('ontt,Ttts of

7ll

llorlern,lrt

7. Der llleg zu,m Kubism,us, Munich, 1920, p.

27 .

8. Statement to Marius de Zayas, published in The -4rls, Nerv Yorko

1923, under thc

titlc

Picasso Speaks.

9. Grrillaumc Apollinairc, Les Peintres Cubistes, Paris, I913, p. 36.

10. Vallier, op. cit., p. 17.
I l. Aragon, La Peinture au d6fi,. Prcfacc to the catalogue of an exhibition of collages at thc Galerie Goemans, Paris, I arch Ig30.
12. Frarigoise Gilot and Carlton Lake, Life,*^itlt, Picosso, London, 1965,

p.

70.

13.

'Ihc rnassive exhibibion of Corot's figure pieces mounted at the

Salorr d'Automnc of lg09 may, indeed, have influencc(l thc Cubists both

formally and iconographically; for cxa,mple, tlie motif of the female

figurc holding or playing a rnusical instmment is a rccurrcnt one in
Corot's rvork.
14.
15.

p.

\'allier, op. cit., p. 16.

fn an intervicu, by Alcxander \Iratt, The Studio, November 196I,

169.

lluyghe it La Naissance du Cubi,sme, Histoire de

Paris, 1935, p. 80.
17. Jtran Cris, -Atrofas on nly Painting, first published in de Qu,erscltni.tt
nos I and 2, Frankfurt, L925, pp. 77-8. Reprintcd in D. H. Karrhcnrvcilor,
Juan Gris, London, 1947, pp, 138-9.
18. Notes in L'll.sprit nou,ueqtt, no. 5, Paris, 1921, p. 534.
19. Tlre phrase occurs in Ll:ie I'echnical lIotr,i,Jesto o.f Futurist Painting
(Ituturist Po,inting: Teclm,ical llanifesto), April 11, 19I0.
16. Qrrotccl by Rcn6

l'Art

Content.pora,in,,

PURISM
Christopher Green
Purism came after Cubism and was launched rvith a book published
in 1918, Apri,s le Cubisme. Cubism, declared its authors Am6d6e
Ozenfant and Charles-Edouard Jeanneret (Le Corbusier), had ended
by not recognizing its own significance or the significance of thc postwar epoch: it lvas 'the troubled art of a troublcd time':1 Purism
olaimed it u'ould takc Cubism to its proper conclusions, those of a
cooperatiye and coltstructive epoch of order. It was a very ambitious
moyement, which had a brief life (seven years) and only through
the architecture of Le Corbusier did it gain a large international
reputation. Purist paintings rvere sho\yn, within its lifetime, as far
a,way from Paris as Prague, but the great post-war impact in painting
and sculpturc came from De Stijl, Constructivism ancl Surrealism.
Thc high years of the movement, wcrc the years of Theo Yan Doesburg's first Parisian sermons on De Stijl, and of Andri Breton and
Tristan Tzara (1920-25). It lvas, at the sa,me time, against such
competition that Purism rvas able to offer a genuine and independent alternative both to the post-war Cubists of the Paris
School and to De Stijl.
Clarity and objectivitv u'ere central to the Purist theme, art moved
'vers lc cristal '.2 Yet Ozenfant and Jeanneret gave their dcclarations
the rcpctitive insistencc of prophets offering revelation: Apri,s le
Cubisme \rras a passionate declaration of belief, and most of the
editorial opinion of thcir magazine L'Esprit nou,I)ee,u (1920-25) was
put across u.ith manifosto force. Their final undertaking La Peinture
Moderne (1925) sharpens that force. What Cocteau dubbed 'The call
to order' 'ivas made by Ozenfant and Jeanneret with fervour, a
feeling of revolutionary purpose, and a full appreciation of cultural
guerrilla tactics.
Yct, the dynamism of purist publications freezcs rvhen one confronts the ideas they reprcsent,, and t'he calm exactitude of Purist
works [illustrations 28 and 29]. The movement seems calculated to
create opposition. So many of those modern aesthetic ideals lcast
loved by popular opinion are there: the beauty of functional effi-

