Initiated end of 1958, the first surface experiences have been developed in reaction of the predominant facts in the artistic field.

A little historic

Sobrino and I came to Paris end of 1958. The predominant art scene is the informal, the taschism, action painting, lyric abstraction… For us, we start form Vasarely (black and white) Mondian’s text, some of Albers’s production and generally the constructivism and all the ways leading to the movement.

First concern:

Increasing the gap between the artist and its work, getting rid of the marks of manual realisation (the “coup de pinceau” of the master) and also the marks of subjective compositions which were still obvious in the work of the constructivists, where the composition was freely put on the surface with a choice of forms.

The opposition between Tachism and Constructivism appeared superficial: in either case, forms and colours were set on the surface with artistic criteria. The only difference was, when some used spots, the other use geometric forms.

A way:

Our concern: find a unitary system to rule the surface, the forms and their relation to the plan, depending on a set program.

Clarification

Those systems had no importance. As simple work tools, they allowed us to control the results, especially in regards to the peripheral vision of the viewer. We forbid ourselves to interfere “artistically” and broke the homogeneity of the outcome, once the system had been mechanically thrown on the surface.

A memory

We would have been satisfied with a Vasarely’s painting which respect the screen and leave the surface covered with uniform squares, with no changes. We were discussing with Vasarely about our work method based on systems. He found it legitimated but he mentioned his rights to interfere (even on normal screen) and to change, so the creative personality of the artist was real. Max Bill, an artist of the same generation as Vasarely also affirmed a similar statement.

Katle Kunst

The example of systematic research we studied at the time (in Karl Gerstner’s book, Katle Kunst, who analyse Bill, Gerstner, Lohse’s work) insisted too much on arithmetic aspect without considering the relation of the surface with the eyes. Rather than rational speculations about the surface settings, our purpose was the eye of the viewer.

A meeting

Pursuing our researches we met Morellet, one of the rare French artist who already studied for a long time similar issues. We started to set up a team of work with him.

Before the colours

My researches were developed from black and white, white and grey. The set of logic systems controlled the visual results of the given surface.

Progressions

The most used systems were founded upon the progression from the left to the right, from the top to the bottom and from the bottom to the right, so each form was closely linked to the others…their relations depending on an established system.

The Form

We were working on the notion of Form; its own value, meaning, suggestion etc…
The forms became anonymous; even their relations, on an activated surface, could establish a visual connection with the viewer. We were not stuck on a particular way to set it on the surface. We were using simple geometric forms (square, circle, rectangles).
Because we thought they were more neutral than irregular forms. But we had no favour for geometry. That’s how, at the time, we considered some paintings from Pollok and Tobey. The uniformity was obtained with spreading similar spots laid on the whole surface. One could imagine those paintings living outside the frame. Those form had no intreseque values.