Charles Biederman and the English Constructionists I: Biederman and Victor Pasmore

Author(s): Alastair Grieve

Source: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 124, No. 954, Special Issue Devoted to Twentieth-
Century Art (Sep., 1982), pp. 540-549+551
Published by: Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/880931
Accessed: 06-08-2018 22:02 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Burlington Magazine

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ALASTAIR GRIEVE

Charles Biederman and the English Constr

I: Biederman and Victor Pasmore

RECOGNITION came to Charles Biederman (b. 1906)

researched though it was realised at the time that the
much earlier from England than from his native
subject should be investigated. For instance, Biederman
America.' The major retrospective exhibition organised wrote to Hill in a letter of 21st March 1958: 'I think it
by Robyn Denny for the Arts Council of Great Britain would
in be to the advantage of all of us if the differences
1969 predated by seven years Biederman's first extensive between myself and those of you over there, were made
American retrospective at the Minneapolis Institute the of
subject of an article'. This first part of the present
Art.2 And long before the Arts Council's exhibition, article
from will show in what ways Biederman and Pasmore
as early as 1951 when Victor Pasmore and a group of differed
his about abstract art while the differences between
friends in London discovered Biederman's book Art as the Biederman and Hill, the Martins and other members of
the English group will be the subject of the second part.
Evolution of Visual Knowledge,3 successive waves of English
artists have paid careful attention to his theories and to Biederman wrote his magisterial Art as the Evolution of
what they could see of his art. As the subject of his
Visual Knowledge in isolation in rural Minnesota during
relationship with all the English artists he has had Second War and he published it himself in 1948. It is
the
contact with is far too large to be covered adequately in aa massive, superbly produced book, just under 700 pages
single article, I have concentrated here on his exchange long, in which Biederman puts forward his idiosyncratic
of ideas during the 1950s with the group of London view of the history of art from neolithic times to his own
day. He believes that significant artists have always
Constructionists which was formed in 1951.4 As well as
attempted to relate their art to the reality of the seen
Pasmore this group included artists of the stature of
Kenneth and Mary Martin, Anthony Hill, Adrian Heath world, rather than the world of fantasy, and that these
and Robert Adams. Later adherents were John Ernest, attempts culminated with the paintings of the great land-
an expatriate American living in London, who joined scapists
in of the nineteenth century, Turner, Constable,
1954 and Gillian Wise who joined in 1958. The group Courbet, Monet and Cezanne. Cezanne is a crucial
was formed in opposition to the prevailing taste figure
in for Biederman, for he produced an equivalent in
British art, in the years immediately following the his paintings for the light/colour and space/form of
Second World War, for realism and neo-romanticism. nature. After Cezanne the struggle was advanced for a
Against considerable antagonism Pasmore and his limited but significant period, between 1911 and 1917,
friends succeeded in introducing a rigorously by Mondrian, who evolved a basic language of horizon-
constructed, geometric, abstract art. tal and vertical elements which stood for the natural
Biederman's ideas were important for them and not world and was abstracted from it. For Biederman the
only Pasmore but also Hill engaged in a long correspon- next logical step in the search for a real art is the relie
dence with him while he himself initiated a short but constructed of three dimensional planes under natura
revealing exchange of letters about relief constructionslight. These reliefs, made from industrial materials by
with Mary Martin. His books were also read by Kenneth precision machines, are an 'art for a Science-Machine
Martin, Adrian Heath and John Ernest. But, though his culture'.s
theories were warmly received, it would be quite wrong Although produced just after the Second War, the
to see any member of the English group as a disciple of book is beautifully printed and contains a wealth of
Biederman. Rather there was a lively exchange of ideas,reproductions of works of art of all periods, especially
a testing of theories and, from the start, strong andfrom the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There are
frankly expressed disagreements. What ideas they shared works by the cubists, by Mondrian, Vantongerloo, Van
and what they disagreed about have never been properly Doesburg, Domela, Malevich, Pevsner, Gabo, fourteen
constructions by Gorin dating from 1928-48, and seven-
teen by Biederman of 1938-47 in materials such as plexi-
glass, painted wood and metal. And there are also reveal-
1 I am grateful to Charles Biederman, Victor Pasmore, Kenneth Martin, ing close-ups of paintings showing details of brushwork
Anthony Hill, Adrian Heath, John Ernest and Gillian Wise-Ciobotaru for and comparative scientific material such as X-rays of
allowing me access to their letters and for advice. I have also had useful
discussion with Robyn Denny. Much of my research was undertaken in 1977-8 crystals and mathematical models. Coming when it did,
with a grant-in-aid from the Leverhulme Foundation. All quotations from this wealth of visual information on the movements of De
Biederman's writings are with his permission. Stijl, suprematism, constructivism and constructionism
2 Charles Biederman, A retrospective exhibition with special emphasis on the Structurist
works of 1936-1969, Arts Council of Great Britain [1969].
must have been extremely stimulating to Pasmore and
Charles Biederman: A Retrospective, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts [1976- his circle. The English group must also have been
1977]. encouraged in their fight to establish constructed abs-
3 C. BIEDERMAN: Art as the Evolution of Visual Knowledge, Red Wing [1948].
4 The term constructionist derives from C. BIEDERMAN, op. cit [1948], pp.390- tract art by Biederman's carefully argued and scornful
400. It is used by the English artists from 1952 to distinguish their own art dismissal of the other twentieth-century schools of real-
from that of the earlier Russian constructivists. See K. MARTIN: 'An Art of ism and surrealism. Artists as diverse as Thomas Benton
Environment', Broadsheet No. 2 [June 1952] and A. HILL: 'The Constructionist
Idea and Architecture', Ark, No. 18 [November 1956], pp.22-29. After 1952
Biederman described himself as a structurist while since 1970 he has simply
referred to his art as 'new art'. 5 C. BIEDERMAN, op. cit. [1948], pp.599 and 600.

540

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARLES BIEDERMAN AND VICTOR PASMORE

