Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology - uncopy

70
art because of its uniqueness. The first stage is to systematically repeat one single thing, the
most simplistic way of not “evolving.” Clearly it is not a case of copying oneself, of repeating
the same thing a priori for ten months, ten years, or thirty years, this being at the very most an
accumulation through time taking us back to a familiar concept in art. Systematic repetition
put forth as a priori is unjustified and is of no interest in the sense that it is only an action, a
gamble on the future. If this action were interesting, it would allow any type of illustration.
What difference would there be then between an individual indefinitely repeating the painting
of a small rabbit on a canvas and one who would repeat a priori his own notion of the neutral
shape? There would be no difference at all. In both cases a fantasy would be projected, a personal
view would take precedence over what is shown. However, it is understood that the thing
to be viewed must signify itself without the help of the creator, regardless of the relevance or the
beauty of this individual’s personal view. This attitude immediately leads back to a hieratic art.
Repetition is worthwhile only if it does not take on meaning in itself, so that it in turn doesn’t
become mythical. The second stage, and the most important, is to question the repetitive
concept in its primary stage in order to have it pass from the mythical to the historical.
G. B.: What meaning then do you attach to the word repetition?
D. B.: Repetition should essentially be understood as meaning: Non Perfectible. An evolution,
neither progressive nor perfectible, can be envisaged by passing from one neutral shape
to another equally neutral. For example, there is no qualitative difference whatsoever between
a black circle in the middle of a white square, flat brush imprints in a quincunx arrangement
on white plastic, or a striped painting with borders covered with paint, and this is why Mosset,
Toroni and I did not hesitate, each one doing these three different designs, to depersonalize
what were from the outset, although neutral, our own personal designs. There is no evolution
at all from one design to another: there is repetition since, for the observer, the thing has not
changed: but there is no longer a personal claim to this thing because it is anyone’s, really and
truly impersonal. This is the only way that repetition does not become the expression of one
specific person who, endlessly repeating even a neutral thing, will necessarily make it valid
because it is repeated and therefore filled with intention. At the same time it loses its quality
of being a common object and will become Mr. So-and-so’s neutral painting. The fact of repeating
must entail a total depersonalization of the thing displayed, and not become a ritual
that would only have the function of re-sacralizing art. What counts is the object displayed,
whether it is two- or three-dimensional, of fabric or plastic, wood or iron, cut out or pasted,
electric or not, kinetic or motionless. From the moment it is neutral, anonymous, and refers
to nothing but itself, an object has value for and through itself, whether it is 1.034 or 1.