| Opera |
 |
English
Swedish
 |
 |

Opera began with my discovery of the felt-tip pen in 1952. With
this I could work not only with a fairly precise, even blackness, like India
ink, but also with gradations of gray which were not fuzzy like pencil drawings.
The felt-tip also produced random textures. The pleasurable "spontaneity"
of that working method began to feel monotonous after awhile. I began to
putting together some of the sheets on which I had drawn, and I could see
continuity and larger themes begin to appear. I also saw that various different
ideas joined together as an entity produced shifts: unexpected, "unnatural"
events on the paper.
At the time I was interested in Pre-Columbian Mexican book-paintings which
moved from page to page in long panels folded in concertina fashion. I was
also interested in music. As a visual artist I lacked the dimension of time
that exists in music. I particularly like the "impure" mix of
concert and theatre to be found in opera (The Ring of the Nibelungs,
for example). I realized how, as in much primitive, oriental and medieval
art, one could work with pictures which were so full and so extensive that
it was impossible to take that step backwards, screw up one's eyes and enjoy
the whole...I wanted to get people to move not just their eyes but their
whole person along and around in the picture as if they were reading a map
or playing Monopoly or football.
The game concept was my current interest at the time I was writing the manifesto
for concrete literature. There as well I expressed my impatience with the
monotony and private nature of pure automatism. One ought to be able to
make simple rules for oneself, create frames of reference within the work
of art. The simplest fundamental rule in Opera was repetition. It
felt then like a big discovery; not merely a continuous sequence of constantly
changing motifs, but a decision -- this one is important, this shall have
a role. Recurring in new contexts and recurring altered, but still
recognizable.
That is how the character-form originated -- the abstract form where
type was so pronounced that it was recognizable, but which at the same time
was put together so that its many suggested meanings kept one another in
check, thus preserving the character-form's ambiguity. I had seen Capogrossi's
special comb-like form which he repeated in painting after painting. And
Matta's robot-human-image-machines which to me were the most fascinating
works created in the visual arts at the time.
Opera gradually developed a more or less principal character, the
caterpillar-like being with the big "head" and a "bump"
in the middle. It appears more often in the latter part of the work. It
is "threatened" by the shape which resembles a halberd or an axe.
(A less ambiguous element, almost representational in its lopsidedness towards
"something which cuts.") Finally the caterpillar character bursts.
At the end, other typical elements can also be seen: the rhythmic, ornamental
repetition of "the arcade sign", for example, which beats its
rhythm against the bottom image's dactylic rhythm and the chaotic small-conglomeration's
long rows. The tension between the conglomeration's chaotic, spontaneous
interior and its exterior straight-rowed discipline which, towards the end,
steps down in two beats in a single counterpoint against the light "poles"
with the main character-form. (The actual ending was inspired by a description
of a piece by the 15th century composer De Prés.)
Why is the character-form which I mentioned important? Because it was put
into a climax or other important context. (I seem to remember that I called
it the "sublime character-form.")
Finally, one can also see character-forms which are fragmented on a large
window panel. That was the beginning of the decomposition technique which
I later implemented with hundreds and thousands of elements in the Kalas
drawings and in the painting, Dr. Livingstone.
Through the long shape of the drawing the reading movement became, for
the most part, clear in Opera. At a later point when I created more
readily accessible paintings, like Sitting... in 1962, I was seeking
to steer them by introducing panels as if in a drawn series. At one place
in Opera there is a picture with four frames wherein the caterpillar
sign passes through various voids (the reading direction is indicated by
the small four-frame field below).
Thus Opera functioned by its length and flexible technique (felt-tip
pen and India ink) as an experimental field for various working methods,
ideas and concepts which were to be developed in later works. And now that
it is being distributed in an unsigned edition, one of my favorite ideas
is realized and my solitary fetishistic isolation is no more.
Öyvind Fahlström |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
Opera, 1953-55
|
The Invisible Painting,
1960
|
Manipulera världen, 1962
[Swedish]
|
Spel, 1965 [Swedish]
|
Excerpt from "Sausages
and Tweezers - A Running
Commentary", 1966
|
On Monopoly Games, 1971
|
S.O.M.B.A., 1971-73
|
Historical Painting, 1973
|
Take Care of the World,
1975
|
 |
|
 |
Myth Science (By Mike
Kelley, 1995)
|
Architecture Versus Sound
in Concrete Poetry (By
A.S. Bessa, 1997)
|
Links and Lines: Some
Notes on the Poetry of
Öyvind Fahlström (By
Jesper Olsson, 2000)
|
 |
|
|
|

 |
|
© 2006 Sharon Avery-Fahlström (text and artwork by Öyvind Fahlström)
|
 |
Webmaster: Kning Disk
|
 |
|