and Max Ernst are reproduced alongside

Anything fantastic
which tended to freeze the process of natural
romanesque sculpture and all growth
are was
condemned to
anathema to Biederman. limbo.
In Letters on the
The chapter on surrealism - The 'All-Out'
New Art he emphasisesFlight
how importantfrom the
it was for the artist
'Great Decision' - is headed with Van
to observe changesDoesburg's
in nature carefully andstate-
over a long
ment: 'Painting in the manner of
period: Jack
'Nature the you
is not something Ripper can
pull out of a drawer
interest detectives, criminologists, and put topsychologists
work. It's something you haveand doc-
to learn to live
tors for the insane. It is and will remain outside modern IN! and work with. Look at a flower, a simple flower like
life, outside our social and artistic needs; it has no rela-
a white daisy with a yellow centre' . . . 'Look at the end-
tions with our architectural spirit and our constructive less, endless varieties of white lights. And with each new
intelligence.'6 As the decade following the book's publi-
day, and all day long, all these whites are changing.'1o
cation progressed and the tachiste and abstract expres-Living in rural Minnesota Biederman clearly sees him-
sionist movements became increasingly fashionable,
self in the tradition of the great nineteenth-century artists
Biederman's faith in a rational, constructed art, estab-
who drew their inspiration from the countryside. Like
lished on the foundations of pioneers such as Van Does-them his art derives from nature but, as he explains, from
burg and Mondrian, remained a great source of strength a deeper level: 'the process from nature to the final object
to the English constructionists. of art is this: we observe the rhythms of nature, study of
In a subsequent, much smaller and more easily digest-which results in structural information; this is the Struc-
ible book published in 1951 entitled Letters on the Newtural Process level of nature, i.e., inferential abstractions
Art,7 which was also read by the English group, Bieder-about how nature builds. Now we do not directly trans-
man reiterates the basic points of his previous book and
pose this information to our art, for this would result in
gives more explicit advice as to the relief artist's use of
mimetic activity rather than the inventive intention of
the art of the past, his attitude to nature, and to methods
our art objective. We therefore TRANSLATE the pro-
of composition. With the aid of a diagram he shows the cess information into the terms of our MATERIAL AND
key position of the relief as a point in evolution between OUR OBJECTIVE in much the same way as did the
flat and free standing forms (Fig.3). He emphasises that inventors of the airplane, their objective being the inven-
development from one to the other must be very gradualtion of a flying object but not the imitation of a bird.'"1
and that no stages must be left out. Again he stresses the As we shall'see, Pasmore did not agree with Bieder-
importance of Mondrian's abstractions from landscape
man on the need to tie art to the structural process of
and architecture in continuing the 'single road' of art laidnature and he found it difficult to understand how
out by Cezanne and by the cubists. He describes how his Biederman 'translated' the process into his own art.
own reliefs continue the 'single road': 'I take what Nevertheless, Pasmore firmly believed that the art work
appears to me to be the next step: the solid or continuouswas organic, it was part of a 'developing process', even if
plane of Mondrian becomes a series of different kinds of it was not abstracted in any way from nature's growth.
rhythms always maintained in some right-angle relation-And he would have agreed with Biederman's concluding
ship. I retain the right-angle and the continuous plane, remarks in Letters on the New Art: 'Each new work is not a
but transformed. I employ the element of the continuousfinal thing: it is part of a process of growth.'12
plane in two ways: (1) by the use of sheets or planes of As though to illustrate that his art is serial Biederman
transparent materials (glass or plastic). But the continu- reproduces four closely related reliefs of 1951 'in the
ous aspect of the plane is secondary, since its principalmodel stage' at the back of the book (Fig.5). In these
task is as a vehicle for the rhythms referred to above. (2)works large, divided, base planes bear vertical fins of
I also employ solid or opaque continuous planes of color, varying lengths in loosely asymmetric clusters on either
but these too are not permitted to retain their continuous
side of a central axis. The mounting and falling rhythms
character. For in front of these planes I place thesuggest expansion and tremulous movement, reminis-
rhythms on the transparent materials, thus transforming cent of leaves and blades of grass, in the same way as the
the solid plane in the rear into still other color rhythms.'8'plus/minus' signs in Mondrian's Pier and Ocean pictures
This description of method possibly influenced Pas-
recall the restless sea. These four reproductions are
more, Hill and Ernest in some of their reliefs but in otherimportant, for if the English Constructionists were
parts of Letters on the New Art, Biederman is at varianceinfluenced at all by Biederman's art it was by reliefs of
with the tastes and aims of the English group. For exam- this type. Here it is worth remarking that although
ple, unlike the English, he does not now approve of Gabo Biederman had started to construct reliefs as early as
and his use of mathematical models, although he had 1936, his first mature constructionist works with vertical
featured the Russian artist prominently in his previous fins arranged in expansive rhythms (such as those repro-
book. And in the same spirit Biederman criticises Seurat, duced in Letters on the New Art) date from c. 1949. He
whom all the English admired, for 'the attempt to freezecontinued with reliefs of this type until c. 1952, after
into perfection an aspect or stage of art - as distinct fromwhich date the rhythms become more complex, although
the dynamic or process-developing attitude of a man like it is difficult to chart a development as most of his work
Ctzanne.'9 seems to have been made over several years. In 1960 he
introduced oblique planes into what had previously been

6 C. BIEDERMAN, op. cit. [1948], p.495.

7 C. BIEDERMAN: Letters on the New Art, Red Wing [1951]. 10 C. BIEDERMAN, op. cit. [1951], p.56.
8 C. BIEDERMAN, op. cit. [1951], p.36. 11 C. BIEDERMAN, op. cit. [1951], p.68.
9 C. BIEDERMAN, op. cit. [1951], p.50. 12 C. BIEDERMAN, op. cit. [1951], p.90.

541

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARLES BIEDERMAN AND VICTOR PASMORE

had faint landscape

strictly orthogonal constructions. connotations
Despite reinforced
his by the pic-
discussion
tures'
of the variety of industrially titles. Examples of
produced these works are The
materials in snowstorm:
Art as
the Evolution of Visual Knowledge and
spiral motif in the
black and white many reproduc-
and Spiral motif in green, violet,
tions of Gabo's plastic constructions,
blue and gold: the coast and his
of the inland sea discussion
(Fig.2) which was
the masterpiece
of transparent planes in Letters on the at Pasmore's
Newlast exhibition
Art, of paintings,
Biederman
has, since 1950, constructedheld his
at the Redfern
reliefs Gallery, in December 1950.
entirely from
aluminium which he sprays Like with
all Pasmore'soil
work since his conversionHe
colours. to abs- had
tract
decided that his previous use ofart the pictures at
a wide the Redfern aroused
variety of indus-controversy
trial materials had been tooand they were the subject
capricious and of athat
debate athis
the Institute
art of
demanded surfaces of colour Contemporary
and light Artsinon the
9th January
path 1951. Pasmore him-
estab-
self introducedand
lished by the paintings of Monet the discussion and his introduction
Cezanne. From was his
writing and the black and published
white reproductions
under the title The Artist Speaks, inof hisand
Art News
Review on 24thaFebruary
reliefs, the English artists obtained distorted1951, withidea
a reproduction
of his of The
art. When Mary Martin, Hill and
coast of Ernest
the inland actually
sea. It provides us with hissawmost sus-
reliefs by Biederman they were tained astonished
justification of theby kind the
of abstract
inten-art he was
sity of the colours. This was producing
only in at this
1962time, when
probably just
ten before
ofhe came
his
across Biederman's
reliefs were shown at the exhibition book and it shows
Experiment in how close their
Construc-
tie at the Stedelijk Museum, ideas were, although pointers to their
Amsterdam.13 But later disagree-
already
in the letters exchanged in ments
the can previous
already be seen. The most relevantespe-
decade, passages
cially with Hill, the use ofarecolour
extracted here: 'What of
and I have undisguised
done' . . .'is not the
industrial materials had been resulthotly
of a processargued.
of abstraction in front of nature, but a
On its publication Biederman method
sent of construction
copies of emanating
Artfrom as thewithin. I have
Evolution of Visual Knowledge tried toto compose
several as music is composed,
British with formal ele-
scientists
whose work interested himments - Kathleen
which, in themselves, Lonsdale, whose
have no descriptive qualities
at all.' ... 'That
X-ray photographs of crystals were reproduced in the ancient maxim, "art imitates nature",
book, Lancelot Law Whyte must and no longer
William be construed in the superficial
George. It was sense
George, teaching at Chelsea which the schools and academies
Polytechnic, who of visual
passedpainting ithave
to Ceri Richards, who in imposed
turnupon it, but in its
passed itdeeper meaning - art imi-
to Pasmore.
According to Lawrence Alloway,tates nature in its mannerin
writing of operation.'
Art News . . . 'Painting,
in
the summer of 1956, Pasmore like music, is not an imitation
received the of nature;
book it is from
a concrete
Richards early in 1951.14 object which operates and infects the spectator like
By this date Pasmore had been. . painting
nature.' . 'Like nature, a painting
abstract is solid andpic- made up
of parts; the same
tures for three years but as yet he had made no con- eye that looks at it, looks at nature; the
structed reliefs. It was only in the spring of 1952 that he to
same mental and emotional machinery which reacts
showed his first reliefs. But,its appearance,
though reacts to
thethe natural
American'sscene. There cannot
theories were certainly a catalyst in Pasmore's art.'s1
be one law for nature and another for move
from painting to constructed It was probably
relief, itjust
hasafter to
this that
be Ceri Richards lent
stressed
Pasmore Art as the Evolution
that they came at a time when he and the group around of Visual Knowledge. The apt-
ness of Biederman's theories
him had already moved from figurative to abstract art. to his own development
To replace their reliance onmust have struckthe
nature, Pasmore forcibly and artists
English on 14th May of
this yearexpounded
turned to theories of proportion he wrote direct to in
the author
books to ask where he
such
as Mathila Ghyka's The Geometry might purchaseofa Art
copy. (They
and were available
Life, Jayfrom
Hambidge's Dynamic Symmetry in Composition, and J. W. Tiranti's Bookshop in Charlotte Street where Pasmore,
Power's Les Eliments de la Construction and before him Heath, purchased copies.)
Picturale. On 21st June
Klee's
influence can be seen in Pasmore's first small abstract Pasmore wrote again to Biederman to say that he had
pictures of 1948 while in larger collages of the following bought the book which he admired because of 'its clear
year and in a monumental relief-mural in cast plaster, historical analysis and distinction between positive and
made in the spring of 1950, the formal influence of Ben negative factors in modern art.'16 With this letter he sent
Nicholson is clear. Pasmore had admired Nicholson's copies of his own article, The Artist Speaks, and of a slim
exhibitions at the Lefevre Gallery in 1947 and 1948 and publication titled Broadsheet No. 1. This had just been
in the summer of 1950, when Pasmore spent about two published by the group, in conjunction with their first
weeks in St Ives, the two artists had direct contact. exhibition of Abstract Painting, Sculptures, Mobiles held at
In St Ives Pasmore drew from nature - the beach, the Artists' International Association from 22nd May to 11th
rocks, waves and clouds - but as he drew he translated June, and it contained reproductions of their works and
these motifs into abstract patterns, most of which had theoretical essays, the most important of which was
been present in his art before his visit - spirals, parallel
lines, jig-saw shapes. These forms were then developed
in much more abstract paintings which nevertheless still
's v. PASMORE: 'The Artist Speaks', Art News and Review Vol.III, 2 [24th Feb-
ruary 1951], p.3.
16 The correspondence until 1955 is so bulky that only selected excerpts can he
13 See R. DENNY: foreword to Charles Biederman, A retrospective exhibition, given
Arts here. As points are not discussed consecutively but taken up, dropped
Council of Great Britain [1969], p.5, n.4. and returned to later on, my quotations are not in the order they appear in the
letters.
14 L. ALLOWAY: 'Pasmore Constructs a Relief, Art News Vol.55, 4 [1956], p.55.

