature; seeing the tree merely as a colored mass, they were endlessly decomposing and recomposing these colors against a changing background (with equally varying hues) that is called the sky. Van Gogh and Cézanne further minimized the subject, painting artificial instead of real flowers, or even a pair of worn-out shoes. I imagine you will agree that such contempt for subject-matter undoubtedly heralded a time when the latter would be denied completely; when men would become aware of the specific power of color as color, or rhythm as rhythm, and of shapes as shapes.

Aside from cubism, in which the connexion is far too obvious, I think that Picasso's genius-mania for assassinating the appearance of things (to give them a supra-appearance instead) has ended not with the negation, but rather with the exaltation of the subject: the ultimate effort, the ultimate jump of the subject to hold us. Since his cubist period, all Picasso's work has expressed the final attempt, the last cry of nature to draw us back to her, in the same way as some people commit suicide to draw attention to themselves. This fascinating and derisive effort is one of the most winning aspects of Picasso's work.

The will-power and spiritual tension that enabled the first abstract painters to think in terms of' abstraction and to acquire a technique for painting appropriate to the novel emotional language, was truly formidable. Day after day they had to do their utmost in order to renew and develop the scale of their new expressive means -which, as soon as it started, was threatened with sclerosis and gratuitousness because there was a risk of 'repetition' and of 'recipe'.

Why not admit that this sustained effort toward the constant renewal and invention of shapes, which was their main concern, has -- I would not say prevented -- but rather forbidden them to deepen and to lengthen their discoveries with a maximum of intensity and eloquence?

At present, when abstract painting demonstrates that it has at its disposal an expressive keyboard as wide and as eloquent as that of music or poetry (in proportion to its own field, of course), I believe modern artists have now an opportunity to take advantage of all the possibilities offered. The painter today is freed from that choking halter which is the threat of nature's unexpected reappearance; it can negate his very will to paint, obliging him every day to practise new inventions in order to baffle her and to liberate himself. This explains the schematic appearance of certain work; by schematic, I mean devoid of poetry. In such cases, invention has preceded the inward impulse, intention has preceded emotion. But we know such attempts were an answer to a vital necessity. We know only too well that it was a question of 'life or death' not to be touched by it. If they are lacking in that poetry which now seems quite natural to abstract painting, such work nevertheless carries an emotional reflection of that struggle.

We are led to draw a conclusion from these facts: being able to breathe an abstract atmosphere which is at least breatheable, we modern painters are now in a position to exploit with a maximum intensity all 'offered' possibilities. This is what I meant when I said: I am convinced that our own period is one of deepening and lengthening.

Some artists -- such as myself and a great majority of French painters -- may be more impressed by the lessons of clarity, of balance, of controlled eloquence, that we owe to the more recent period of Kandinsky's work, to Kupka, Mondrian, Van Doesburg, and Delaunay; or rather, as in America at the present moment, many are attracted by Kandinsky's more impulsive first period, or by Marc or Macke's expressionism; but that is not the point. It is not my task here to judge and compare these different tendencies; I would be very pleased if critics, museum directors, collectors, and even art amateurs would not judge too systematically either. In my opinion, no real distinction can be made on the level of formal appearances, but only on the basis of the poetry contained in the work. To make myself clear, I would like to point out that, for me, there are two categories of poetry in painting: first -- poetry of figuration, which is the poetry of daily associations -- the poetry of the tree as a shelter, shade, or trysting-place. This kind of poetry is made up of all memories related to the tree or to things of our daily lives; since such memories are the conscious or unconscious reason for the figurative painter choosing the tree as his subject, it is a 'must' for him to rediscover them when painting the tree.There is another kind of poetry, the one which is the pure and unmixed result of pictorial plastic art. It is the poetry that emerges from colors assembled into rhythms -- from shapes, lines, contrasts, harmonies, textures. Such poetry belongs to abstract painting in the same way as poetry belongs in music, or even to poetry itself. Such poetry is a characteristic in each of these different arts, the limits of which are specified by it; it is, in fact, the specific expression of these arts. But should the slightest confusion, the slightest compromise take place, then the whole poetical construction will collapse to make room for a mere exhibition of feelings, an exercise of communications.In regard to current abstract painting in France (or more specifically, Paris) it would seem that the indefinable and yet very real phenomenon known as the ' Paris Climate' continues favorable for a great array of talents and tendencies. Talents of nationalities that are sometimes varied but always Parisian in spirit, and tendencies that are sometimes opposed but never irreducible.Three great currents without very distinct boundaries seem to divide modern painting at the moment:

1. The constructivist tendency (not necessarily geometrical).

2. The expressionist (not necessarily tachist).

3. The semi-abstract (that springs mostly from impressionism).

Within the constructivist tendency one must place among the veterans: Herbin (geometrical), Gorin (the last authentic neoplasticist), and Sonia Delaunay. The team of Robert and Sonia Delaunay provided a unique example of creative osmosis, which has found a natural continuation in the work of Sonia Delaunay. Magnelli, an Italian by birth, whose influence on the younger generation is incontestable; and in his case, as with many youthful artists, the term geometrical means nothing any more. And finally the new generation: Deyrolle -- the one whose work is most full of nuances, whereas Vasarely is the purest, Mortensen highly sensitive, Pillet (no comment), and Dewasne the youngest and the most intransigent technician.

The second tendency has a characteristic note that it is a painter of German origin who heads the list, Hans Hartung (although a naturalized Frenchman). If his reputation in America is surpassed by certain younger artists -- such as Mathieu or Soulage, for example -his work by its fullness and strength dominates the whole group. Lacasse, Ubac and Le Moal, Schneider, of Swiss origin, and Poliakoff who was born in Russia as well as Lanskoy: and finally, both Chapoval and de Stael are both so recently deceased that I cannot omit mention of them also. Last comes the third tendency: Bissière was long unrecognized by both public and galleries, but his influence has been considerable; Bazaine, Estève, Manessier, Singier, Atlan, Vieira da Sylva . . .

Naturally this list is in no way exhaustive, and there has been no pretense at any complete and final panorama of present-day painting in Paris. My classifications are in all probability inaccurate too, as are all such attempts to classify. Poliakoff, for example, could be put in the first tendency, Estève in the second -- if I were referring to his most recent work; and Lanskoy might go into the third, etc.

Had I added to this list all the names which I have unfortunately overlooked and whose work in the future might embarrass me; and were I to put in the coming generation, which I have voluntarily omitted so as not to spread the classifications too far, but whose names in the future may shine even more brightly, I think I can safely assert that French pictorial development today is as rich and significant as the movements of the past. Less explosive, less 'for sensation', it marks a time not of spectacular discoveries but of research into depth.

I now come back to my original premise -- a rectangle of pure flat color -- if it has been inspired only by the memory of a table -- will lack the specific and pure poetry for which we are searching. This would be equally true of a surface of tormented textures that gives us only the idea of a rock, of underbrush, or of a beach covered with lichens and shells. But it means also that a colored rectangle can very well contain all the painting-poetry we are looking for -- quite as successfully as the tormented shape of an eroded texture.

At present since it has been established that qualitative distinctions can be made, not on the basis of formal appearances, but on the basis of the poetical purity that makes up its context; and now that the ground broken by our predecessors is wide open for us, we must conclude by saying that means of expression seem to be more and more infinite, even if -- as we have to admit -- all contemporary painting proceeds from the first abstract researches. Indeed this unending means of expression draws infinite richness from these possibilities for deepening and lengthening.

The task of the first abstract painters was to prove the existence of abstract painting. Our own task is to prove that abstract painting is neither restricted nor limited, that it is not a mere tendency or school, but an autonomous way of expression, so conscious of its autonomy and of its powers that it can reject all compromise.