« Le grand principe expérimental est donc le doute, le doute philosophique qui laisse à l’esprit sa liberté et son initiative. »Claude Bernard,Père de la « méthode expérimentale »
FR/
UN DOUTE RADICAL
d'Olivier Kaeppelin
Pour le jeune homme que j’étais, les termes Nouvelle figuration ou Figuration narrative étaient totalement inconnus. Après la fréquentation de l’art des musées, j’avais découvert, au gré de mes intérêts pour l’art, certaines œuvres qui avaient été désignées par ces termes. Il ne s’agissait plus d’aller contempler des chefs-d’œuvre dans des lieux de culture mais de découvrir dans des galeries, chez des amis, les œuvres de ces peintres que j’allais rencontrer dans leurs ateliers, avec qui je discutais à la faveur de manifestations à Paris ou en banlieue, dans des lieux modestes ou célèbres. Avec eux, je découvrais leur pensée, leurs ambitions, la complexité de leur réflexion, leur vie, leurs émotions et leurs choix esthétiques. Je rencontrais, plus âgés que moi, les écrivains ou les critiques qui les défendaient. Principalement, l’étonnant conservateur Pierre Gaudibert, le poète Alain Jouffroy que je lisais déjà, les critiques Gérald Gassiot-Talabot, Anne Tronche, Michel Troche, Jean-Luc Chalumeau… Ils avaient, chacun à leur manière, nommé des groupes, qualifié des mouvements qui existaient, plus ou moins, grâce à leurs propositions. Il n’est plus temps de faire revivre l’existence de ces créateurs, à partir de ces vues d’ensemble, déjà largement documentées et analysées, notamment, dans les travaux de Jean Clair, Anne Tronche, Catherine Millet, Jean-Louis Pradel, François Pluchart… pour ne citer que quelques noms. Quand la galerie Strouk et Marie Laborde me proposèrent d’écrire sur un choix d’artistes ayant été des personnages essentiels au sein de ces tendances artistiques, ainsi que quelques autres créateurs alentour, il s’agissait pour moi de peintres dont je connaissais l’œuvre mais, avant tout, malgré la disparition de quelques-uns, d’artistes vivants, riches de souvenirs, de discussions, d’échanges intellectuels et, pour certains, de projets communs. Ils existaient, avant tout, non comme membres d’un groupe mais comme des personnalités singulières, loin de considérations générales et de catégories critiques. Dans les années 1970, avec quelques amis écrivains, graphistes, photographes, nous avions créé une revue de littérature et d’art, EXIT, qui consacra des entretiens ou des écrits poétiques à beaucoup d’entre eux : Valerio Adami, Peter Klasen, Gérard Schlosser, Jacques Monory, Ivan Messac, Bernard Rancillac, Peter Stämpfli, Hervé Télémaque… Avec d’autres, j’ai travaillé, par la suite, à des expositions personnelles, collectives ou à des projets de commande publique : Eduardo Arroyo, Gérard Fromanger, Alain Jacquet… Je me rappelle avoir partagé de beaux moments d’échanges ou de discussion avec Antonio Seguí ou Erró. Sans l’avoir jamais rencontré, je me souviens des conversations avec Hervé Télémaque et Anne Tronche à propos de Michel Tyszblat, dont ils aimaient le travail et qu’ils commentaient avec attention. Pour beaucoup ces artistes se connaissaient, se visitaient et suivaient le développement de leurs œuvres. Chemins faisant, ils ont tous échappé aux catégories critiques qui les avaient rassemblés pour, à partir de leur univers propre, construire, comme on peut le constater, des œuvres très diverses. Une chose est sûre, ce ne sont pas des réalistes. Ils ne cherchent pas à peindre ce qu’ils ont devant les yeux mais ce qu’il y a à l’intérieur d’eux-mêmes en incluant, ce qui est leur singularité, les systèmes, les structures, ou les processus qui les produisent comme individus et produisent leur regard. La richesse de leurs sources, de leurs références, de leurs dispositifs et montages est étonnante. Ce ne sont pas des images qu’ils peignent mais, exerçant sur elles leur doute radical, les résultats de croisements mixant la linguistique, l’imagerie populaire, les légendes, l’actualité, l’écriture très présente dans leurs tableaux, l’inconscient, l’éros et… j’ai envie de dire comme Jacques Prévert, pour ne pas conclure, un « raton laveur », car l’humour, le goût prononcé de la fête et des expériences de toute sorte leur étaient familiers. Ils sont aussi, comme l’avait bien vu la critique de l’époque, les enfants de Roland Barthes et de son Mythologies, à quoi ils ajoutent, comme pour mieux se situer dans la société, partager une proximité et une altérité avec tout un chacun : l’adjectif quotidien soit Mythologies quotidiennes. La surprise est, me semble-t-il, de constater qu’en 2023, ces mythologies ont la vie longue et se passent désormais des mesures du calendrier, pour un temps indéfini.