542

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 _;-?? .. .1 -i ~'iii-iiiliilii-i:idiiiii:i-~iii~8
:::::i--- :'--:'::i:: : _ : -~~(?:~'(~?'r~::?I?iiiii:j"~:`-iii'9'' ''i''' ii;iii;i:i?;:?~ i:"-ii:: ~:iiii:i~iaiiiiii~:-i;i:~i ::.:.:.. i i:i-ii--iiiiii--?-ii? ~~?i?:,~?~::i`~~l
iiZ i r;i:: :-:::::::::::-:-::::r: :-?? """' ?c;ru : :: ?ai ::iel I
&-i--:.i i:i i-i:i:i:.:j~i~~l~~i~~ 'i:i:ili:~'~i ijiiiij~:-:~ia-i.i:::::::: ;:::::_:::: .
;:::;;; ;?:riii?:iiiii~-l ~i.:a:~~~-::
._ -: -:i-,ii: ? ii: ~~8iiii:j---ijllil-ii~ iii:: :4::_.-:- i- --e
I:-j:;i:l1.:~:;- i-~ilii~:i:i:~.i:iii:i~!~-:i:j:-:::-i)id ..:.:.s iii-i:i-ss:ii-ii:: :?::-:?::: :
?:i:i:i::: -i---.-:
1::-- --1::;: ~1: -i-.-i-i?ii- i'':r::,:i~i:?'i'i-;~--:?i'iiii?l??l'-:: iiis-iiii: iii~iiiiii:iiiiilij i-ii:iii i~ii-:::.:i:i:i: ii:i:i-i:iiiii? --.iiii-i~iii I:--ii::i-:'ili
ii:::iliiiiiii:-;:~:~l"":.'?:??::?i:~~
::i::~iiiii s-:,--iAl.ii: _ ..: . --_--:_::-:::i iiiii-ii_:/,i-:ij:i:-i~~qi~gii-'i :?:a:.-:;:::-: - i:1;:::-:-::::-i__:_:_:: il~:i:i:i:: i:iiiii;':-':::::.~

~i--~:~~~~~ i:~iiii~ii:i-i -:lii~??"- -i-i:i'i iii-i--l?::"-":i:'-?-::?I?:::i::::j::i? :;:::::::::--::?::::

,_ ~ :8?b :i'l:???-'"?;"'"?:-l81:;?;iar:::il*s:a :; - R??i-ii:- I--I- :is~:i:iiiii'i'i iiii.iii:i:;:i-il-i:ii:_i ;iiiiiiii-i:':ii:-ii:ii--i--:'''''''? ..:-:: -'---': :-:-
'- - - ::i:i:i-ii-i-i ili::----i i:i-i:i-i-iii:i-ilic?i?i:iii~ii __i:i: ii-i: :i~i l ii :::::::::::::::: -ii:i-iiii :-:::-??::--- --.-.: i::-::ili:ri-;:;?:-:ii.?. l i-:i:-:?ii;iiii:iii:iiijiiii ?-?: I:ii:::_i -?li'i:?l-,Si ~i -iii.i:_ii iii?i::-iii i
i:- -'-':::-:?--??i-iiii:iii-ii-i-iiii -i'_~j:- _i:i:i-: _-. .i:
:is~i~ i~ii~~~iiii,, ii- i i:-_::: -1:::----I:: i~i:::Z:-:!;-?i-i ::-lj"--4ii:~ :i:i:::i~~iiii BB-~ii:2~Ii-i;:
::::::::-:~i?l::i:::-:::?::::,i:~-ll::-- ~~~~~~ ciz~-ii:~~iiiiii~~-i-i-:i~:-:-;:: _j-:,1--::--
-:_::s "- .:i::iiiiili'iRi:-,i
a =I:,; ;~ .~??:8_~?~bi~"~~~e'"~-::~''A'~~--_-----:
-:-::i; -::::-:-?:-:- -. ::::: :;:::::::::::::::
i:?'~~~:-ii~:?~ ~~i::i:i-:l'': ":: ::: ii~ iiiii:-::ii:: ~~65
::: 12:
:-::i:i:i:iir_-----::i- ?a::.:: :?:'_l:iii:'i-`----i,~~ir'?:'iii?''i'W

?:-i:::r-:::::::i: ~._I:-:-:: ~:_~~~-_:

:-::::::::_:~~:,~~i.~I

~~b'-I- i :i::?-iii r i ii:- -;: -~-- i i ..::.a. i '" ..: i:i:i_:~:l--:-:~i'-i'i-: ::::::-:i:_-:-i-i::---~-:-:-i:i::~~
i;
::aiiiii- i - :::::icli: i:i:?i;iii:i?ii: : I~i'j:
:i:iii:~:-i??i

i'-. .~1 .1'iii.i:iPi-: ~-i.:--:

:Ci~i:i;:a~?' i_? :- . iiii'i;~ iiiiiiliiii i iiiiiiii:i:i-i:i:?

