Beuys Drawings, Objects, Prints
In the minds of the general public, opinions concerning Joseph Beuys continue to veer between lack of understanding and admiration. In much the same way, those who have sought to examine and interpret the artist's life and works have failed to reach agreement. It is, one might almost say, a matter. for congratulation that no consensus exists that would enable Beuys to be calmly filed away in one of art history's pigeon- holes. Sceptics have accused him of being a charlatan. Others - woefully lacking in critical judgement - have tried to pin labels on him, describing him as shaman, romantic utopian or as a figure of scandal, all in an attempt to render him ineffectual. What was generally overlooked was the artist's ability to experience things deeply, his sculptural intelligence, a sense of humour both profound and unpretentious, and a nowadays singular readiness to listen. That he aspired to real humanity; that his thinking contained a utopian element and that his concept of art remained fully open was bound to incur suspicion. The wish to alter an inhuman reality by evolutionary means-an extraordinary way, after all, for an individual to act - was all too readily dismissed as an unrealistic goal that would never survive its first brush with so - called reality.
None the less, his influence not only as artist and teacher, but as political activist has continued to grow during recent decades. In many ways moulded by traditions rooted in the history of German ideas, Beuys found greater international recognition than any other German; artist in the years after 1950. His reputation is now worldwide. And, since his life's work was marked by a lasting consistency, he was able, more than any other artist of his generation, to inspire and move, to initiate and to unsettle. Whether one chooses to ignore this fact, to discuss it or to be outraged by it, it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Beuys was not afraid of self-exposure as an artist: he threw himself physically into his work. He himself was the central turning point in an "extended concept of art" which he expounded; a concept that challenged his audiences to take issue with it and, even more importantly, suggested ways of establishing a more humane society in the present era. The absoluteness of this demand has lost none of its claims to our attention since his death.
Beuys - and this in itself is remarkable enough - was the only artist who sought, convincingly, to establish his artistic position on the basis of profound existential experiences gained during the war and the immediate post-war period. At the same time, he did not run intellectually amok, as the Berlin Dadaists had earlier, caustically pillorying contemporary hazards and havoc; rather did he contrast his own age with his faith in the individual and in the latter's creative powers. What he demanded of society and what he expected of those in whom he placed his hopes was the result of a wholly subjective view of the world. So pronounced was his need to communicate that he made use of every means and medium he recognised as useful from an artistic and socio-pedagogical point of view.
From his earliest attempts to define his outlook through the medium of drawings and later through his wide - ranging use of sculpture ( including specific actions and installations) in the 1960s and `70s, Beuys sought to express his ideas in the most direct way he could find. So complex are these ideas, they encompass not only the world of art but also the artist's own particular social and pedagogical concerns. For the artistic results of his labours were rarely, if ever, an end in themselves: he regarded them as more or less meaningful "excretions", as "plastic vehicles" of a generic process of growing consciousness and creativity. It was not without reason that he denied his materials and demonstrations, and even his monuments; any form of permanence. He regarded sculpture as a monumental way of provoking thought, a challenge which, as an artistic experience and, above all, in the form of creative thinking and socially conscious behaviour, "flows back into life".* Every form of expression, be it visual or verbal, thus became a module in a vast information and organisation system that also responds to domains of experience which cannot be analysed in an exclusively rational way.
Beuys' close familiarity with the natural sciences enabled him not only to bring them into play but also to call them into question in his far- reaching artistic activities. As in any dialectic process, he would seek to synthesize concepts which he recognised as opposites, viz, nature and technology, art and science. But it was never his intention to achieve this aim by turning to uncontrollable irrational ideas, in other words, by disregarding scientific insights which have undoubtedly opened the way to enormous possibilities for the expansion of human consciousness. These insights should, however, be complemented by emotional energies and by unconventional materials not hitherto used by artists. Beuys realised that our contemporary understanding of reality, fashioned as it is by a scientific positivism which gazes in smug self-satisfaction at its tech- nological and civilisational achievements and dismisses the past as bygone history, is incapable of fully grasping the essentials of human existence, and so he concluded that positivism, imprisoried in its own exclusivity and hence forsaken by God, must be complemented by prelogical cross-references to mythology and religion as are to be found manifested in art. This, he felt, might be possible by quoting, say, industrial products randomly, intuitively and out of their proper functional context, or by drawing upon archetypal structures, myths and even the visions of Christian mystics. These are not readily accessible to positivistic observation because they. have the character of phenomena in which memorie's and mystical experiences are inseparably merged together. "In 1958 and 1959 all the literature on natural science which I had at my disposal was subjected to a thorough reappraisal. It was then that my under- standing of science increasingly took on a more concrete form. Through research and analysis I came to realise that the two concepts, art and science, were diametrically opposed in the development of occidental thought; this being so, an attempt had to be made to resolve this polarisation of outlook and extended concepts needed to be evolved." In pondering the question as to how science had been divorced from art, Beuys came to the conclusion that, in the development of human societies, everything had evolved from fundamental ideas on art, "in other words, everything human, everything scientific derives from art. Everything is encompassed within this primary concept of art; one realises that the scientific aspect was originally part and parcel of the artistic aspect".