À observer la jeune peinture d’aujourd’hui, ces peintres ne sont pas sans postérité.
EN/
RADICAL DOUBT
Olivier Kaeppelin
For the young man I was, the terms New Figuration or Narrative Figuration were totally unfamiliar. After frequenting museum art, I had discovered, as my interest in art grew, certain works that had been designated by these terms. It was no longer a question of contemplating masterpieces in places of culture, but of discovering the works of these painters in galleries or at friends' homes, whom I would meet in their studios, and with whom I would talk at events in Paris or the suburbs, in modest or famous places. With them, I discovered their thoughts, their ambitions, the complexity of their thinking, their lives, their emotions and their aesthetic choices. I met the older writers and critics who defended them. Mainly, the astonishing curator Pierre Gaudibert, the poet Alain Jouffroy whom I was already reading, the critics Gérald Gassiot-Talabot, Anne Tronche,
Michel Troche, Jean-Luc Chalumeau... Each of them, in their own way, had named groups, described movements that existed, more or less, thanks to their proposals. It is no longer time to revive the existence of these creators, based on overviews already extensively documented and analyzed, notably in the works of Jean Clair, Anne Tronche, Ca-therine Millet, Jean-Louis Pradel, François Pluchart... to name but a few. When Galerie Strouk and Marie Laborde asked me to write about a selection of artists who had been key figures in these artistic trends, as well as a few other creators from the surrounding area, I was talking about painters whose work I knew, but above all, despite the disappearance of some of them, living artists, rich in memories, discussions, intellectual exchanges and, for some, shared projects. They existed, above all, not as members of a group, but as singular personalities, far removed from general considerations and critical categories. In the 1970s, together with a few writer, graphic designer and photographer friends, we created a literature and art magazine, EXIT, which devoted interviews or poetic writings to many of them: Valerio Adami, Peter Klasen, Gé-rard Schlosser, Jacques Monory, Ivan Messac, Bernard Rancillac, Peter Stämpfli, Hervé Télé-maque... With others, I subsequently worked on solo or group exhibitions, or on public commission projects: Eduardo Arroyo, Gérard Fromanger, Alain Jacquet... I remember sharing some wonderful moments of exchange or discussion with Antonio Seguí or Erró. Without ever having met him, I remember conversations with Hervé Télémaque and Anne Tronche about Michel Tyszblat, whose work they loved and commented on attentively. Many of these artists knew each other, visited each other and followed the development of their work. Along the way, they all escaped the critical categories that had brought them together, and, starting from their own universe, created, as we can see, highly diverse works. One thing is certain: they are not realists. They don't try to paint what's in front of their eyes, but what's inside them, including their singularity, the systems, structures and processes that produce them as individuals and shape their gaze. The richness of their sources, references, devices and montages is astonishing. It's not images they paint, but the results of cross-fertilizing linguistics, popular imagery, legends, current events, the written word, which is very present in their paintings, the unconscious, eros and... I'm tempted to say, like Jacques Prévert, not to conclude, a "ra-ton laveur", for humor, a pronounced taste for parties and experiments of all kinds were familiar to them. They were also, as the critics of the time clearly saw, the children of Ro-land Barthes and his Mythologies, to which they added, as if to better situate themselves in society, sharing a closeness and an otherness with everyone: the adjective quotidien or Mytho-logies quotidiennes. The surprise, it seems to me, is that in 2023, these mythologies have a long life, and are no longer subject to calendar measures, for an indefinite time.