"i'~?i~i~i:-iiiii:i?:i:-::-~-:;
PB-~~li:d

~ :r?;?!Ti~ I~
18::::::ll:i::::i::,::?::: --;:-iiii i i -:-':-:-::"iili:i _:-:i
::::::i: ~i:i~; ..?i:ii:'??--- i%::--ii:--i:iiii-;i

? "-iii'S: ii'i::: i:.

iiiii..
;--:::;~~r.:-~ ?::::::?:
:--, biit-;i:if-i

:- : :::::: : _-:::::i?lli::ii?
_ ::: ::::.::_:_: :-:--_:

::i~,

2. Spiral motif in green, violet, blue and gold: the Coast of the Inland Sea, by Victor Pasmore. 1950. 81 by 100 cm. (Tate
Gallery, London).

FIG. 1 FIG. 2 FIG. 3

ETC.

34
3. Diagram by Charles Biederman. (Reproduced from Biederman's Letters on the New Art [1951], p.34).

::i:i:: : ::::?:::
_:::_::iiiiiiii:::::::::-:i::-::::--:p'i:-ii:iii,:;::
:I: i .:-.-.. -- . i:i:-i: :---. il- i ....... -:--I-::~-
::_jii_ -~--iiiii:i-~~fi,:~':~
i-:: iii :-:--iii: iiiii:-ii-:ii::-ii:ii-7iii_:i:ii-iii-i ::::::::ili:::::::::::::::::;::s:,,_,-:
: i i:--is_::iii'_'i-iiiiiii
::::::::::::::::::i:iiii:i-i'iiiii:i-ii:iii_
-:::::::::::::::: ii-~':l::liiiii::iiiiiai:iiiiiijiiii'-j'
:-': "'i:'i'-i: ':':':"i:'-'-:--::i-i:i-i-ii:-iiiiiii:'
-:i-:iii-. -:l:i::i:::--ii:i:i-ii:i:-::::::::::::::
-::. iiiiii::iiiiiii:~:il:ii::i~~:l~
iij~'-l~~::?i?i::-'''' iiiii--ii-il:iiiii?ii4ia.:i~~-~-~g

::l::::::r::::: ;: :-: :i :i:::i::::::-i;:-- -:- --r::::-ii::

:::::.: -_l-:iii;:'::-

----:-:--i-:?:i:::i-1:- :: I:::::i:i-il::i -:i:i:-: iiiiiiii?liii i:iiiiiii.ii:iiii%:i?i?;iiii:nii~-i;i

:i-i:i ~i~iii:i-iiiii.:: :--::-:'::::-:::

irl-l-:i :::~: ::::: :a

-I1?:i-::,::j:?s::::::i~~q

I---l-l-:---:r-i:-i

::-:--::-i:: :i:iil : :::::'::::--:-::::iiii~li'i ~;iiiii:ii:iii-iiii

:-: : :-:iiiiii-i-iii: ?-i-i:i;:ili:`i-ii-i~
--:--:?:: ::::::i:i::::::::-:::-:_:_:;_:iiii:i:i:i

:--: ... i-i'i-i:i-i-iii

:--:-:iii-iiiiiiiiii-:si:~oriii~-::-~:-j
:::
Li~
ii:i:_:::::_:---::l: di;~~ei~
::j
-::-:::-:: :::I:i

i-i i ~iiiii-iii:r?:

rs~Bssssle~sg~sara~s~~

ii~~iiii8iii~:,:l, i ,__:i:i:iii:i?ii~ :::::::::::i :::::;: :::.-:::-_::::_ -i:--:::::::-::-:

iiiii~--iii~ii-:
~-I'''''-I ? - -:i::iiii::- i:iiiii : --:iii:i:
i i-i??ii:i:i:-::: : :':i--::l ?:-----:---i:-
:-?:i?iii-ii;i~~i iiiiiiiiiilii-i~i i-i i:i-iiiiiiiiiiLi-i
:::i:i:-:-:::: ?:-::::-
:-- ??iiii::ii i-? ::-:----iiiiiii`i :::i::i?ii-i::-:: :::::::::::::::::::::
-.-:-:
... i~i:ii--?-i i-Bin-ii~i--?:i-i,~
i---iii--s:
:::-:-::---:;:
_::::-:
iii:i B:i-:i::3'i:iiii
iii'-i:i ?i_ _gliiiig~i~i~iiii~:fiiiii~
i.i~iii.: _:-_-,:::::s
__::;?:r i:::::l11:w-:Q~
'a-~i:P~I
~ii-iii-i~~iiii,?:i--i:
:: -:-
i::: :-i-::--i::-i-i'-"::::::-il~~-iiir-i~'
- -::-: -:: ::-:--_-:-_._:::::;----_-_::L:~:?i--iiii~i iiii:i_~~i:iii:,~~~~iiiiii'~~i:
... i:iliiDi-i!:i2;1; :::-s~~iiiii-:'~l-:-iiiril:i
:::::- : ?i:-i~ii-r ---: iii-:_ii~a i-ii:::ii-i~iii?i:l :;--- .::::._.-. :.:::- i::i:iii'i~;i~iii:;iii:--?il"
:?--:i~- -i- ii-iiiisili: :i:ii'ii:iiiiii:i ?ji ::.__ ??i:_:?i?iii:-iiii-;
- ?: iiiiiliiiii?iii :iii~--?i-iii:

I~j~af~ ~lll~sa~Pr - ~I

a:i
i:--iiii-i-i 'iii&iiiiii:i:ii ~i::::::-?::-:-:-i-
i~iii:ii~~..i-ii i~l-?-~q~~ ~riiii_-ii,
ii ~-iii~i
i:iir'iiiii.i-~i~

-:i:iiiii: -_-iii:i::-~i::i:i:iiis~:-ii
i:: -::::::- :-:--~f-iiiii ii;F i:iisi-'ii~~x iii~;r~~li~

-:--?:-- -i-iiiiiiii?\ii:i
_::-_:-- :::::-j :::::::-:::.iiiiiiiii`iii'~~
..-. --i-:~ii iiiiiiiiiii?i:i::iiiii
-::--i-----::.~

::::::::::_I:;: ::::::::i-:?_::?~;
;::::::- ;

:";:::::':'-' li-yi-?:-i'~'~-:
:::::::::::: :-:-:""?":ii:iii'ii;:i`':ii'riiiiii'~ ::
- : : : : : :::: :::-:-: i::-::;l i---:-:-:-:x::?:_:::--?
-i:-iii i--i -?:-:l-:-:-:::::ii :_iijili:i:i:ii-i.i:
: .iii:ii-iiiiiii-ii?~is- ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii :-ii

4. Relief construction in black, white, brown and silver, by Victor Pasmore. 1952. Wood, plastic and alum
by 120.5 by 15.3 cm.; now dismantled. (Reproduced from Art News, II, June-August [1953], p.70

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
5. Relief in the model stage 1951, by Charles Biederman. (Reproduced from 6. IWhite relief, by Victor Pasmore. 1951. Painted wood, 102.9 by 46.4
Biederman's Letters on the New Art [1951]). cm. (Collection Mrs Victor Pasmore).

