Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales OpenEdition Nos plateformes OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypothèses Calenda Bibliothèques OpenEdition Freemium Suivez-nous

Plea for a graphic art (1) – “dissecting” with Wassily Kandinsky

 

The “principle of elementary oppositions” is “at the origin of the first theories of abstraction”, notably elaborated by Kandinsky and Mondrian, which “consists of reducing the materials of artistic creation to pure elements (for painting: color and shape)” (Sers, 2010, §14, my translation from French). Instead of “abstraction”, wouldn’t it be more accurate then to speak of anatomy? What is here outlined is a learned enterprise of decomposition, a capacity for analysis of the (material, “elements”, components, ingredients?) which allows creation. And resultant feelings. This is also, agreeing on that point with Philippe Sers, the position that I adopted in my PhD (Rules and games in contemporary artistic practices) by evoking a method consisting first of all in “dissecting art”. Or more precisely adopting an approach that involves questioning the “means” of art and creation.

 

 

Graphic painting?

Recurring motif in Kandinsky’s work, the mountain is approached here in an eloquent way. Strikes me the “discontinuous” or “zig zag” black line at the bottom left and the “rainbow” arrangement of colors which do not mix: graphic indices?

Figure 1. Kandinsky, Wassily, 1909. Berg, oil on canvas. Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, Munich. © Adagp, Paris

 

The “means” and not the “ends” because it is imperative, according to Kandinsky, to prioritize the study of the resources available and shared for creation and between creators: “The first unavoidable question is, naturally, the question of the art elements, which are the building materials of works of art and which, as such, must be different in every art” (Kandinsky, 1926, p.20). Painting (with Kandinsky, but also Klee or Mondrian), music (notably with Schoenberg) or literature (with for example the French Ouvroir de Littérature Potentielle or Raymond Roussel) can indeed engage in such an enterprise. At least this is what I assert in my work by identifying a second step in the method at the heart of my PhD.

 

 

“Dissecting art”: the line

Figure 2. Kandinsky, Vassily, 1926. “A few broken lines”. In Point and line on plane. Paris: Editions Gallimard, “Folio essais”, 2003, p.84. © Editions Gallimard

 

“Dissecting art” allows us to identify elements that can be considered in themselves, examined in their multiple possible aspects (like the broken line, cf. fig. 2) and then combined with each other. The objective being to “complicate the art”, to make room for the arrangement, the association of these various elements. Art is thought of as combinatory that allows the exploration of the possibilities inherent in a given material. This is the role of rules and the impostance of definition of art as a game (my hypothesis): writing a book without using the letter “e” like Georges Perec, compose sonatas and half symphonies with series of 12 sounds like Schoenberg, paint series of Flowers with a reduced palette and until a predetermined stock of paper is exhausted like Gérard Gasiorowski…

 

 

Creation: free agency?

For his Archipel 1, André Boucourechliev designed an “open form” score. The different parameters (phrasing, intensity, timbre, speed, etc.) that the performers freely arrange are indicated in a non linear and graphic way.

Figure 3. Boucourechliev, André, 1967. Archipel 1 (score for orchestra). URL : https://brahms.ircam.fr/fr/works/work/18958/ (accessed June 3, 2024). © André Boucourechliev et IRCAM

 

The exploration of the possible uses of a given material can even be automated, or, more precisely, computerized as demonstrated in 1988 by Raymond Guido Lauzzana and Lynn Pocock-Williams. in a paper presenting a “generative process” construction project. Based on the work of Kandinsky, it requires a specific “set of rules” (Lauzzana, 1988, p.449) and a “shape grammar” (Ibid.¸ p.446) that takes the form of two principles: “1) the primary elements of composition are points and lines, and (2) the selection and placement of other compositional elements are determined by points and lines” (Ibid., p.450). In doing so, it constitutes one of the possible implementations of Point and line on plane, as demonstrated by the treatment given to a painting like Dream Motion.

 

 

The graphic art machine?

