Ben Nicholson: abstracts
Ben Nicholson was an experimental artist, familiar with the work of avant-garde continental artists such as Picasso, Braque, Schwitters, Mondrian and Gabo. Much of Nicholson's own work is a personal interpretation of ideas and methods derived from these European models, making Nicholson a leading exponent of Modernism in England in the 1930s.
Nicholson's 1924 (first abstract painting, Chelsea) fits Charles Greenberg's definition of modernist painting in that it is flat, without perspective depth, and does not try to conceal the materials from which it has been made: the pencil guidelines and the brush marks are both clearly visible. Nicholson's picture has not been abstracted from forms seen in nature, but is entirely the product of his imagination. Thus the painting is an autonomous thing in its own right and does not represent anything other than itself. As Nicholson said himself, an abstract painting is like a flower: "Each flower exists in its own right - it does not represent anything but itself" (Sausmarez 39). Comparison with flowers implies that paintings are evolving, expressive creations. When compared with the grid-like, geometric squares of Mondrian, Nicholson's 1924 (first abstract painting, Chelsea) seems much more irregular and spontaneous, as if it had grown like a flower. The shapes in Nicholson's picture are, to some extent, arbitrary, perhaps the result of a happy accident rather than a predetermined plan. The painting is a study of unusual colour combinations: pink, salmon, red, white and blue. These painted shapes seem to be superimposed on top of each other, like pieces of coloured paper in a collage. In fact, it is likely that Nicholson had seen actual collages like this, created by Hans Arp and his wife, Sophie Tauber-Arp (Read, chapter 8). The most famous example of such a collage is The Snail by Matisse, in which pieces of coloured paper seem to suggest all the colours of the prism.
Actual collage is very rare in Nicholson's work, although the Tate has one example dated Jan 27 1933. This collage shows the influence not of Arp but of Picasso, Braque and, perhaps, Schwitters. The collage shows what appears to be the top of a table: the edges of the table are suggested by serpentine lines scratched in the paint. Upon the table are two plates, one made from a piece of newspaper and the other from a paper doily. There appears to be another object on the table, also cut out of newspaper, and behind the table there is a sign reading "Au Chat [word hidden] Dieppe". The picture is highly abstracted, so that it is not immediately apparent what it depicts, and the words of the newspaper cuttings are deliberately obscured by paint. Thus the collage engages the active participation of the viewer, because he or she needs to try and work out what is happening in the picture - which would not have been the case if Nicholson had merely painted a conventional still-life. Even though the scraps of newspaper are supposed to stand for objects on the table, it is natural to want to read what is written on them. One of them begins "Devant l' [word obscured] de Douamont le président de la Republique M.Paul [word obscured] et le maréchal Pétain glorifient nos héros". It is not certain what these words refer to, but they are probably describing a ceremony to honour French soldiers who had lost their lives in the First World War. It is significant that some of the text is smeared with red paint. A separate piece of text contains the words "La Bolivie [word obscured] un accés par la fleuve", which must certainly refer to some event in the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay, because this began in 1932 and all the newspaper cuttings in the collage are dated August 1932. By juxtaposing texts referring to the First World war and the Chaco War - both of which involved great loss of life - it is likely that Nicholson is making a point about the unglorious nature of war. Picasso had likewise used newspaper collage to hint at political messages. Collage is a strange medium in that it is superficially abstract and yet uses printed material to make direct references to things in the real world.
At first sight, Nicholson's collage Jan 27 1933 seems to have nothing at all in common with his 1935 (white relief), a large wooden rectangle carved in low relief, painted white, and mounted in a box-frame. However, these two works share a similar approach, illustrating some of the trends in twentieth-century art. Both works are given dates rather than proper titles, implying that they are depersonalised works which do not represent anything outside of themselves. Both works are made from mass-produced materials not originally intended for use by artists. The collage contains scraps of newspaper and a paper doily; the white relief is carved from a mahogany table top and coated with Ripolin, a glossy white household paint. Like many modern artists, Nicholson is manipulating odd materials he has found, bending them to his own purposes.
Nicholson's collage prompts us to puzzle over exactly what it is that we are looking at. In a similar way, the white relief makes us think about the nature of the object in front of us because it deliberately blurs the old distinction between painting and sculpture. It is three-dimensional, carved, and coloured white - like sculpture. Yet it is painted and hanging behind glass on a wall - like a painting. And the white colour combined with the simple geometric shapes also makes us think of modernist architecture. This breaking down of the barriers between the different arts was a feature of Modernism, summed up by Mondrian when he wrote that "by the unification of architecture, sculpture and painting a new plastic reality will be created" (Moszynska 117).
Nicholson's 1935 (white relief) is like a Mondrian painting converted into a carving. It is made up of geometric shapes - squares, rectangles, circles - but these have been carefully arranged to create an individual composition of satisfying, aesthetic harmony. As Nicholson said, "a square or a circle in art are nothing in themselves and are alive only in the instinctive and inspirational use an artist can make of them in expressing a poetic idea" Sausmarez 34). This fusion of impersonal geometric shapes with personal artistic feeling is illustrated by the two circles in the relief, one of which was created using a pair of compasses and the other entirely by hand. The relief was painted white all over, avoiding the bright colours used by Mondrian, to create a timeless image based on form alone. Yet a certain "colour" is added to the work by its three-dimensional nature, which creates dark shadows on the white surface, which change as the light changes. Thus a work which looks deceptively simple is also unexpectedly rich: static and yet changing, modern and yet timeless.