7. Projective relief in black and white, by Victor Pasmore. 8. Rectangular motif. black, white and biscuit No. 1, by Victor Pasmore. 1953.
1954-55. Painted wood, 104.2 by 45.7 cm. (Collection Mrs Perspex, 50.8 by 40.7 cm.- (Present whereabouts unknown).
Victor Pasmore).

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARLES BIEDERMAN AND VICTOR PASMORE

Abstract Art by Kenneth known from a contemporary

Martin. Pasmore reproduction.17
remarked It was t
Biederman that he felt his own ideas were 'in some much larger and more ambitious than White relief and its
respects . . . close to your views.' format and the main divisions within it were based on
Hambidge's root rectangles. As well as painted wood,
Biederman replied on 17th July. Although he agreed
sheet
that they concurred in some of their views he asked Pas-aluminium and transparent perspex were used and
more two basic questions, prompted by his article,the the
play of reflections from the polished surfaces was an
important
first of which was pregnant for the future development of part of its effect.
Pasmore's art and the second of which opened the In way
his use of industrial materials Pasmore was possibly
influenced by Biederman's chapter on 'New Mediums of
for strong differences of opinion, not only with Pasmore,
but with all the English constructionists: 'If you consider
the Artist', in Art as the Evolution of Visual Knowledge, where
that the old mimetic content of art is now replacedtheby aesthetic
a qualities of machine production and the
creative one and that the artist's work now operates in
potentiality of 'multiple art' are discussed. Though their
the manner of nature rather than assuming the appear- treatment of modern materials is very different, Pasmore
ance of nature, then two questions come to mind. certainly agreed with Biederman that the modern artist
(1) If the old content is obsolete, is this also true orhadnotto of
come to terms with the machine and use it crea-
the means which have always been employed fortively. com- In a lecture titled Painting, Sculpture and Modern
municating that content, namely the mediums ofMechanisationpaint- given at the Glasgow School of Art in 1953,
ing and sculpture? Pasmore asked: 'Can the art of a mechanised age find its
appropriate form and effective expression without utilis-
(2) If the artist no longer abstracts from the appearances
of nature and instead creates or invents his art content ing its technology?' and concluded: 'Modern machinery
which "operates like nature," then is it true or not thatisheonly a new tool; it is up to the artist to use it'. In the
must nevertheless learn to abstract from the operations same
of year he exhibited a photostat of a collage and in
nature?' May 1954 he organised an exhibition, with Kenneth
Biederman writes that he asks the first question
Martin and the architect John Weeks, inappropriately
because he considers 'that the painting medium became titled Artist v. Machine, which aimed to show how artists
obsolete following the conclusion of Mondrian's impor- could use the machine creatively. In June 1955 he
tant works' and the second 'because you seem to hesitate showed at the Redfern Gallery a large group of reliefs,
to say that you continue to abstract from nature only which he intended to produce in editions of six or twelve.
differently than the part or mimetic artist'. And Bieder-But he was unable to put his ideas into practice and had
man takes up Kenneth Martin who, in his article on difficulty, like Biederman, in selling even one relief at this
Abstract Art in Broadsheet No. 1 'even speaks of "the oppo- time.
site to abstraction".' Yet it seems to me you are both, in Though Pasmore must have made many reliefs in 1953
your views about nature and art, involved in a process ofnone survives in its original state. We have to depend
abstracting from nature.' He adds that he is shortly to largely on poor reproductions of three reliefs of this year
publish Letters on the New Art which will explain further which appeared in Architectural Design in February
'the new artist's abstractions from the structural process1954.18 They are characterised by a greater emphasis on
of nature'. So already, in the first exchange of letters, onenarrow, vertical elements than we have yet seen and in
of the main points of contention between Biederman andthis they seem to reflect the latest reliefs by Biederman
the English is raised - the problem of whether the artistreproduced in Art as the Evolution of Visual Knowledge and
produces a 'concrete art' out of himself or is involved in those
a of 1951 reproduced in Letters on the New Art. Banks
process of abstraction from nature. of thin, orthogonal slats are grouped in rectangular
Pasmore only replied to Biederman on 2nd January
blocks or in echelon formation above broad base planes
1953. The delay is unfortunate for if he had written laterof varying depths.
in 1951, or even in 1952, we might know more about the Two reliefs which were probably made immediately
development of his reliefs of this period, most of whichafter those reproduced in Architectural Design were
have since been destroyed or greatly altered. Despite thisreproduced in the book Nine Abstract Artists published in
difficulty, as theory and practice should be considered
November
together, an attempt will nevertheless be made to discussNo. 1 (Fig.8)1954. Rectangular
is dated motif.
1953, while black, white
Rectangular andblack,
motif biscuit
them before returning to his reply. One or two of the white and maroon No. 2 is dated 1954. They are the same
earliest were shown at a private group exhibition held insize, 50.8 by 40.7 cm, and closely related in composition.
Heath's studio in Fitzroy Street in March 1952 and by Thin, orthogonal planes are raised above the base planes
May of that year Pasmore was able to include eight,on pegs, as they were in one of the reliefs reproduced in
made of wood, plastic and aluminium, at a one man Architectural Design, but now the base planes are
exhibition at the Redfern Gallery. White relief (Fig.6) is transparent.
a Since 1953 orthogonals had been the rule in
rare surviving example which was shown at both exhibi- Pasmore's reliefs and the elements and materials have
tions mentioned above. Constructed from flat planes andbeen steadily refined. This is very evident in a relief of
thin laths of painted wood, its asymmetrically balanced, 1954-55 titled Projective relief in black and white (Fig.7),
orthogonal composition derives, albeit distantly, from Dewhere the disposition of simple forms creates a sense of
Stijl principles. But, unlike a De Stijl composition, this
rotation and of exactly calculated, asymmetric balance.
has been mathematically calculated, for the main vertical
axis cuts the relief on the Golden Section.
17 Art News, VoI.LI [June-August 1953], p.70.
Another relief (Fig.4) shown at the May Redfern
18 D. LEWIS: 'Reliefs of Nicholson and Pasmore', Architectural Design, XXIV, 2
exhibition only survives in a stripped down state, but[1954],
is pp.48 and 49.

545

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARLES BIEDERMAN AND VICTOR PASMORE