By frequently changing his medium of expression, Beuys cleverly sidestepped all critical attempts to categorise his work; nor was the continuity of his artistic career, extending over almost four decades, broken by the radical transformation of the mass media. At first glance his sculptural works may seem unsightly, the materials banal and shabby, the drawings casual or incidental, the diagrams and actions often incom - prehensible, occult and tending towards the irrational. Yet the whole of Beuys'work is full of autobiographical allusions which may assist interpretation and explain a good deal of his personal iconography which, however forthright his intentions, had initially appeared inaccessible, confused and even inconsistent.
Götz Adriani
None the less, his influence not only as artist and teacher, but as political activist has continued to grow during recent decades. In many ways moulded by traditions rooted in the history of German ideas, Beuys found greater international recognition than any other German; artist in the years after 1950. His reputation is now worldwide. And, since his life's work was marked by a lasting consistency, he was able, more than any other artist of his generation, to inspire and move, to initiate and to unsettle. Whether one chooses to ignore this fact, to discuss it or to be outraged by it, it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Beuys was not afraid of self-exposure as an artist: he threw himself physically into his work. He himself was the central turning point in an "extended concept of art" which he expounded; a concept that challenged his audiences to take issue with it and, even more importantly, suggested ways of establishing a more humane society in the present era. The absoluteness of this demand has lost none of its claims to our attention since his death.
Beuys - and this in itself is remarkable enough - was the only artist who sought, convincingly, to establish his artistic position on the basis of profound existential experiences gained during the war and the immediate post-war period. At the same time, he did not run intellectually amok, as the Berlin Dadaists had earlier, caustically pillorying contemporary hazards and havoc; rather did he contrast his own age with his faith in the individual and in the latter's creative powers. What he demanded of society and what he expected of those in whom he placed his hopes was the result of a wholly subjective view of the world. So pronounced was his need to communicate that he made use of every means and medium he recognised as useful from an artistic and socio-pedagogical point of view.
From his earliest attempts to define his outlook through the medium of drawings and later through his wide - ranging use of sculpture ( including specific actions and installations) in the 1960s and `70s, Beuys sought to express his ideas in the most direct way he could find. So complex are these ideas, they encompass not only the world of art but also the artist's own particular social and pedagogical concerns. For the artistic results of his labours were rarely, if ever, an end in themselves: he regarded them as more or less meaningful "excretions", as "plastic vehicles" of a generic process of growing consciousness and creativity. It was not without reason that he denied his materials and demonstrations, and even his monuments; any form of permanence. He regarded sculpture as a monumental way of provoking thought, a challenge which, as an artistic experience and, above all, in the form of creative thinking and socially conscious behaviour, "flows back into life".* Every form of expression, be it visual or verbal, thus became a module in a vast information and organisation system that also responds to domains of experience which cannot be analysed in an exclusively rational way.
Beuys' close familiarity with the natural sciences enabled him not only to bring them into play but also to call them into question in his far- reaching artistic activities. As in any dialectic process, he would seek to synthesize concepts which he recognised as opposites, viz, nature and technology, art and science. But it was never his intention to achieve this aim by turning to uncontrollable irrational ideas, in other words, by disregarding scientific insights which have undoubtedly opened the way to enormous possibilities for the expansion of human consciousness. These insights should, however, be complemented by emotional energies and by unconventional materials not hitherto used by artists. Beuys realised that our contemporary understanding of reality, fashioned as it is by a scientific positivism which gazes in smug self-satisfaction at its tech- nological and civilisational achievements and dismisses the past as bygone history, is incapable of fully grasping the essentials of human existence, and so he concluded that positivism, imprisoried in its own exclusivity and hence forsaken by God, must be complemented by prelogical cross-references to mythology and religion as are to be found manifested in art. This, he felt, might be possible by quoting, say, industrial products randomly, intuitively and out of their proper functional context, or by drawing upon archetypal structures, myths and even the visions of Christian mystics. These are not readily accessible to positivistic observation because they. have the character of phenomena in which memorie's and mystical experiences are inseparably merged together. "In 1958 and 1959 all the literature on natural science which I had at my disposal was subjected to a thorough reappraisal. It was then that my under- standing of science increasingly took on a more concrete form. Through research and analysis I came to realise that the two concepts, art and science, were diametrically opposed in the development of occidental thought; this being so, an attempt had to be made to resolve this polarisation of outlook and extended concepts needed to be evolved." In pondering the question as to how science had been divorced from art, Beuys came to the conclusion that, in the development of human societies, everything had evolved from fundamental ideas on art, "in other words, everything human, everything scientific derives from art. Everything is encompassed within this primary concept of art; one realises that the scientific aspect was originally part and parcel of the artistic aspect".
By frequently changing his medium of expression, Beuys cleverly sidestepped all critical attempts to categorise his work; nor was the continuity of his artistic career, extending over almost four decades, broken by the radical transformation of the mass media. At first glance his sculptural works may seem unsightly, the materials banal and shabby, the drawings casual or incidental, the diagrams and actions often incom - prehensible, occult and tending towards the irrational. Yet the whole of Beuys'work is full of autobiographical allusions which may assist interpretation and explain a good deal of his personal iconography which, however forthright his intentions, had initially appeared inaccessible, confused and even inconsistent.
Götz Adriani