Works Cited
Sausmarez, Maurice de, Ben Nicholson, London: Studio International Magazine, 1969
Read, Herbert, Arp, London: Thames & Hudson, 1968
Moszynska, Anna, Abstract Art, London: Thames & Hudson, 1990
Nicholson's 1924 (first abstract painting, Chelsea) fits Charles Greenberg's definition of modernist painting in that it is flat, without perspective depth, and does not try to conceal the materials from which it has been made: the pencil guidelines and the brush marks are both clearly visible. Nicholson's picture has not been abstracted from forms seen in nature, but is entirely the product of his imagination. Thus the painting is an autonomous thing in its own right and does not represent anything other than itself. As Nicholson said himself, an abstract painting is like a flower: "Each flower exists in its own right - it does not represent anything but itself" (Sausmarez 39). Comparison with flowers implies that paintings are evolving, expressive creations. When compared with the grid-like, geometric squares of Mondrian, Nicholson's 1924 (first abstract painting, Chelsea) seems much more irregular and spontaneous, as if it had grown like a flower. The shapes in Nicholson's picture are, to some extent, arbitrary, perhaps the result of a happy accident rather than a predetermined plan. The painting is a study of unusual colour combinations: pink, salmon, red, white and blue. These painted shapes seem to be superimposed on top of each other, like pieces of coloured paper in a collage. In fact, it is likely that Nicholson had seen actual collages like this, created by Hans Arp and his wife, Sophie Tauber-Arp (Read, chapter 8). The most famous example of such a collage is The Snail by Matisse, in which pieces of coloured paper seem to suggest all the colours of the prism.
Actual collage is very rare in Nicholson's work, although the Tate has one example dated Jan 27 1933. This collage shows the influence not of Arp but of Picasso, Braque and, perhaps, Schwitters. The collage shows what appears to be the top of a table: the edges of the table are suggested by serpentine lines scratched in the paint. Upon the table are two plates, one made from a piece of newspaper and the other from a paper doily. There appears to be another object on the table, also cut out of newspaper, and behind the table there is a sign reading "Au Chat [word hidden] Dieppe". The picture is highly abstracted, so that it is not immediately apparent what it depicts, and the words of the newspaper cuttings are deliberately obscured by paint. Thus the collage engages the active participation of the viewer, because he or she needs to try and work out what is happening in the picture - which would not have been the case if Nicholson had merely painted a conventional still-life. Even though the scraps of newspaper are supposed to stand for objects on the table, it is natural to want to read what is written on them. One of them begins "Devant l' [word obscured] de Douamont le président de la Republique M.Paul [word obscured] et le maréchal Pétain glorifient nos héros". It is not certain what these words refer to, but they are probably describing a ceremony to honour French soldiers who had lost their lives in the First World War. It is significant that some of the text is smeared with red paint. A separate piece of text contains the words "La Bolivie [word obscured] un accés par la fleuve", which must certainly refer to some event in the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay, because this began in 1932 and all the newspaper cuttings in the collage are dated August 1932. By juxtaposing texts referring to the First World war and the Chaco War - both of which involved great loss of life - it is likely that Nicholson is making a point about the unglorious nature of war. Picasso had likewise used newspaper collage to hint at political messages. Collage is a strange medium in that it is superficially abstract and yet uses printed material to make direct references to things in the real world.
 |
| Ben Nicholson, 1935 (white relief), Tate Britain, London |
At first sight, Nicholson's collage Jan 27 1933 seems to have nothing at all in common with his 1935 (white relief), a large wooden rectangle carved in low relief, painted white, and mounted in a box-frame. However, these two works share a similar approach, illustrating some of the trends in twentieth-century art. Both works are given dates rather than proper titles, implying that they are depersonalised works which do not represent anything outside of themselves. Both works are made from mass-produced materials not originally intended for use by artists. The collage contains scraps of newspaper and a paper doily; the white relief is carved from a mahogany table top and coated with Ripolin, a glossy white household paint. Like many modern artists, Nicholson is manipulating odd materials he has found, bending them to his own purposes.
Nicholson's collage prompts us to puzzle over exactly what it is that we are looking at. In a similar way, the white relief makes us think about the nature of the object in front of us because it deliberately blurs the old distinction between painting and sculpture. It is three-dimensional, carved, and coloured white - like sculpture. Yet it is painted and hanging behind glass on a wall - like a painting. And the white colour combined with the simple geometric shapes also makes us think of modernist architecture. This breaking down of the barriers between the different arts was a feature of Modernism, summed up by Mondrian when he wrote that "by the unification of architecture, sculpture and painting a new plastic reality will be created" (Moszynska 117).
Nicholson's 1935 (white relief) is like a Mondrian painting converted into a carving. It is made up of geometric shapes - squares, rectangles, circles - but these have been carefully arranged to create an individual composition of satisfying, aesthetic harmony. As Nicholson said, "a square or a circle in art are nothing in themselves and are alive only in the instinctive and inspirational use an artist can make of them in expressing a poetic idea" Sausmarez 34). This fusion of impersonal geometric shapes with personal artistic feeling is illustrated by the two circles in the relief, one of which was created using a pair of compasses and the other entirely by hand. The relief was painted white all over, avoiding the bright colours used by Mondrian, to create a timeless image based on form alone. Yet a certain "colour" is added to the work by its three-dimensional nature, which creates dark shadows on the white surface, which change as the light changes. Thus a work which looks deceptively simple is also unexpectedly rich: static and yet changing, modern and yet timeless.
Works Cited
Sausmarez, Maurice de, Ben Nicholson, London: Studio International Magazine, 1969
Read, Herbert, Arp, London: Thames & Hudson, 1968
Moszynska, Anna, Abstract Art, London: Thames & Hudson, 1990
Comments
Post a Comment