Four deeply projecting planestory of art into

withtwo watertight
black compartments
endsof are positive
and formation
balanced in horizontal/vertical negative is bound to on endeither
in a cul-de-sac,
side because
there is no
of a thinner vertical white plane scientific basis
which for such a distinction.'
extends far below And
the edge of the reliefs basePasmore
anddefends
cuts gothic
it art
on against
the what he believes to
Golden
be Biederman's distorted view
Section. This relief looks ahead not only to Pasmore's of it as a negative force:
own reliefs of the late fifties but also to those which the 'Whether they are products of fantasy or not, the
Dutch Constructionist Joost Baljeu started to make incathedrals of Salisbury, Rheims, Chartres, etc., are not
1956. regressive. On the contrary, beside them, the temples of
The final stage of Pasmore's development of the relief Greece are primitive structures.' In the same vein Pas-
during the time of his correspondence with Biederman more remarks that in the twentieth century: 'cubism,
can be seen in two types, repeated in many different constructivism and neo-plasticism cannot be separated
versions, which emerge together in the summer of 1954 from fauvism, symbolism and dadaism. Indeed they are
from the same working process. In one an almost square all branches of the same tree, united by one unique and
plywood baseplane carries a spaced-out rhythmic common factor - the idea of the supremacy of feeling, the
sequence of horizontal elements asymmetrically emancipation of the creative personality and the search
for the constant reality of the spirit. Picasso, Gris,
balanced on either side of a central axis (Fig.9). In the
other, which follows directly from the reliefs of 1953, Matisse, Arp, Klee, Malevich, Mondrian all expressly
vertical elements are bunched together into a emphasise this in their writings. It is this idea which
homogeneous, ribbed block, again with a central axis, makes the modern movement so fundamentally different
which is isolated in the middle of a large, often from that of the Italian renaissance.' Unlike Biederman,
transparent, base plane (Fig.12). Pasmore was Pasmore sees abstract art as new, revolutionary, without
convincing historical antecedents: 'Abstract art cannot
photographed at work on reliefs of these two types in the
summer of 1954 (Fig.10) for an article on his working be regarded as a direct evolution of naturalist painting.
methods by Lawrence Alloway.19 Pasmore evidently On the contrary it is revolutionary. It is revolutionary for
began by selecting a format based on one of Jay one unique reason, namely its subjective and introvert
Hambidge's root rectangles. He then evolved the basis.'
Pasmore was critical of Biederman's insistence on the
composition of one of the first type of reliefs by a process
of trial and error, moving pre-cut laths and rectangles ofimportance of the artist abstracting from the structural
plywood from a predominantly vertical grouping to process a of nature. Pasmore thought this was too limiting
horizontal one. He worked with the elements spaced onand did not allow for the inventive capacity of the mind:
'Taken literally your conclusions mean a return to the
and beneath a sheet of glass over a plywood panel. The
photographs taken of the different stages show that the pure copy theory inherent in classical art in which,
roughly speaking, the mind was conceived as a static
second type of relief, with the elements bunched together
mirror reflecting the effects of the external world but with
vertically, actually derives from the early stages of the
first. Both types of relief, but especially the second with the difference that one is a copy of results and appear-
the vertical elements, can again be related to ances and the other of methods and processes. This
Biederman's work of c.1949-c.1952 (Fig.1 1). Biedermanwould be fully acceptable were it not for the fact that the
copy theory has been considerably modified by modern
had sent photographs of two of his 1949 reliefs for display
in the Artist v. Machine exhibition, at Kenneth Martin's knowledge - I refer to the fact that the mind is capable of
request, and Pasmore would have seen these as well asprojection as well as reflection. This means that the artist
is a creative as well as an imitative being. He is not
the model reliefs reproduced in Letters on the New Art. But
there are strong formal differences. The spatial elementscompelled to copy nature because he himself is a process
in Biederman's reliefs tend to spread out and expandof nature containing the very same elements which he
sets out to copy. In other words he can produce the
across the surface while Pasmore's seem to stay fixed,
likeness of nature out of himself. His mind is conditioned
stuck firmly to the flat base plane in the first type of relief
and within the tight rectangular confines of the block inas much by its own structural process as by the processes
the second. imposed on it from the outside; hence its power of projec-
The sheaf of comments which Pasmore sent in reply to tion.'

Biederman on 2nd January 1953 had clearly been Neither is Pasmore convinced by Biederman's use of
assembled after much thought. They show that while he the term 'structural processes': 'There seems to be some
had found Biederman's theories extremely stimulating confusion between your definition of structural processes
he had strong reservations about his conception of art and what are, in fact, simply structural effects. Processes
are
history, especially about the historical roots of abstract essentially dynamic and imply causes, growth,
art, and also about the fundamental issue of abstracting movement, etc., whereas your study of whites in flowers,
from nature. After a succinct summary of Biederman'schanges of colour-form in light, etc., are static factors
version of the history of art Pasmore writes: 'What theseand belong to the realm of effects.'
propositions amount to is an intensely subjective ... 'structural processes cannot be the content; they
are
interpretation of history which is in danger of over- only the means of constructing the form. Conse-
simplification.'... 'The history of art cannot bequently both Arp and Calder as well as yourself or
Mondrian and Pevsner could construct from structural
regarded as one progressive evolutionary organism with
one particular aim.' . . . 'any attempt to separate the his- processes. Indeed Arp has already written: "I wish to
produce as a plant produces fruit". On the face of it your
19 L. ALLOWAY: Art News, Vol.55, 4 [1956], pp.32-35, 55.
argument suggests that Arp and Calder would serve as a

546

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARLES BIEDERMAN AND VICTOR PASMORE

more logical point of departure than

abstract artistMondrian.'
should learn to move from handycraft to
... 'nature's structural processes are
machine-craft relative
in his to the
method of production.'
particular functions of the objects
Biedermaninwasquestion. To
quicker to reply abs-
than Pasmore and on
tract from processes, therefore, is logical
6th February only
1953 sent him if one
thirty-two typed pages of
wishes to emulate the particularcounter-arguments.
functions which go with
While admitting that his approach
them.' to the history of art had been selective Biederman said
... 'The aircraft designer knows that he hadverysingledwell what
out 'those he or groups
individuals
wants from nature. There is which nothingI believedsubjective
made the most usefulin contribution
his to
aims.' ... 'But the artist; what does he want from the total stream of art, those who "added a link", as
nature? its reality? impossible. Its beauty? you carefully Cezanne would say.' Biederman reaffirms his belief in
avoid mentioning the word! Nevertheless unless the advancement through scientific knowledge and con-
artist can answer this question clearly, all talk of con-tinues to disagree with Pasmore on the merits of the
sciously abstracting from nature's structural processes, Christian art of the Middle Ages which he thinks repres-
like the aircraft designer, will be meaningless.' ents 'the culture that crushes the uniqueness which lies
'Your desire to establish, for non-representational art, in each individual!' He again emphasises the need for
a scientific basis in nature on a level of processes cer- abstract art to evolve gradually and for this reason looks
tainly re-opens the possibility of an objective contactonly to Mondrian as a forerunner, 'because he stated the
with nature lost in the increasing introvert orientation of
beginning of the evolution of invention at the beginning',
art. However, one is tempted to ask if such a contact, as and not to Arp, Klee, Calder and the other moderns
you describe, is actually possible, even if it were desir-admired by Pasmore. Biederman admits that to 'criticize
able. In the case of music, for instance; from what pro- the present so drastically as I do is a difficult psycho-
cesses in external nature have the composers abstracted logical hurdle to leap, and I have taken it.' He claims that
their compositions?' Pasmore has exaggerated his dismissal of the place of
Pasmore makes the point that Biederman's attempts subjectivity in artistic creation: 'I have contended that all
to abstract from nature's structural processes rather thanart is a product of some kind of interaction between
nature's appearance lay him open to the 'danger of los- subjective-objective, because unavoidable.' Biederman insists
ing contact with the one process which forms the whole that to counter excessive subjectivity, nature must remain
raison d'etre of our art, - the process of sight. It seems, the basis for all artistic endeavour. To accept subjective
therefore, that unless it can be synchronised with thefreedom in the manner of an artist such as Picasso: 'seems
science of perceptual processes, knowledge of nature's a poor compensation for emasculating oneself from the
other structural processes will be of no avail to the artist.'
wonderful world of GROWTH which nature spreads
'The difficulty about structural processes in nature is before our eyes, there to continue to teach us, as it has all
that they are related to particular functions and past artists.' And Biederman tries to make clear what he
requirements which have no connection with themeans by abstracting from the structural process of
requirements of the artist.' nature: 'the artist does not abstract from particular objects, but
... 'You wish to invoke the scientific methods of thefrom all his experience with the general behaviour (or function) of
Italian artists of the renaissance, but your methods are process as revealed in nature'... 'We seek correspondence to
not so water-tight as theirs. For instance Naturalist the conditions of reality or nature (three-dimensional) in
painting was founded on a precise science which covered order that the structure of our art will be open to the
the observer as well as the observed, perspective apper- possibilities evidenced in the functions of nature.' ... 'I
taining to the eye and anatomy to the object perceived. submit to the requirements of nature as much as I am
That is to say a mechanistic mode of perception was able, because the process of nature demonstrates rami-
cultivated which corresponded to the mechanistic struc- fications of structuring incomparably beyond anything
ture of the objects in view. Your anatomy of processes, that could be secured or conjured by deliberately ignoring
however, does not account for the subject. You have nature (to the extent possible), by relying on man himself
formed an anatomy, but no perspective; that is to say you as independent of external nature as possible.' . . . 'There
have not identified processes within the artist which cor-is no more telling example of how dependent man as an
respond to the processes of nature outside him.' artist is upon nature than the recent history of art from the
Pasmore was, however, prepared to accept two of Impressionists to the De Stijlists.' For Biederman it was
Biederman's propositions, the need for the painter toimpossible to imagine an art which did not have some
move away from the flat canvas and to embrace indus- mimetic relationship with nature: 'show me how the
trial production: 'If abstract painting is regarded as con- artist, any kind, anywhere, any time, has divorced or can
crete, then obviously it must be three-dimensional.'... divorce himself from all mimetic relations with nature. If
'by investing the reality of his work solely in its ownyou cannot do this, you will have to admit the presence of
material form, the painter undoubtedly enters the realmmimetic activity of some kind in some degree in all works of
of actual three dimensions.' This is a rather guarded art, past or present.' He remarks that he cannot accept the
acceptance of the need for three dimensionality. Pasmoreuse of devices such as the Golden Section as they prevent
does not follow Biederman in stressing that the nextthe artist from developing a controlled process of abstrac-
stage is the constructed relief, and in fact he made experi-tion from nature. And he asks: 'Would you clear up what
ments with free standing constructions of wooden rods "concreteness" is supposed to symbolise? It is difficult for
and also with mobiles at this time, and he also uses the me to comprehend' . . 'I hold to the view that the process
term 'concrete' which Biederman disliked. Pasmore does
of abstracting is always functioning so long as we deal
agree, though, with Biederman's 'insistence that the
with a living organism.'

