Dave Großmann
Dave Großmann, born in 1989 in Jena, lives and works in Berlin. For more information, visit the artist's website.
__________
In one sentence: What is Concrete Art for me?
Concrete Art is the first jointly organized and strictly conceived effort to renounce representation.
Do I see myself as a representative of Concrete Art?
I struggled for a long time with the answer to this question. Strictly speaking – according to the original concept of Concrete Art – I am not a representative of this movement. However, individual works and series follow the ideal of the „Concrete Idea“ very closely.
Who is my favorite artist in the field of Concrete Art? Which position in Concrete Art was particularly formative or impressive for me? Which pioneers of Concrete Art do I see as role models?
At this point, I would like to mention a contemporary, living artist: Esther Stocker. I have studied her work extensively and envy her both for her radical consistency and the seemingly inexhaustible diversity of her vision, which she expresses using only black and white.
Among the pioneers, Verena Loewensberg clearly stands out for me with her work. I think she was one of the first Concrete Artists to consistently explore the theme of folding and superimposition. Her seemingly spatial constructs are timeless and have been important sources of inspiration for me.
Conceptually, however, I was most influenced by positions such as Vera Molnar or Francois Morellet. As I understand it, they introduced coincidence as a principle within Concrete Art without drifting into the irrational. With this step, they expanded the playing field by leaps and bounds and created a basis for the further development of the „concrete idea“. For me personally, alongside Duchamp, they were the first to artistically prove that coincidence also has its own underlying logic.
What was my first contact with Concrete Art?
My first literal contact with Concrete Art was at the age of around four in the Jena-Lobeda panel-system housing development where I grew up. As children we played soccer against concrete-block walls bei Karl-Heinz Adler. His forms had an enormous influence on the architectural look of the panel-system buildings in the 1980s and 1990s before everything was renovated and demolished. A good twenty-five years later, I stumbled across his impressive works during my research. I had an incredible aha moments. After such a long time, I had discovered the creator of these long-forgotten works! Shortly before his death, I was able to get in touch with him – the circle was complete for me.
Have the early days of Concrete Art had a direct influence on my own work as an artist?
The dogmatic rigour gave my thought process a shock-like impulse, but it has subsided over time.
Which principles of Concrete Art have shaped my artistic approach most?
Folding, layering or interlocking are very close to each other for me: all three principles construct a form of spatiality. For me too, spatiality within the surface without perspective continues to be an exciting field.
Color, form, or line? Which fundamental form of artistic expression from Concrete Art is most important to me?
Clearly, the form. Color has at most a supporting function in my work. The line does not play a significant role in my work.
The manifestos of the pioneers of Concrete Art are for me
- Long-since outdated x
- As valid as ever today
- Much too dogmatic
- Of no relevance at all
- Pioneering for their time x
- Still a source of inspiration
- Not radical enough
- Other assessments:
On the hundredth anniversary: Where do I see Concrete Art in another hundred years?
- The movement within fine art that sets the tone
- No longer recognizable as a clearly distinguishable art movement of its own
- Still of great importance
- In forms and media that cannot be predicted yet
- Other assessments: x
As probably the most intelligent of all art forms, paradoxically it will presumably play no role any longer in the age of artificial hyperintelligence. I am afraid that art in a hundred years will be overwhelmingly emotional and divertingly entertaining.
And? Is the term Concrete Art still necessary (at all)?
I have always been ambivalent about the concept of Concrete Art. There are several reasons for this. I find it problematic on a semantic level, because it is misleading even among informed art enthusiasts. Defining the boundary between abstract and concrete is initially a mental exercise for many. Moreover, it works even worse in English, as there is a risk of confusing it with concrete art. Especially for an art movement that claims to be universal, such linguistic stumbling blocks are out of place. Personally, I have always found the term Constructive Art much more comprehensive and easier to understand. If, for example, illusion is by definition excluded of the term "concrete", the essential principles of Concrete Art – namely folding, layering or interlocking – are, strictly speaking, no longer concrete either. This is because they also play with the illusion of depth and different levels. In addition, there are countless successful examples of Constructive Art that do indeed establish a connection to things in the real world, or allow and provoke associations with them. At this point, I always found it too dogmatic to define what exactly was concrete. It came as it had to: The playing field of Concrete Art, which was too narrowly staked out by manifestos, almost demands to be broken out of. In that sense, the term is still necessary, in my opinion, only for art-historical categorization.
Translated from German.