Foreword/concrete art
Concerning the Artwork of Thomas P. Kausel
Concrete Art – Elementary Art by Eugen Gomringer
The continued theoretical examinations of the colour catalogisation systems by Thomas P. Kausel, based on the almost 200 highly lightfast pigments known worldwide and their application in his own paintings, cast a certain light on term and practice of concrete art. In his declaration of principles with the headline borrowed from the Josef-Albers-Didactics “Which blue is the bluest?”, Kausel finds himself in the framework of concrete art while he lets the “simultaneous submission to new regularities, e.g. to a new colour catalogisation system, follow the historical demand of “getting free from the model of nature.” Thus the old frame is accepted as well as opened with regards to a new regularity. More still: what Georg Schmidt states as “bound to the laws of nature” in Basel in 1944, gains a pragmatic topic by Kausel’s phrasing. As a consequence, the question is whether the old phrase of concrete art can still be maintained and still makes sense in the view of Kausel’s examinations and, moreover, regarding the border crossings of artists operating differently. We have the strange situation that the phrase “concrete art” – almost beyond all expectations – has become a fixed expression and is widely used, often without further reflections. It has to be called to mind, however, that the exhibitions of the supporters of the strictest opinion, such as the artists of the socalled “Zürich Concretes”, used to be called “abstract-conctrete” in 1944 and 1945 and that the term “concrete” has also become obsolete soon after the abstraction had been cast off. The real concretes were the first to drop the term in favour of more exact descriptions. In 1957, Karl Gerstner, the leading theorist of the young generation of painters, stopped using it or rather used in only temporarily and as a hommage to Hans Arp.
The reinforcement of the term “concrete art” that can be noticed nowadays, could be concluded with an “after all”, in order to leave the structure of theories adequately to itself, if it hadn’t been the characteristic of this very move ment to estimate new legitimacies as its agent und credible conviction higher than the keeping to formal rules (which, however, do not exclude them). In fact, a lot has happened over the centuries that can hardly be summarized as “concrete art” but yet the term gained acceptance. It was there and, as a contrast to abstraction, could also be sold where – as already mentioned – these things are not reflected any further. When, however, an artist like Kausel begins the art before it realises a formal program, thus gets to the painting with the material of the painting itself, the foundation of the concrete has to be deepened in any case. Here, a parallel can be seen to the process of manufacturing an installation which the writer once described with this metaphor: “concrete art starts with a visit to the property market where the right screws have to be bought”. In this case, too, the first steps before starting the actual construction are valued as a concrete spiritual and material achievement. The examples of Kausel’s art as well as the one of the installation show that the term concrete in concrete art is not only subject to the early doubts of the fifties of the last century but that currently the understanding of the role of the concrete in concrete art needs a new definition. In his programmatic declaration, Thomas P. Kausel demands that concrete art in painting should, for example, be subject to the 200 pigments according to the colour catalogisation system (there are 600 pigments altogether). This positivistically performed formulation is a harsh contrast to various, mostly diffuse programmes of a painting of painting which eventually end up in some kind of reduction and negotiation. Kausel’s new movement means any-thing but the end of painting and art: it is its re-establishment. For “The process of painting in relation to the quality of the achievable results has been tried to investigate several times (e.g. by Robert Ryman). Up to now, how-ever, a systematic survey of the substances to be used (such as colour) is missing”. (Kausel). It is predictable that this movement will last a long time,since Kausel alone has examined the 14 blue and 8 violet pigments for several years before he was able to present them now in this exhibitions to an international audience that has rediscovered colour. His action shows how elementary and pioneering Kausel’s work with colours is. He shows the real colours, e.g. as a monochrome area but at the same time their behaviour with chemically related pigments. In doing so, he prepare the ground for the study of the “interaction of colours” effectively disseminated by Josef Albers in the sixties and seventies. Kausel prepares the “factual facts” of colour perception. There is no doubt that the “actual facts” (the psychic effect) of the interactions will occur, despite the most objective treatment by Kausel. They definitely work organically.
Painting grounds of most different kinds range, of course, also among the investigations of artist, the reactions of which – interactions – enable interesting comparisons and can widen the scope to some variables. At present, the 14 blue on handmade paper are his objects of demonstration. Kausel is in a very productive phase of experiment and test. He clearly visualises the pragmatic, character by placatively showing the pigments in the form of big
ciphers of the stencil writing also used for marking transport boxes. Thus, there is a big “B 33” on the edge of a colour field as the international name of the pigment barium-manganate. In these processes, the artist plays little jokes and hiding games by showing, ciphers in the mirror image in order to reduce the reading speed and by adding aids to suggest a certain reading direction – by using several colours – . Thus, the observer is won over for a special kind of blue. In colour fields without a visible imprint (the name of the pigment is then
placed on the back, just as Albers, naming the colours from the tube, who stands for the succinct fact of an art without meaning and metaphor), an assignment to the monochrome painting cannot be excluded. The difference lies in the intention and the concept. Kausel’s elementary reflections still range before the known monochrome painting. Kausel also supplies the score. The reflections stated may once again bring up the question for the sub-
stance of the concrete and its role in Concrete Art. In art, pigments and their order undoubtedly play this role. The deepening of the foundation is the step from the general concrete to the elementary substance. Even if the term concrete is still used – apart from established institutions and international codes – the actual cause of the concrete can never be dealt with any more without the additional term of the elementary.
Eugen Gomringer 27 May 2001