547

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARLES BIEDERMAN AND VICTOR PASMORE

Pasmore again took some timeorganically,

to to produce
answer forms and colours out of himself
Biederman's
letter and his reply is datedwhich evolvedSeptember
2nd and interacted upon each other and
1953. Hewere
not abstractions. He makes this
makes the point that the disagreements clear in a final passage
expressed in in his
his letter to as
previous notes 'were not intended Biederman of 2nd September:
a consistent 'Taking
exposi-
organic
tion of my own ideas' but were forms to to
made meantest
those which
'the are validity
determined by
forces operating
of your theories and of assessing their from within themselves, and
implication ininorganic
rela-
tion to other aspects of theas those
modern movement.'
which are shaped from without, I think . that
. .the'In
actual fact I was originally drawn
abstract to your
movement represents a renewedbook
emphasisnoton
the organic
because I differed in opinion, but approach
because to painting
I found and sculpture.'...
in it
confirmation of some of my 'colour
own canideas.
be constructed "out of oneself".
Indeed, Do not
in certain
certain small
instances, you had extended them to children
a logicalproduce wonderful associations o
conclusion.
For instance, my emphasis colour
on withthe no concrete
conscious knowledge
and of nature's
plastic
principles
nature of pure painting, you have at all?' extended to actual
Either with this letterof
three dimensions and, to my description or shortly
pure afterwards Pasmore
painting
sent Biederman
as operating like nature, instead photographs of his nature,
of imitating recent reliefs. Before
you
have added a method, i.e., thethis all Biederman would
conscious have seen of Pasmore's
abstraction from art
nature's structural processes.would haveThese are essentially
been works reproduced in Broadsheet No. 1, a
developments of my views and collage
not of 1949, the painting The coast of the
contradictions, soinland
that sea and
the spiral
I felt bound to investigate their mural in tiles
validity for the Festival
as fully as poss- of Britain.
ible from every angle.' Biederman discussed the photographs in a letter to
Pasmore
Once again Pasmore criticises of 29th September for
Biederman 1953: 'I recognise
not mak- at once the
sincerity of your factors
ing enough allowance for 'subjective work. My particular
likepreference
intui- is for
tion, emotion, personality,' those
which reliefs without
havediagonal
a part forms,to which I see areas
play also
the later
well as 'the rational, scientific and works. If I understand you, we
constructive are agreed
side' . .. that
'It is in this sense that the expressionist and dadaist
in the matter of form there is a gradual evolution from
movements were a positive low relief to the full round Here
contribution.' at some future.
Pasmore Now do you
again raises the question ofalso agree that
Arp's this implies the need not
contribution to only for the
abs-
tract art which he compares evolution
with of form dimensionally, but
Mondrian's andalso in kind, i.e.,
con-
that there
cludes: 'If, as you say, Mondrian is an evolution
gave from particularthen
us invention, forms?'...
it would seem that Arp has 'The 51's are composed
given us nature'sof the diagonal,
proces- right angle,
ses.' ... 'it was Arp and not circle. The next works
Mondrian removefirst
who the diagonal, the increase
exten-
of structural unity is great.
sionalised his abstract paintings first into collage, then Remove the circle, as in the
one called "Transparent
into relief and finally into total three dimensions.' Pas-Projection" and again a great
more questions Mondrian's
increase belief, adhered
in unity. Remove to by
the device of transparency and
Biederman, that art which the increase will continue.
attempts to be I repeat, the artist of today is
a man-made
not free
equivalent for nature has to be madeto begin where hestraight
with likes.' Unfortunately
lines:we do not
know exactly to
'The idea that the curve belongs which reliefs were
nature shown
and in the
the
photographs but no
straight line to man, seems to me extremely unsci- doubt they included the reliefs
discussed
entific.' . . . 'In any case, why aboveso-called
are in which we sawinorganic
an increasing
characteristics in nature, likerestriction to orthogonallyline,
the straight placed elements.
legitimate
Elsewhere in this
for the pure painter/sculptor and not organic ones?'letter Biederman replies at length to
If
Pasmore's
the artist is 'to make his work arguments. Helike
"operate" continues to dismiss he
nature' Arp
must either work intuitivelybecauselike
of his irrationality
Arp 'or andconsciously
his "vegetable matter"
consciousness.'
through some sort of scientific knowledge While admitting that all twentieth-
of nature.'
In this context Pasmore's enthusiasm for he
century 'isms' are interrelated Klee asoverwhelm-
finds some well
as Arp must be mentioned. ingly more
When important than others -part
taking Mondrian in
dwarfs
a
symposium on Klee's Pedagogical Sketchbook held at of
Matisse, for example. It was Mondrian alone the
the
I.C.A. on 24th November 1953, twentieth-century
he describesmasters who, with his Pier and
Klee's Ocean
ideas
about art's relationship to nature series, initiated
in theauseway
of the horizontal
which and vertical
makes 'as a
them provokingly, almost fundamental representation of structure
mischievously, in general
close to in
Biederman's: 'Klee aims to provide nature.' Biederman the stresses that it takeswith
student time for thea
concrete and objective basisartist from to orientate
which himself correctly towards nature
to develop. He and
seeks this basis in Nature: but it is not in Nature's reiterates the need 'to create our own object results
finished results, as is traditional art, but in its according to knowledge derived from the creative structural
processes.'20 So both Arp's idea of a 'concrete art', process of nature.' . . . 'the new view of structure is one of
non-mimetic and produced like a fruit out of nature, and a dynamic continuum, a process, process being a case of
Klee's teaching that the art work engendered its own ceaseless unfolding - GROWTH.'
organic movement, within itself, were important for After this letter there is another gap before a final
Pasmore. His basic difference with Biederman was in his burst of correspondence sparked off by the appearance of
belief that abstract art allowed the artist to work the book Nine Abstract Artists in the winter of 1954.
Though very small, this book is extremely important.
20 R. BANHAM: 'Klee's Pedagogical Sketchbook', Encounter, Special Book No.
Apart from Broadsheet No. 1 it is the first publication
[April 1954], vii, p.57. devoted to the English constructionists. It contains

548

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
9. 11.