Looking at today's young painters, they are not without posterity.
For the young man I was, the terms New Figuration or Narrative Figuration were totally unfamiliar. After frequenting museum art, I had discovered, as my interest in art grew, certain works that had been designated by these terms. It was no longer a question of contemplating masterpieces in places of culture, but of discovering the works of these painters in galleries or at friends' homes, whom I would meet in their studios, and with whom I would talk at events in Paris or the suburbs, in modest or famous places. With them, I discovered their thoughts, their ambitions, the complexity of their thinking, their lives, their emotions and their aesthetic choices. I met the older writers and critics who defended them. Mainly, the astonishing curator Pierre Gaudibert, the poet Alain Jouffroy whom I was already reading, the critics Gérald Gassiot-Talabot, Anne Tronche,
Michel Troche, Jean-Luc Chalumeau... Each of them, in their own way, had named groups, described movements that existed, more or less, thanks to their proposals. It is no longer time to revive the existence of these creators, based on overviews already extensively documented and analyzed, notably in the works of Jean Clair, Anne Tronche, Ca-therine Millet, Jean-Louis Pradel, François Pluchart... to name but a few. When Galerie Strouk and Marie Laborde asked me to write about a selection of artists who had been key figures in these artistic trends, as well as a few other creators from the surrounding area, I was talking about painters whose work I knew, but above all, despite the disappearance of some of them, living artists, rich in memories, discussions, intellectual exchanges and, for some, shared projects. They existed, above all, not as members of a group, but as singular personalities, far removed from general considerations and critical categories. In the 1970s, together with a few writer, graphic designer and photographer friends, we created a literature and art magazine, EXIT, which devoted interviews or poetic writings to many of them: Valerio Adami, Peter Klasen, Gé-rard Schlosser, Jacques Monory, Ivan Messac, Bernard Rancillac, Peter Stämpfli, Hervé Télé-maque... With others, I subsequently worked on solo or group exhibitions, or on public commission projects: Eduardo Arroyo, Gérard Fromanger, Alain Jacquet... I remember sharing some wonderful moments of exchange or discussion with Antonio Seguí or Erró. Without ever having met him, I remember conversations with Hervé Télémaque and Anne Tronche about Michel Tyszblat, whose work they loved and commented on attentively. Many of these artists knew each other, visited each other and followed the development of their work. Along the way, they all escaped the critical categories that had brought them together, and, starting from their own universe, created, as we can see, highly diverse works. One thing is certain: they are not realists. They don't try to paint what's in front of their eyes, but what's inside them, including their singularity, the systems, structures and processes that produce them as individuals and shape their gaze. The richness of their sources, references, devices and montages is astonishing. It's not images they paint, but the results of cross-fertilizing linguistics, popular imagery, legends, current events, the written word, which is very present in their paintings, the unconscious, eros and... I'm tempted to say, like Jacques Prévert, not to conclude, a "ra-ton laveur", for humor, a pronounced taste for parties and experiments of all kinds were familiar to them. They were also, as the critics of the time clearly saw, the children of Ro-land Barthes and his Mythologies, to which they added, as if to better situate themselves in society, sharing a closeness and an otherness with everyone: the adjective quotidien or Mytho-logies quotidiennes. The surprise, it seems to me, is that in 2023, these mythologies have a long life, and are no longer subject to calendar measures, for an indefinite time.
Looking at today's young painters, they are not without posterity.
