Retro Fashion?
Abstract, Synthetics, Kinetics Box
It seems paradoxical that the recent resurfacing of Op and Kinetic Art has been labelled as “trendy”, considering that this connotation of being “fashion” was precisely the reason for its demise during the 60s . In the 60’s , as well as in the present, the contribution made by their precursors to contemporary aesthetics has not been fully appreciated.
Even though they were very popular and their commercial success was obvious, their work was disregarded by the critics and was never taken seriously. It should also be noted that, contrary to Pop Art, these movements evolved within a very limited time span , given their very swift and momentary propagation, and then disappeared without leaving a trace.
However many contemporary artists have adopted a number of their initial technical references of space, form and even sound, and have thus enhanced even further the interaction between the observer and their work.
The conceptual “leitmotiv” of these three movements revolved around the linkage between art and popular culture.
Easy reproduction, massive distribution via printed media and television, the advent of technology and the binary world create a marked change of perception , rendering it quite different from the art of the easel and the chisel.
Thus, a new field is widely opened to an array of possibilities in two or three dimensional works, resulting from a new cultural model. A new aesthetical concept, that is easier to grasp, even more “humane” , extends into other areas through the incursion of a wide array of synthetic mouldable materials that can be shaped into many utilitarian objects. With these innovative tools, designers, artists and architects start experimenting with resins, plasticizers, additives, multi chromed pigments, acrylics and other substances in the search of durability, resistance and more flexibility, according to their needs. Dupont, Bayer and other manufacturers make raw materials available to the market . Research and experimentation of their physical properties enrich the artist’s works and possibilities.
We could consider that the Russian Constructivists, Alexander Archipenko, Naum Gabo and Antoine Pevsner, were “official” pioneers of this trend, as by World War I they already, shaped figurative sculptures using celluloid and metal for consistency .In the mid 30’s, Laszlo Mahogy-Nagy starts using Plexiglas and Lucite (methyl methacrylate) glass plates, These are easy to process ,thermoforming materials, permeable to light ,producing iridescent spectrums .Plasitc and its by-products , more affordable because of their lower cost, compete agianst more tradicional materials, with the added value of modernity.Duane Hanson, Christo and his oversized wrappings, Ron Mueck, Eva Hesse ,Yves Klein,Lee Bontecou ,just to name a few, gained even greater recognition due to their refusal to use traditional methods, in a conscious effort to break away from conventional establishment .Even though these materials were used at a large scale, their durability came into question.
A walk through the Vitra Museum will allow us to find some “icon” of the industrial design of those times, such as Eero Saarinen’s famous “Tulip” chair, or Danish Verter Panton’s chair moulded from a single piece of plastic . as remnants of the years of experimentation they undertook until achieving the desired density and structure.
The objects and Works of art of the time evidenced how little they resisted the passage of time. Also, their high toxicity level started to have devasgtating effects on the health of artists, as
in the case of the early death of Eva Hesse who purposefully chose latex and fiberglass because of their ephemereal and changing characteristics and the core of ther work revolved around “dematerialization”.
This quick overlook of the technical aspects and industrial environment of these decades is part of the foundation leading to the evolution of post-war avant garde trends until the 80.’
Iris Ramler
Iris Ramler Stein |