10.

9. Abstract in white, black and maroon, by Victor Pasmore. 1954. Painted wood, 61 by
73.7 cm. (Collection Richard S. Zeisler, New York).

10. Victor Pasmore at work on a constructed relief, summer 1954. (Reproduced in

Art News, LV, No. 4 [1956], p.34).

11. Relief No. 23. Red Wing, by Charles Biederman. 1949. Wood and aluminium
planes, 95.2 by 65.4 by 22.9 cm. (Collection John P. and Eugenie Anderson).

12. Structurist relief, Red Wing No. 20, by Charles Biederman. 1954-65. Painted
aluminium, 104.5 by 91 by 15 cm. (Tate Gallery, London).

13. Transparent relief Construction, By Victor Pasmore. 1954-55. Painted wood and
glass, 50.8 by 55.9 by 9.5 cm. (Collection Adrian Flowers).
R12. 13.

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARLES BIEDERMAN AND VICTOR PASMORE

essays and reproductions of 1955 works

he wrote: 'Your by work, and some of MaryKennet
Pasmore, Martin's,
and Mary Martin, Hill, Heath, was all that interested me in
Adams, the book'. No doubtwith
together promp- th
more painterly abstract artists ted by the who varietywere of Pasmore's
at timeswork reproduced,
associ-
ated with them, Terry Frost, BiedermanRogerwent on in thisHilton
letter to ask whether
and Pasmore
William
Scott. In the introduction used form and colourAlloway
Lawrence in a free, subjective wrote: manner or'In
1951 Pasmore was decisively according to influenced
a pattern which had evolved by step Charles
by step:
Biederman, a constructivist aesthetician
'My impression, - if I am mistaken in youAmerica.
will correct me, -Hi
massive book Art as the Evolution is that you have of notVisual
come to a decisive
Knowledge distinction be- is
comprehensive interpretation tween the of "free"world-art
use of form, color, etc. as in contrast
a proces to its
culminating, inevitably, in developmental constructivism pursuit.' Although he sympathised
- or, rather, with in
Biederman's version. Though Pasmore's attempts to use later
Pasmore natural light, he considered
disagreed
with Biederman on many points, the use of transparent
this book, materials too advanced and there-
coming when
it did, confirmed Pasmore's fore an drifts
illogical steptowards
to take: '. .. your constructiv
use of transparent
ism.'21 Alloway also mentions materialsPasmore's
(not to mention mobiles), current however, implies
wish a t
demonstrate 'a connection stage betweenof development his whichlateI do not see as having been
impressionis
tic river scenes and his plastic attained by you, or me, or
reliefs. Theanyoneconstruction
else.'
are built to catch the light In in his reply
ways of 14ththatApril 1955are Pasmore
inherenttells Bieder- i
the refractive, translucent,man and that transparent
though he himself has doubts materialsabout the usehe of
uses. Thus the effects of light transparentthat base planes he has experimented
Pasmore painted with them o
the Thames are now expressed because hein feels:concrete
'the solid rectangular relief too close to
form.'22
As we shall see, Biederman primitivewas sculpture.'
to show He agrees considerable
that the reliefs with
sympathy with this idea oftransparent a natural bases illustrated
subject in Nine being
Abstract Artists are
trans-
lated from one medium to another unsatisfactory and and writesgaining
that in more recent
realityversions he in
the process. But he must has have
attempted 'to been
correct this disappointed
by further simplification'. by
Pasmore's own essay in the With book which
regard to Biederman's follows
interest in establishing veran
closely the ideas already expressed evolutionary process in his of working,
article Pasmore The writes that
Artis
Speaks published in February though1951 he sharesand the 'desire to adopt an evolutionary
betrays little ev
dence of the arguments and processcounter-arguments
of development beginning, as it were, at the
con-
ducted in their correspondence beginning' he since is not sure then.
where the beginning
Onceis!again He is
Pasmore states his belief that abstract art is revolution- not convinced that the relief is necessarily a stage in the
ary and has meant a complete break with earlier rep- evolution from painting to fully three dimensional work
resentational movements. It has advanced beyond any but sees it rather as 'an art form with its own structural
process of abstraction: . . . 'pure form refers to no other laws and its own raison d'etre.' In the same way he finds
object. It is a reality, logical and sufficient in itself limitation
- a to the straight line questionable, possibly
function of the intellect rather than a description of it: appropriate
as for the development of relief constructions
such, its relations with space are real and organic.'23 but not for fully three dimensional sculpture for which
Although he states the necessity of moving into three the curved line is, he feels, more suitable.
dimensions he says nothing about the relief being the Biederman's reply of 12th May 1955 marks the end of
logical step forward from painting: 'If the artist wishes totheir exchange of ideas and simply reaffirms the beliefs
seek development, he must do so in actual dimensions. he had expounded throughout the correspondence. Pas-
In pure form, it is sculpture which really becomes su- more did not reply. There was no need, for by now both
preme.'24 artists had clarified their positions and the correspon-
Pasmore's essay is accompanied by reproductions dence of had served its purpose. Eleven years later, in 1966,
seven works which show the diversity of his abstract art Pasmore
- wrote a short introduction to excerpts from
two oval paintings of 1951 and 1952, a relief of 1952 Biederman's writings published in the Cambridge
containing circular and oblique forms, a mobile of balsa magazine Form.25 At the same time he encouraged the
wood rectangles and the orthogonal reliefs of 1953 and Tate Gallery, of which he was a trustee, to purchase one
1954 already discussed. of Biederman's reliefs. This relief, Structurist work No. 20,
Biederman must have received a copy of the book soon (Fig.13) together with one other, had been shown at the
after its publication. On 14th February 1955 he wrote to Marlborough Gallery in London earlier in 1966 in the
Hill: 'I was particularly interested in the reference exhibition
to Reliefs, Sculpture and this was the first occasion
Pasmore's observation of the multi-valued effect of light on which Biederman's reliefs had been seen in this coun-
in the new art.' And in a letter to Pasmore of 29th March try. On 28th October 1966 Biederman wrote to Pasmore
to thank him for his recent help. Pasmore replied
promptly on 12th November with a brief letter in which
he wrote that he was 'still indebted to the intellectual
stimulus which your book gave to me just after the war at
a crucial point of my development'.
21 L. ALLOWAY: Nine Abstract Artists, their work and theory, London [1954], pp.8
and 9.
22 L. ALLOWAY, op. cit. [1954], p.9. See Victor Pasmore, Paintings and Constructions,
1944-1954, I.C.A., London, [1954].
23 L. ALLOWAY, op. cit. [1954], p.36.
24 L. ALLOWAY, op. cit. [1954], p.36. 25 Form, 3 [15th December 1966], p.4.

551

This content downloaded from 31.205.232.219 on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 22:02:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms