IMAGINATION CREATRICE

1. If during the evolution of life and career, I, from time to time, had to deal with the art scene (as it is called so pleasantly) then it was solely because of cooperation with the need of re-membrance of the (finally) everlasting values – in the art of painting – so that the correct development would be effected.

Since a few decades I have dwelled in « splendid isolation ».

2. Infinite herewith is the reflection concerning everlasting values.

Muthos is the basic order of the Universe (Heraklites). Creation is to bring something into existence.... hereby REALITY is founded... This is: initial participation in the already existent creation... co-creatorship through deeper intuition and the grievous ecstasies of empathy with everything and everybody.

3. Simultaneously however, alas, between the yes and the no, Muthos takes us to the farthest point of thinking namely the paradox , with which, (truly, we do not know, or we never know in the absolute way (as otherwise concerning the ability to bring into existence the ever further evolving masterpiece) if we can com-prehend THIS...) (even if we have day and night - in the utmost inspiredness of the situation, like the one of an alchemist - lived for that purpose...) the Frenhofer syndrome (Balzac) nevertheless always lurks at us (aphasia ... entropy) so that the intuition becomes overheated... and will become hybris.

4. Where the correct further development is concerned (that is, the forging of the next link in the evolution of the everlasting values) it often happens that the thinking of one person comes to the aid of the reflections of the other person. Thus, for example, recently fell to my share the clear truth and excellent deep knowledge on account of J.E. Muller and some of his theses support me

5. In order to give direction to the concept of « correct further evolution » I herewith cite the “thought” of Mr. Muller, who (when describing the “other” direction) says it as follows: « Nearly everybody who calls himself an artist is constantly searching for immediate success and in order to conquer THIS he seizes hold of the generally accepted tendency which is in everybody’s mouth ! and with that he (that so-called artist) also knows at the same time that “those” who defend this contemporaristic tendency, do so including anything that, from a distance or form nearby, makes matters “illustrious…” mediocrity thus has all the opportunity not to be forgotten. The mediocre creative one finds, here, thus, the justification of his « kunstwollen » by the fact that the bidding is with the tendency to which he sticks. Critics love to stick labels. Each critic has, as if it were, as his purpose to find a “label” that will make history, in order that the memory of that which HE held above the baptismal font, as well as of himself, be preserved. Morality: The more the so-called creativity seems to be « what ever it be » ... the more “generous” are the comments there about There are « permanent » psychological realities, without which a human being would NOT be what he is. NOTHING makes it imperative to say that art - in order to stay « alive » - MUST turn away from « consorting with this ». Beware of these people who - through the pretext of living the full life IN our times - amputate you from an essential part of your being. »

                                                                                     (end of quotation of this Muller “thought”).

Yes? Isn’t it true little mister Kaprow! Everyone is creative and «quand un artiste crache c'est de l'art» etc... etc... the democratization of art, yes, even the effort to make it disappear – in order to make place for (so-called) higher human values – has (with the retrospect now possible) been catastrophic in all kinds of matters.

6. Now, let us go back to item 1: The need of re-membrance. Yes! My original Pathos (until 1950) is there... more or less between Soutine and Van Gogh however in a non-figurative way. (Soutine’s artwork arrived , (already early) in America where Pollock saw it, with the result visible in his work (±1936-1937). Afterwards Pollock allows himself to be influenced (his drippings) by dipsomania and the mystification theories of the surrealists concerning the « écriture automatique » and the psychical automatism, but initiator Hofmann (who had come over to America from Paris) had already formerly made drippings at that place.) SOUTINE: everlasting values... so, van Gogh, too ! He expresses it as follows: « ... about the spacious intense things ... that rise in me... those things of color, those endless things ... ». And that which van Gogh makes us experience in these words, is the mystery (Muthos); it is the substance of the substance, which like some sort of «matière poésie» (imponderabilia) vibrates in a canvas, making it to a work of art (without this vibration a work is nothing more than a documentary item!) These words of van Gogh’s are eternal and whether the sense of these is to be found back, ONLY in figurative work (formerly), or NEVERTHELESS ALSO in non-figurative work (now,) THAT is NOT the question! Nor is under discussion the matter of the difference (?) in quality (?) between that which is painted « à la prima » , or this work, which, after repeated and repeated stages, came into being and stayed for ever fresh.

Until the end of 1950 thus, in me, the dionysian “transformed” into the exuberant ecstasies of the (a kind of fauvist informal) color thinking really painted painting (see repro).

7. But by the end of 1950 THE painter came to dwell inside me with the relentless question «PAINTING, WHAT IS THAT?». Right! ... yes! The artist...« those spacious endless things » .................................... Right! But the painter asked me: «...how should this be presented?... how... under which technical form of painting...?». And then I remembered that everything I saw, I did not really look at but rather “sensed” it ... as if I were spying on it with nearly closed eyes and became aware of everything which I saw in the form of little spots of light and color. It was then that I understood what a real PAINTER’S EYE is and this understanding coincided exactly with the insight of the artist who LIVES INSIDE the sensation of the spacious endlessness of “things”. So, his painter is his eye... the painter’s eye... The “seeing” ... is not the result of that which one already believes to know about what one sees (recognizing and ordering intellectually) it is just not quite true either that one sees what one thinks to see (each person sees it a different way - perception!). THUS there really remains for us nothing but «the sensation». The artist LIVES “therein”. The painter SEES “it”. He “sees” ALL material and ALL spiritual sensations (such as they really are, that is;) in the OPTICALLY DE-COAGULATED state... as if it were in the form of « with synesthesy charged » spots.

THUS, THIS IS THE CORRECT TACHISME OF THE TRUE PAINTER. (I think hereby (as an example) of the hundreds of small paintings of E Boudin (cf. Museum Malraux, Le Havre, France)). THIS TACHISME IS THUS A REAL PAINTER’S-REALITY.

8. However, between BEING and SEEING lies the Nietzschean “ wille zur macht” ... the reconciliation (complimentarily) pathos between the Dionysian and the Appollinean. ... everlasting real values... isn’t it!

REALITY: The tachisme of the painter’s eye is reality, but sometimes it is like a mirage, because a painting is, thus seen, something like a surface of teeming water in which light is reflected ... it is always itself, but it never manifests itself in the same way. A reflection in a rippling water surface is « insaisissable », so the painter-artist creates a reality from all the blinding and nightmare... « to create is to call into existence ». And thus the great question « does one see what one sees or sees not » or « does the work look better than it is? » becomes a daily obsession.... because: IT - AGAIN AND AGAIN - LOOKS DIFFERENT!. So the obsessional question is: « How is it possible to determine “standpoint certainty” in order to orientate oneself... and “what” about quality? » And the subsequent question is, « how something which is NON-FIGURATIVE/INFORMAL (so, essentially does not have FORM(?)) can be represented as being a de-coagulation »? (thus the painter’s eye)(de-coagulation is not a problem for the figurative painter because he deals with the three-dimensional and THIS is – according to the painter’s eye-vision – de-coagulatable into spots).

(Is there form(s) in an informal painting?) (or is this a question of « solve et coagula »).

And finally the third question: « How – concerning these professional matters and intrinsic qualities – is the spectator watching nearby? » Answers: To the third question there is an immediate response. To the other two questions there is no answer, for these are in an occult way intertwined in the canvases of my seeing and being. Concerning the third question the following can be brought forward (in short): “.... In former evolutionary conditions the human being saw less colors than NOW... seeing colors gradually came into existence... also the « recognition » and the actual incarnation of perceptions. Thus, the “reading” of a non-figurative picture will once be the normal property of the future spectator. For the rest it is of common knowledge, that, in former times, people had difficulty in discovering what there was to be seen in an impressionistic painting... and then they found the colors also so-so...

9. What does the painter see and what does the spectator see IN a painting?

Hereby I remember the remark which I made before J.Bazaine; HE, who every time when analyzing a non-figurative work always precisely went to look for “unintentional” figuration, unintentionally caused by the working of the brush itself (such as all kinds of unsavory little figures, animals or faces)... « THIS (Bazaine said) ... which surges up from the dark of our subconciousness is fodder for Freud... this self forgotten acting does not fit the painter... he has no dealing with this Ego or the like..... » ...........…………………………

To which I responded that the artist besides his CREATIVE faculty also possesses an EXPRESSIVE faculty AND WHEN Jean asked me what precisely I meant I was not able to give him clarity about this because it was to me merely a very subjective sensation of a kind of « Figuration Autre » which actually came about as a result of the painters act of the lyrical brush action... A whole de-coagulated world of, as if it were, clear appollinistic expression of vision... so, not any more this kind of “sense expressions” merely consisting of spots and stripes and flats, etc.

In Vincent’s utterance (and others) there is something of a kind of oneiric « being expression » (as follows) : « to be or not to be / enormous masses of “beings” inside us / of beings that are or are not / lyrical existential rage and accumulation of power knottings and unknottings / either here, or in the so called other world, being an insatiable ordeal / and everything which is creatable concerning the never realizable ».

«Figuration Autre» can, NOW, hardly be found in the world of the non-figurative art of painting (presently! it will be convincingly VISIBLE as the work of Cezanne or Bonnard). It is something of the hardly known and hardly distinguishable, which – by means of the painter’s act itself - has welled up from the lyrical oneiric domain of the subconscious ... but NEVERTHELESS it belongs to the world of the known (memory) namely: Scenic cozy molding (kindling the“imaginatio of the spectator!)... constellations of form and space (spots) which reminisce about the great compositions with multiple figures (of the old masters) ... peculiar scenic “atmospheres” reminiscent of regions and places where once (wandering) I had dwelle... ... compositions, as if it were, which appeared to be filled with falling and ascending beings (Jacob’s ladder) ... that is, an art of painting which consisted of spots and colors loaded with « imponderabilia », in light and dark reflections in disclotted (de-coagulated) combinations of form (“l’imponderable de la tache, l'ineffable de la tâche!»). Considered in more detail this is - after all - a question of memorysensations which are surging up, so, nevertheless something which belongs to the “forces” from the past... it still seems to be related to a busy soul who is not yet ready for himself, but anyhow proceeds with his « queste ».

If, formerly-in-me, IT came out of SOMEWHERE (past) (but as if it were “filtered” by itself) then it comes NOW - in my old-age-evolution - directly from my presentlife and my presenttime (the self incarnating and self creating man) Thus it becomes a kind of transubstantiation of very close experiences. I now do absolutely nothing else anymore than dwelling in docile attention for that which comes forth from the canvas over and over again at each stage (see fase documents). I am dwelling now in the uttermost feeling of the well contemplated intuition as it is.... hardly anything still ties me to past ... or imagination

The “technique” that I achieve « Figuration Autre » with (that is: realize the painting) consists solely of interactions of colors. THAT and but THAT only, is the “material” which comes into existence on the canvas... and of which I with docile attention (in how many stages?) try to understand the spiritedness and the imponderabilia. EVERYTHING is in the colors and THAT is the sole “possibility” on which my “creating” rests. Starting from the colors, is, inherent to it, all knowledge of painting : that is, color-thinking, de-coagulation, light, claire-obscure, space without perspective, sfumato ... and the sensitive suave skin of the painting... lLa belle peinture quoi .!) and from the docile attention (as if it were the work causes itself to come into existence ) is expected that convincing bearing-power of contents be the result. EVERYTHING (on the canvas) consists of sheer optical phenomenons! EVERYTHING exists in iridescent condition and there the flickerings of light also occur... the meaningful atmospheres of light... the atmosphere of distance and adventure which come forth as if it were from my « being alive » itself.. directly from my life forces.. as «experiences». The eye « sees and lives » and can perceive these optical phenomena! A camera can hardly do this, and because of this incapacity the camera “exaggerates” the color contrasts vehemently... a camera after all is dead optics... that is why a good work technically is hardly well reproducible...

10. And NOW that the era of faith (being “acceptation” towards the saying of someone else but ourselves) is behind us (Pisces) HOW SHALL WE SAIL ON? (Aquarius!?).

REMARKABLE is, that after all something like an inventarisation (in the art world) NOW gets going before the NON-ART exertion of power of that which is now still going on in the museums. Just a glance back in time: (expositions) a) «Aux origines de l'abstraction» exposition at the Musee d'Orsay in 2004 (Paris). This is the first review (between 1800 and 1914) (with canvasses from 1917 of Itten’s) of the works of Balla, Boccioni, Bomberg, Bruce, Charchoune, Chladi, Ciurlionis, Sonja en Robert Delaunay, Ender, Exter, Friedrich, Gontcharova, Hartley, Itten, Kandinsky, Klee, Kupka, Larionov, Macdonald-Wright, Marc, Matiushin, Monet, Da Volpedo, Picabia, Redon, Runge, Russel, Schmalzigaug, Schonberg, Severini, Signac, Survage, Turner.

b) «L'envolee Lyrique» (Paris 1945-1956) in Musee du Luxembourg Paris - 2006. Atlan, Barre, Bazaine, Bergman, Bertrand, Bissiere, Bitran, Bott, Bryen, Debre, Degottex, Dmitrienko, Doucet, Elvire Jan, Esteve, Fautrier, Fichet, Francis, Feito, Gauthier, Germain, Gillet, Guitet, HantaI, Hartung, Hosiasson, Istrati, Jenkins, Koenig, Lagace, Lanskoy, Laubies, Le Moal, Mathieu, Michaux, Marfaing, Nallard, Poliakoff, Raymond, Reichel, Riopelle, Schneider, Sima, Singier, Soulage, de Stael, Szenes, Tal Coat, Ubac, B. Van Velde, Vierra da Silva, Wols, Zack.

c) «Peggy Guggenheim and The New American Painting» exposition (Arte Vercelli) in the Church of San Marco (Vercelli - Italy) end 2008 (until march 1st 2009) (about the identity of American Art) : Baziotes, Francis, de Koning, Gorky, Gottlieb, Guston, Hartigan, Hoffmann, Kline, Motherwell, Newman, Pollock, Rothko, Stamos, Still, Tomlin, Tworkov.

d) Now, may be, it is getting time to start the difficult searches in order to provide some historical gaps with data.

Dadaisme and the abstract art / amongst others Hans Richter and the ±non-figurative in 1911 (etc). Weie and Isakson (already ± non-figurative) laid in the years 1920/30 the foundations for that which later is called COBRA. To the same tendency (non-figurative) also belong Gudnason, Ortvad and Alfelt (the years 1940). The German Rohlfs (1849-1938) already made non-figurative works in 1930 and Nay in the early 1940 years. Pollock painted his abstract expressionism (before dripping) in 1936-‘37. In England (School of St Ives) Hitchens ± end 1930 already painted non-figurative (also see the other ones of St. Ives). Bazaine worked non-figuratively in the years 1940 (see Bissiere's works before those of Bazaine) . Also see «20 Jeunes Peintres de la Tradition Française» in 1940 in Galerie Braun in Paris. Examine «Groupe des 8» in Italy. Yes! Yes! And there is still much more ... still to “observe”.

HOWEVER: All the names here mentioned, definitely belong to the past. But... is THAT also like this concerning THIS kind of art? (For “they” constantly insinuated that this true art of painting was DEAD!) If we also go in search for what is called «la relève» (sources : e.g. the magazine Artension (Fr) Artland (internet site)(also in America) and others ... and especially the very important relevant (in connection with the non-figurative) exposition «Réalités Nouvelles 2007» ... ) then we must, anyhow, conclude that (as it is called) «une lame de fond» concerning the non-figurative has come to exist ( in the wake of the elders) amongst the younger generations.

Finally: Formerly, in the beautiful Parisian years, there they said «à soixante ans on est jeune peintre» (and furthermore they did not say anything else). So, the assumption is, that he - at his eightieth birthday - he has come of age. «Telle que l'éternité le change en lui-même» (Mallarmé).

« (…) comme font les bons peintres, lesquels avec l’ombre font apparaître et monstrent le jour de ce qui relève, et ainsi par le moyen du jour, confondent les ombres du plain, et mesles diverses couleurs ensembles de manière que par ce diversité l’un et l’autre se démonstre mieux, et le poser des figures contraire l’un à l’autre, les ayde à faire cecy, qui est l’invention du peintre. » (Michel Eyquem Seigneur de Montaigne)