Figure 4. Kandinsky, Wassily, 1923. Dream motion, ink and pencil on paper. Guggenheim Museum, New York. © Guggenheim Museum

 

The computer system indeed aims to take the Russian painter’s treatise literally, which is for example exemplified by: “the predominant central figure begins with two intersecting lines forming a point. This point becomes the center of circles, as well as the intersection point of other lines, triangles and polygons” (Idem). Written over 35 years ago, this paper constitutes today a curiosity. It is possible to see in it the first attempt, even the first embryo, of the construction of a generative Artificial Intelligence related to a given artist. This is clearly the project. If, for now, “the Kandinsky rules are invoked manually, that is, rule selection and conflict resolution are not done automatically”, the goal is to greatly optimize the system in order to build “an engine that would automatically select, resolve and fire rules. With this engine in place, the generative process could occur without interaction” (Ibid., p.451).

 

 

Computerizing graphic design

“Intermediate steps in the generative process of a composition are present here. The generative process must begin with an initial shape. A blank canvas is the initial shape as seen in the first frame of this figure. The following four frames show intermediate steps in the development of a composition. The last frame shows a completed composition” (Lauzzana, p.450)

Figure 5. Lauzzana, Raymond Guido. Pocock-Williams, Lynn, 1988. “A Rule System for Analysis in the Visual Arts”. © Lauzzana, Raymond Guido. Pocock-Williams, Lynn

 

Following such a demonstration, we clearly discover the productive nature of the “dissecting art” method that I mentioned above and more briadly of the ability to distinguish “secondary” and “primary elements” without “which a work in any particular art cannot even come into existence” (Kandinksy, 1926, p. 20). But another problem then emerges as Kandinsky places the “elements” thus identified under the sign of an ambiguity that neither Sers, nor Lauzzana or Pocock-Williams acknowledge. “Very beginning of every work of painting, (…) without which this beginning is not possible”, these elements are also the vectors of a mode of creation in their own right. “At the same time, they constitute the conclusive material for an independent kind of painting – graphic” (Idem).

 

The first graphical artificial intelligence

“A skeletal drawing of Kandinsky’s Dream Motion was made using the graphic items associated with the Kandinsky rule-base. These graphic items were placed directly into this composition. Five compositions were generated from the Kandinsky rule-base by invoking compositional rules. These compositions are similar in style and form to the skeletal drawing of Kandinsky’s Dream Motion” (Lauzzana, 1988, p. 449).

Figure 6. Pocock-Williams, Lynn. “Machine-drawn skeletal sketch of Dream Motion”, 7 X 7, 1987. In Lauzzana, Raymond Guido. Pocock-Williams, Lynn, 1988. © Lauzzana, Raymond Guido. Pocock-Williams, Lynn

 

And this is the question, that interests me and justifies the development of these reflections on Kandinsky’s work within Mediagraphic: what is exactly the status of drawing, and more broadly of graphics? Should it be considered (as suggested by the first part of the last sentence I quoted) in terms of a sine qua non, of a necessity posseding the value of an aesthetic scaffolding (lines which allow constructions), or of a draft or “skeleton” (to use Lauzzana’s words, cf. figure 6)? Or does it have another status, clearly more essential and by no mean intended to fade away: that of a “independent kind of painting” which is absolutely omnipresent among all modern painters (who, from Klee to Picasso in passing through Mondrian, have all drawn), and whose interest is obvious for an artist like Kandinsky who readily resorts to this mode of creation?

 

Bibliography

KANDINSKY, Vassily (1926). Point and line to plane. Dearstyne, Howard. Reba, Hilla (translation). New-York City: Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation for the museum of non-objective painting, 1947. URL : https://www.wassilykandinsky.net/book-pointlinetoplane.html (accessed June 4, 2024).

LAUZZANA, R.G. POCOCK-WILLIAMS, L. (1988). “A Rule System for Analysis in the Visual Arts”. Oxford : Leonardo, 21, 4, p.445–452. URL : https://doi.org/10.2307/1578709

SERS, Philippe (2010). « Notes sur le Paradigme de l’avant-garde radicale ». Rue Descartes, 2010/3, n° 69, p. 58-65. DOI : 10.3917/rdes.069.0058

 

 


OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
Benoît Berthou (5 juin 2024). Plea for a graphic art (1) – “dissecting” with Wassily Kandinsky. Mediagraphic. Consulté le 13 novembre 2024 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/11ruj


Vous aimerez aussi...

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.