80

('onct:1tls of

llodtrn rlrt

cicncy, the importance of intellect,, the unimportance of individuals,

thc valuc of precision. They lie behind De Stijl and Constructivism
as 'rvell as Purism, but combined r,vith them, it L'Esprit nouueau, is a
hostility to extremes which is alicn to those movements and lr'hich
antagonizes informcd opinion: the elemental abstractions of De
Stijl make the bottles and jugs of purist still-livcs seem timid:
Mondrian is dramatically quict, the Purists are simply quiet. Though

mild to the informcd, the movemcnt secms extreme to the .uninformed: it is after all Puritan and restrictive in prccisely the same
rv'ay as De Stijl. The dogmatic certainty behind its campaign for
order, like that of De Stijl, mcrely serves to cmphasize, by mcans
of the equally dogmatic rcactions causcd, thc existencc of more
than one dircctive force in human naturc. Those u,ho belicvc in
instinct, see in a passionate declaration of thc po\\'er of reason only
a negation of instinct, u,hile thosc rvho believc in reason see in a
passionate declaration of the power of instinct only a negation of
reason. It is diflicult, to gain u'idcspread sympathy for Purism bccause it, is so easy to sec it for rvhat it is not: a Le Corbusier villa too
easily &rouses the Borromini in us, an Ozenfant still-life, the Rubcns
in us. Only rvhen rvc have acceptcd lrhat, Purism is not, rvith understanding rather than regret, can \\e bcgin to see and enjoy u'hat it is.
It, uas Puritan, but, Ozcnfant and Jeanneret rvere not, kill-joys:
they distinguished betrveen joy and pleasurc and they preached the
end of pleasure in art, the supremacy of joy: plcasure, they bclieved,
is unbalanced, joy is balanced, pleasure plcasing, joy clcvating,
plcasurc satisfies appctites, joy satisfics the need ftrr order in life,
pleasure satisfies passing ll,him, joy satisfics sornething constant in us.
Their aim rvas to give art an unchanging foundation, and in this
sense they u,ere classical. Therc is in art, Purism tclls us, an essential
factor to r'vhich u'e all aspire. That factor is Number: the lraY in
which \1'c arc shou.n the ordcr of numerical division in thc structure

of our thoughts, ourir.ork and thc u'orks of nature - proportion.

Tho past antl the prcsent is conceivcd of as a p)rramid: at the top of

thc pyramid are found all together Poussin, Ingres, Corot, Pcricles,

Eiffel, Plato, Pascal, Einstein, etc: thc implication is that Poussin,

lrad lre lived to see thc paintings of L'DsTtrit

?tout'eott, u'ould
have admired thcm, just, as the Purists admircd his, that the quality

of grcat, al:t, grcat living and great thinking does not, chango, that

Purism

81

the pyramid has the same apex in every era and every sphere.
Such hierarchical thinking implies a certainty analogous .lvith
that of Renaissance Humanism. For Daniele Barbaro, Aristotelian
thinker and contemporary of Palladio, the lau,s of harmony in proportion represented the true larvs of life, therefore science, rvhich
explored these la'w,s and the arts which used them, dealt u,ith
certainty. Ozenfant and Jeanneret aimed their art at a definite
point, but they did not claim that in this was revealcd some objectively valid Truth. Ozenfant was adamant: rve cannot, he says, be
certain that thc order revealed to us by reason - i.e. sciencc - exists
apart from us, is more than a rcflection of the structurc of our
own minds and senses.3 But rve can he certain that this ordcr constantly found in our surroundings and our actions satisfics a genuine
human nccd - the need of our minds to conceive equilibrium and our
senses to perceive it. Science and art are proof of the constancy of
this need: the Parthenon and Einstein's cquations both fulfil the
same human function. fn this light functionalism becomes a new
extension of Renaissance Humanism .lvith thc cmphasis on proportion, based on a retreat from God into the sphcre of Man alone.
The proportions which give mcn beauty in their thinking, in their
listening and their seeing are thought of as dircctly related to the
order oftheir bodics, the structurc oftheir sensc organs and oftheir
minds, but thcy arc no longer related to God.
Functionalism in engineering, in industrial dcsign, in architecture
and in painting is presented altogether by Ozenfant and Jeannerct in
humanist, tcrms, and at its root lies the notion of 'Sdlection Mecanique'.a The starting point for this notion is the same as that of the
Rcnaissancc, the human body: in itself it is believed to revcal the
ordcr mcn search for. Bvery organ is thc rcsult of constant adaptation to functional nceds: 'One is ablc to ascertain a tendency
toryards certain idcntical fcatures, responding to constant functions.'
The tendency is tor,vards greatcr and greater economy of effort as
the harmony between form and function is pcrfected. From tlic
human body Ozenfant and Jeanneret move to thosc objects t,hich
men make solely to ans'iver their functional needs, and find too tlra,l,
ccrtain 'objets types' have becn perfected to answcr constant ncctls:
glasses, bottlcs, etc. 'These objects associate themselvcs witlr tlrc
organism and complcte it'; they arc in harmony lvillr NIrr,rr.

r-

T
fl'

(',t11r'1

1tl.;,,l

.ll rtrlr

l'tt -ltt

Arclrilr.r:l,rrr(', ()trgineering, industrial design are

I'ttt'isttt

8::i

ciplincd by the invariably stablc dorninance of thc vertical arrrl the

horizontal; and composition is defined as sccondar,y elaltoration on
a prirnary formal thcmc.
So full a dcveloprnent of a formal language, and so stronq alr cl)rphasis on the abstract idcals of harrnony ancl prccision, miglrl seern
to lead somclvhere very different from thc bottles and guitars of
purist paintings: a strictly architcctural painting seelns at first the
most logical rcsult - an claboratcd but mutcd version of De Stijl.
Yet, Purism's ir.rsistence on the old subject-mattcr of Analt'tic and
Synthetic Cubism is no cornpromise; it, too, is the rcsult of a strict
investig-ation cif the rneans and onds clf art. Tlie subjcct-nratterr of
thoir still-lives in fact binds the hurnanism of Ozenfant and Jcanncrct, into a complctc rvhole, puttiug thcir painting into dircct contact u,ith th<t practical rvorld of cngineoring and 'objets tqprs',
constructing a bridge betu,een tho practical and the acsthctic
spheres. An artlvhich did no rnore than elaboratc on primary ftinnal
themcs rvas, for thc purists rvriting in L'Esprit ,t1,o7t1:ee:Lt, rnerely
ornamental; it lacked somcthing rvhich they defincd it Lu Peintu,re
Moderne &s'an intellectual and affective emotion'expected of art"7
That emotion \rras callcd'passion'by Jeanneret in thc ar'liclos on
'rvhiclr lris internationally influcntial book trrers une Arclt,iteclzrc rvas
based. 'Passion' was the artist,'s ability to grasp order intuitivel.y in
the disorder of his surroundings, to find art, in the matcrial 'w'orld of

all concerned with

- for dr,r,'ellings, utensils, communications tlrrrs, l,lrc logical conclusion is that a functional approach to them is

corrslir,rrt, Irrrrn&n needs

lrrrnrilnist: the proportions of a humanist art are the proportions

rlotcrrnined by human need. However, by function Ozenfant and
Jeanneret mean more than utility, they mean aesthetic function
too, because among man's basic needs is for them, as we have seen,
the need for art. Jeanneret puts his position like this: an engineer is
presented with alternative ideas for a bridge ea,ch as efficient as the
others and he becomes an artist only when he selccts the one
most clearly harmonious in its proportions. Art is not useful but it
is necessary, that is u.hy paintings are painted and buildings are
built as 'architecture'and not simply as'machines for living in'.
The machine r.vas important to Purism, but in a supporting rather
than a leading role: it represented an answer, always new, to a constant human need for order. Art, on the othcr hand, representcd an
&nswer, never new, to the same human necd. Each new machine
sttpersetletl art ultl ortc attrl urolrl(l be sulrt,t'setlerl llv alother': rro lnl'k
rtf art coulrl be srrpt,rsetlerl h1' anotlrer'. ,\r't. rve are tolrl, is bast'tl orr
the unchanging physiological structure of the eye, mind and body
in response to form, line and colour.5 Science and the machinc are
based on the changing fabric of knowledge. The machine might
crcatc L'Esytrit nouaeclu - a new awareness of precision and complcxity within the old thcme of order - but it can never be a work of
art, being on the technological plane alone, because it can nevcr be
of constant valrre in an advancing technology.
A grammar and syntax of sensation is elaborated by the Purists as
the foundation of art.6 Form, line and colour are secn as the elements
of a language which does not change from culture to culture because
it is based on invariable optical rcactions. The Purists are strict rulemakers: their focus is on constant, factors. Thercfcrrc colour (scen as
a surface factor) is subordinated to form, whose intcgrity it can so
easily destroy, &s, for instance, in Imprcssionism. l'orm itself is
catcgorized as either primary or secondary, either capable of a
constant cffect, free ofsecondary associations, or not: a cube carries
the same 'plastic' meaning for everyone, while a freely spiralling
line might make onc man see a snake and another a whirlpool.
Primary forrns are established as tho basis for composition, dis-

na,ture and man-madc objects. The scientist could construct lteneath

the chaotic surface of naturc an intricate and balanced systom of

lar'vs; the artist rvas so gifted that he could intuitir.cly discover
objects in the external world 'w,hich demonstrated such a systcm
outu,ardly in their form. The bottles and guitars of Purist paintings
are therefore objects in rvhich ordcr has bcen found. Thc qualities of
that ordcr are clear, for the objects of Purist paintings arc of course
'objets types' . They are the qualities of a humanist functionalism:
thc qualities that follorv from absolutc cflicicncy-precision,
simplicity and proportional harmony.
From the Purist vier,vpoint there was about the 'objet [ype' a
banality rvhich placed it above the human figure as the subject of
great art: the human figure too easily appealed to particular feelings:
Lhe 'objet type', so common that it rvas hardly noticed, free of all
possible literary associations, could never appeal to such feelings - it,
i

84

(loru:opls ol' illodcrn

,lrt

is difficult to lust after a bottlc. Thus, the 'objet type' joincd the
generalized, formal emphasis esscntial in art, to the material u,orld
without danger of distraction, and it is in the final analysis the Purist
approach to the object that demonstrates conclusively Purism's
independence from both De Stijl and Cubism. Ozenfant and
Jeanneret dismiss pure abstraction for its lack of 'passion', just as
they dismiss the photographic rcalism of Meissonier for its lack of
structure, and they give a nerv clarity to the cubist method of shifting viewpoint analysis. Like the ideal cubist following the rules of
Gleizes and Metzinger's 1912 Du Cubisme, they shift viewpoint in
order to move from one 'essential' aspect of an object to another,
from, say, the circular base of a glass [illustration 28] to its tapering
profile, to its circular top, thus translating it into a simple formal
theme. A firm grip is kept on lheir 'objet type' sLartirrg point, and in
this way the practical order of functional efficiency is joined to
aesthetic order: cubist method loses all trace of ambiguity: it
becomes the instrument of a philosophy as all-embracing as De Stijl,
but independent of it.
Notes

l. AprCs le Cubisme, 1918. Ozcnfant and Jeanneret.

2. L'Esprit nouuee,u: founded in lg20 by Ozenfant, Jeannerct and the
poct Paul Derm6e. In all twenty-cight numbers were produced. Contributors included Maurice R,aynal, Waldemar George, Pierre Revcrdy,
Blaise Cendrars, Fernand Ldger, Jean Lurgat, L6once Rosenberg, Ivan
Puni and many others.
3. L'Esprit nolu)eau, 19, 1923. Ozenfant -'Ce Mois Pass6', subtitlcd
'Ce qui vaut d'6tre fait'. L'Esprit nouuea,u, 22, 1924. Ozenfant - 'Cert,itude, No l'. L'Esprit nouuealt., 27, lg2s. Ozenfant - 'Certitude, No 2,.
4. L'Espri,t nolt,uealt, 4, 1920. Ozenfant and Jeanneret - 'Lc Purisme,,
pp. 373-6.
5. L'Espri.t no?toe(r,tl,, 18, 1923. Ozenfant and Jeannerct - 'L,Angle

droit'.
6. L'Esprit nou,uealt,, 1, 1920. Ozenfant and Jeanneret - ,Sur Ia
plastique'. L'Esprit nou,ueelu, 4, 1920. Ozenfant and Jeanneret - ,Le

Purisme'.
7. L'Espri,t noltueau,, 4, 1920. Ozenfant, and Jeanneret

- 'Le Purisme,.

ORPHISM
Virginia Spate
Orphism can briefly be described as a tendency to'w'ards abstract
- as it rvas called at the time -'pure'painting u,hich manifestecl
itself in Paris between late I9Il and earl.y 1914.1 As a movcment, it
was the creation of the poet, Guillaurne Apollinaire, rvho christened
it at the exhibition of the Scction d'Or in October IgI2. Hc u'as
attempting to categorizc thc 'i,arious tcndencies in Cubisrn (defined
uery loosely) and used thc phrase 'Orphic Cubisrn' to rle{ine a group
of painters who were moving arvay from recognizalrle subject-rnatter.
Orphism has never received scrious attention largoly trccausc
Apollinaire's delinition \vas so ambiguous and because tho differences
between the painters he namcd - Robert Delaunay, Fernand Ld'gcr,
Marcel Duchamp, Francis Picabia and, probably, Frank Kupka are at least as obvious as thcir similaritics.2 Only Picabia and Delaunay accepted the designation and Delaunay tried to restrict it to his
kind of painting. The painters' negative rcsponse led Apollinairc
eventually to admit, that his classification 'laid no claim to be
definitive as to thc artists themselves'.3 Nevertheless, Apollinaircr
did discern the beginnings of something that ma.s real: an art rvhich
would dispense v'ith recognizable subject-matter and rcly on fcrrrn
and colour to communioate meaning and emotion (just as Orphcus
has done through Lhe pure forms of music).
Perhaps a more important reason for the neglect of Orphisrn has
been an over-rigid determinisrn applied to tho history of abstract
art irr general. It has been based on the assumption of a rnore or lcss
untrroken, inevitable progression towards abstraction considero(l
almost as the climax of Western art: the Orphists who did not - lilic
Mondrian, the hero of abstraction - pursue a, consistent pat,lr
towards abstraction, or who were 'less abstract' than they apparently claimed, have been implicitly condemned by this stanclar<1.
However, none of the early abstractionists set out to 'boctlttttr
abstract': they sought to express certain states of consciousttrrss
which drew them towards abstraction, but this did not prot:ltttk,
or