|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extract from the exhibition catalogue
Text written by Francois Morellet: "Squaring the Square"
|
 |
|
|
On the occasion of my exhibition in this temple full of rapture and delight, which is primarily dedicated to the square, I thought it would be a good idea to cite a couple of the many texts of mine that have never been translated into English on the topic of the (forced) love marriage which a conformist square with a penchant for the transcendental and an unbelieving artist with a penchant for frivolity let themselves in for.
|
|
|
|
Here to start with an excerpt from a text from 1983, “Figuration et Défiguration” together with another text from 1990 “Encore un hommage au carré!”, in which the incontestable reasons for this marriage are presented.
|
|
|
|
“Figuration and Disfiguration”, 1983
As part of my inexorable and systematic researches, which may be summed up under the motto “how to make do with as little as possible”, I have decided since 1952 to use square canvases.
As we all know, it requires one single, arbitrary decision to specify a square, whereas twice as many are needed for a rectangle. Which is why for over thirty years now, I have almost exclusively used square canvases. Square stretchers always had to be ordered separately. But luckily, for some years now the square has returned to become one of the standard forms (might that be the reason why I am sometimes unfaithful to it now?). And yet it remains the poor relative to the portrait, landscape and seascape formats, which it has by no means managed to oust.
I think it is astonishing that of all people, the French, who are renowned for their rationalism, have come up with and accepted a standard list of sixty-three formats that correspond to absolutely nothing at all. Not a mystic law (the golden number or some other modulus), not even an industrial norm serves to justify them. The width-to-height ratio varies in the portrait, landscape and seascape formats – depending on the size – in the most fantastical ways.
|
|
|
|
“Yet another Homage to the Square!”, 1990
Is that really necessary again after Malevich, who dramatized it, Mondrian, who placed it on its tip, and Albers, who ran it through the entire spectrum? Yes; in my opinion the trusty square still deserves it. Especially if you compare it with its competitors. First of all with the rectangle, which can indulge in the most appalling extravagances because it requires two measures to define itself, two subjective decisions, while the modest square requires only the one. Naturally the equilateral triangle and the circle also only require one measure in order to exist. But the equilateral triangle is not a real rival, because its family consists of too many isosceles, rectangular and other eccentrics all under the one and the same name. And what is more, the Holy Trinity and Freemasonry have left rather a noticeable stain on it. At first sight the circle might seem an evenly-matched competitor due to its remarkable property of having just one side. But what a curious side – one that only can be measured or calculated with the utmost of difficulty. And then if I may say so: it is not abstract. It is a sun, a moon, a breast, a buttock, etc.
So, long live the square! But watch out, because ever since my stretcher manufacturer has included it among his standard formats I have noticed that it has changed. True, it has lost a little of its snobbishness, but in return it has acquired a well-meaning conformism which we should keep an eye on.
Yes, yet another homage, but we must stay alert.
To finish off I have chosen an excerpt from the text “le carré“ from 1990, in which I review the history of art with respect to Malevich, Mondrian and Albers and number myself among the enemies of the square.
|
|
|
|
“The Square”, 1990
Like many in my youth, I believed that Malevich had discovered a certain charm in the square, because he did a number of “portraits” of it (as Strzeminsky so aptly wrote). But the truth of the matter is quite different.
Plucky young Malevich assailed the square for quite different reasons. Let us recall first of all that his satirical quadrilateral portraits only took up a brief period of time, prior to and subsequent to perfectly normal paintings. What humour, what ferociousness lies in these mutilated squares! Some of them, such as the “Red Square” of 1915, still show clear traces of normality under the deforming retouches.
I have often spent hours in our celebrated museums with a tape measure in my pocket, waiting for the moment when the guard nodded off and I could unmask the quadrilateral monsters. On one occasion I actually did find a square square. But the swindle was as clear as day, for it was a fake, or rather the work of a spiteful pupil. No, Malevich did not like squares. Zhdanov, who was not party to this aversion, was unable to convince him, so Malevich decided to abandon geometry altogether rather than be forced to paint normal squares.
His enemies triumphed at his death and ridiculed him by burying him with a perfect square.
Mondrian, who was not exactly known for mischievous pranks, attacked the square with a malice that is scarcely to be topped. He managed to distort the square to perfection by transforming it into grotesque lozenges which balance on their points! Already in anticipation of my own ballet.
Albers for his part presented the poor square in all the colours of the rainbow. It is the blackest humour to call a series of colour samples that have absolutely nothing to do with geometry “Homage to the Square”. Why not do an “Homage to Rodin” by adding beards to his sculptures?
As the reader will have grasped, it is my ambition to join the illustrious ranks of the enemies of the square.
Epilogue
Last year I had the honour to receive the great European Prize for Concrete Art on 17 November 2008 in Würzburg.
Did I really deserve it?
Text written by François Morellet
|
|
|
|
Image above:
Quelques avatars du carré, 2009
Photo montage by the artist on the square |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
version française