Synaptic

This research paper is a study of a difficult-to-love painting from 1947. This image of a man is coarsely drawn and painted, utilizes a narrow range of dull white, grays, and black, and incorporates scratches and simple shapes in a chaotic manner. It rarely catches the eye of students for very long due to the painting’s refusal to give the viewer a pleasing picture and easy interpretation. In short, it’s a very challenging work. Yet, Josie takes the approach of meeting the image at the level the artist hoped viewers would be willing to embrace. She looked closely at what at first appears to most as unfinished and poorly drawn and instead reveals through her writing the complexity of thought and vision that the painting carries and then generates in the viewer.

-Susan Swanson

---

To be an artist one must be unique and challenge what has been done before them. Whether or not that sentence contains any credibility or truth, the painter Jean Dubuffet fits almost perfectly into it. He was audacious, interesting, challenging, and fearless, yet one can think his approach to painting might also be a bit clichéd within the world of art if the first sentence holds any validity. Jean Dubuffet, affected by World War II, found himself starting from the beginning, even going as far as inventing a term entirely new to the world of art; a term that challenges “classical” art. In his work, he drew from children’s artwork and their innocent eye and creative minds when, in 1947, he painted a full body portrait of a man standing on the edge of town, Le Villageois aux Cheveux Ras (The Villager with Close-Cropped Hair), an oil on canvas, 51 ¼” x 63 ¾”.

At the end of World War II, the whole world let out a sigh of relief as those involved and affected by the war knew change was on the horizon. It was a bleak world due to the effects of decisions and events that took place throughout the six years of war across the world (Turner 332). Commenting on artists during this time, art historian Jonathan Fineberg writes, “Postwar artists felt they had to construct an authentic new foundation for art in response to the pressing social and ethical issues which had come to the fore in the thirties and early forties” (Fineberg 128).In other words, what was done during World War II by humanity against humanity was life-changing and these artists felt the deep necessity for something completely new. Fineberg goes on to say, “In Europe Jean Dubuffet [and other artists]…returned to first principles and reinvented art for themselves “from scratch” (Fineberg 128). Many artists did not want to return to the way society was before the war, because what was before had led them to, or influenced how, the world had gotten to the place it was–and that place was comparable to hell. Despite Dubuffet’s challenging personality and his disgust with everything mainstream in the culture, he jumped in and let the current take him with the conventional culture.

Starting from the beginning, Dubuffet rejected art that mainstream society considered “beautiful.” Dubuffet described himself: “I am a presentist, an ephemeralist. Away with all those stale canvases hanging in dreary museums. They were paintings: they no longer are” (qtd. in Rhodes 779). He wanted to throw out every concept, theory, and piece that was accepted as “art” in western society. He goes on, “I think this culture is very much like a dead language, without anything in common with the language spoken on the street. This culture drifts further and further from daily life…It no longer has real and living roots” (qtd. in Rousseau 17). For Dubuffet, his postwar world was dead and no longer living. He was disgusted and outraged as he found himself at the roots of what conventional art “is.” Dubuffet was radical in his thoughts and actions, and in response to his outrage, he coined a whole new term in art, one that seemed to eliminate all concepts and thoughts about what art was supposed to be and turned it to a completely blank page. He called this new art “Art Brut” or “raw art.” For Dubuffet, Art Brut described art at its beginning when the work is rough, rugged, unrefined, and plainly unfinished. This was where Dubuffet saw true art. About Art Brut, he said: “It doesn’t bother me that the works created are of little extent, show very small means, are even limited in some cases to sketchy and unsophisticated small doodles, traced on a wall with the tip of a knife, or with a pencil on a used piece of paper. Such little hasty drawings often seem to reveal to me a much broader content, and a much more precious meaning, than most large pretentious paintings… I find that things are more moving (when they remain at a humble level, halfway realized or ruined) when they arise at an early stage of their formation…” (qtd. in Rousseau 21). Dubuffet was drawn to art that seemed to reveal the underbelly of society. He was drawn to the unfinished pieces, sketches, and thoughts that were rejected. He was moved by “halfway” finished pieces or “ruined” pieces. They are the very start of what is considered a masterpiece by society: the bare, raw, sketches, and the very root of beauty. He thought his paintings should stay in their raw state because that is where they would challenge society to see the world differently, after World War II had left society with nowhere to go. Dubuffet did not contain in his vocabulary the words “finished,” “refined,” or “masterpiece.” The only time he would use these words was as an insult to society’s idea of “charming” art. He desperately wanted to rid society of its notions of what art is. He wanted to start over at the beginning, before the brush hit the canvas.

Dubuffet incorporates in many of his paintings sand, pebbles, or other materials from nature. Art historian Colin Rhodes informs readers, “Dubuffet not only draws our attention to the fact of the works’ painterly construction, but insists that we recognize in them the base nature of pigment itself by including stones and other recognizable inorganic and organic elements” (Rhodes 780). In other words, Dubuffet pulls materials from the earth, essentially from where we get everything, starting from the very beginning, in order to show society the same need to start from the very beginning. His viewers are drawn to the thick and uneven strokes and textures he uses to depict the subject; however, then they are drawn to and focus on the material he started with. The materials not only relate to his need to start over but they also relate to his subject matter. He references tar and asphalt as similar to sand and pebbles. Art historian Thomas M. Messer describes Dubuffet’s method by saying, “Tar and asphalt are materials that are considered to be of little value. In working with these materials, the artist himself becomes a road labourer. This association between the artist and the proletariat is indicative of the subversive power inherent in his art that was capable of exploding narrow-minded bourgeois notions of what is acceptable” (Messer 62). Messer argues that Dubuffet rejects notions of the upper society, of accepted culture, and instead, connects to the laborers; the ones who lay the roads with tar and asphalt. Dubuffet sees these workers as part of the start of civilization. Laborers are not famous or known; they do not have money or a say in what is beautiful or not, because they do not own anything beautiful or have the power to declare it beautiful. They are common, everyday people.

Dubuffet is drawn to the common man for his subject matter, but also for his audience. He does not want his art to communicate and speak to the upper part of society, the bourgeoisie; he focuses on the common people. Dubuffet commented on his choice of subject matter, writing, “It is the man in the street that I’m after, whom I feel closest to, with whom I want to make friends and enter into confidence and connivance, and he is the one I want to please and enchant by means of my work” (qtd. in Fineberg 131). He wanted his works to speak to the common people, the ones who work every day with sand, pebble, tar, and asphalt, who have it under their nails, in their hair, and in their shoes as they study the same materials in his pieces. Dubuffet reflects on the creation of Adam, as he was created from the dust of the earth. As if the pieces are rooted in them, in the start of civilization, in the start of the roads, in the start of production and manufacturing. Dubuffet was not only focused on the common people as his audience, but also the individuals that society rejected. Even further away from the mainstream upper crust of society, Dubuffet searched for inspirational works from children and individuals in psychiatric hospitals.

Dubuffet was fascinated with the works created by children and by individuals suffering from mental illnesses. He admits: “To find a true artist is almost as rare among the mentally ill as among normal people. It happens a bit more often, however…. It is because art is a language in which we apply…our inner voices that are not usually exercised, or that are exercised only in a muffled, stifled way…. Yet, it is the particularity of insanity to force open these floodgates and allow the entire bounding flow of its wildness to rush out” (qtd. in Rousseau 24). Dubuffet believes there is a quality among individuals with a mental illness that elevates them from mainstream minds. They are uncontaminated by the ideas, norms, and accepted concepts of culture. For Dubuffet, these individuals have this sense of innocence just as children are born with innocence to the world around them.

This different way of looking at the world or at art is what Dubuffet was focused on. Messer claims, “Good art, according to Dubuffet, has to make the viewer see things differently” (Messer 62). Dubuffet creates and paints in simplistic forms. His piece Le Villageois aux Cheveux Ras (The Villager with Close- Cropped Hair) looks as if a child created it. Proportions are unequal and harder for the viewer to piece together in their mind and understand right away. The color in The Villager with Close-Cropped Hair consists of black, grays, white, and a yellowish pigment; staying close to neutral hues in all his color choices. Dubuffet challenges the formal elements of design as an adult, however, the children from whom he draws his inspiration do not understand these elements in their own drawings.

Dubuffet’s lines are thick, uneven, broken, and confused. They look sketched and hurriedly drawn rather than made with the utmost care and precision of most masterpieces created in an era such as the Renaissance. His lines draw out the viewers’ senses with their physicality. In studying the painting, the viewer will see lines where Dubuffet could have used his fingers rather than a brush to draw them, which is similar to finger paintings that children love. There are other lines where it seems Dubuffet made mistakes, as many young artists think they do. The brokenness and unevenness of the lines add to the viewers’ confusion or perhaps interest in the piece. The lines are comparable to a maze for the viewer; they are interested in the activity of finding a way out but unable to and the ending in confusion and frustration. Many children find these same emotions within art, and the tone of Dubuffet’s piece as a whole is not a happy one.

The subject matter is a man or possibly boy. However, the viewer notices the figure to be dressed in a suit a father or grandfather would wear. The figure has an Adam’s apple, which is drawn with an uneven circle. The outline is heavy, and the viewer cannot help but be drawn to it. The form is simple and hastily drawn; a quick observation made by a mind free from shading and the complexities of making a shape become threedimensional. There is only a foreground and background, similar to how many children’s pictures turn out, since they do not understand scale and spacing yet.

When considering scale, the viewer’s eye goes from one portion of the piece to another, trying to make sense of it. The viewer knows it’s a human body but also knows it looks nothing like one realistically. They see an abnormally large head, thick neck, bell-shaped body, rectangular legs, and noodle arms. Dubuffet uses basic shapes to create his man just as a child would. The Adam’s apple, kneecaps, nostrils, and irises are simple, irregularlyshaped circles. He also uses the same shapes for the man’s bow tie and buttons that complete the man’s suit. The suit is the same color as the entire man. The viewer only finds white, black, and a touch of yellow/tan/brown throughout the entire body, with the white and black mixing in areas to create greys and to add texture. However, these greys by no means create realistic or correct shading.

The textures seem to be both purposeful and not purposeful throughout the body. The short stubble hair of the man mimics the hair a child might draw for a portrait of their bald uncle. The hair is just short lines and dots on the top and sides of the man’s head. Dubuffet draws lines on the suit to show the lapel, buttons, pockets and opening of the jacket, while on the trousers of the man, he draws lines from the crotch diagonally down and out to indicate creases, folding, or wrinkles in the man’s trousers. This feature of the painting in particular is very uncharacteristic of a child to observe and then feel the necessity to put it in the drawing. There are other textures throughout the man’s body and suit that do not seem to hold a purpose for the viewer. These textures look like accidents in some areas, but in others they look like a child’s imagination and creativity took hold of what it wanted to, leaving the piece at the mercy of the child’s hand.

In the background of the piece, one sees mainly black with white and yellow/ brown/tan etchings coming through to show mostly lines, textures, or grids almost, but also a city skyline making up the horizon and background. There is also a house in the middle ground, or the closest thing this piece gets to a middle ground. While the man occupies the foreground, front and center, we are unable to see the man’s feet, as if the artist ran out of room for them. This aspect of the piece reflects that of a child artist. Children start in on a painting or drawing without a thought of sketching or planning. All they know is they have a paintbrush in their hand and an idea in their head.

Dubuffet demonstrates his extensive studies of children’s artwork through this portrait. He mimics their tendencies, techniques, and creative processes. He exposes their creative mind: a mind that is unspoiled by the world they live in, a mind that can create art in its raw nature, a mind that is at the beginning of time as they know it. Through his neutral, dark colors, Dubuffet foreshadowed the dark and destructive nature of society and how it will contaminate a child’s innocent mind. Ossorio, an artist, collaborator, and friend of Dubuffet, described what Dubuffet was trying to express with Art Brut: “We witness here the artistic process in all its purity, raw, reinvented on all its levels by the maker, starting solely from his own impulses” (Rousseau 9-16, 23). From the very beginning of the creative process, Dubuffet rejects thoughts, ideas, and concepts, and desires pure impulse. He finds this emotion in children’s work and individuals with mental illnesses.

Just as everyone is affected by their environment, after the war Dubuffet uncovered and started from scratch with what art is, defying the art that was before. Art Brut was Dubuffet’s solution to the polluted culture the world took on; as if he found the key to the cage he was trapped in, underneath the rubble of his environment. He tried to set the rest of society free; however, they were content in their cages. Instead, he fostered a desire in society to grow into a new art; an art that returned to its roots. When he saw the need to start over after the war, children’s art was his inspiration. By starting from the beginning with the raw material—a newborn thought—Dubuffet utilized the genius behind children’s untamed, free, and uncorrupted artwork to compel society to open their eyes to a world after war, pick up the fragmented earth at their feet, and rebuild.

Works Cited

Cooke, Susan J., Jean Planque, Peter Schjeldahl, James T. Demetrion, and Jean Dubuffet. Jean Dubuffet: 1943-1963: Paintings, Sculptures Assemblages. Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993.

Dubuffet, Jean, Agnes Husslein-Arco, Salzburger Landessammlungen Rupertinum, and Museo Guggenheim Bilbao. Jean Dubuffet:Spur Eines Abenteuers = Trace of an Adventure. Prestel, 2003.

Fineberg, Jonathan David. Art Since 1940: Strategies of Being. H.N. Abrams, 1995.

Ford, Charles Henri, Catrina Neiman, and Paul Nathan. View: Parade of the Avant-Garde: An Anthology of View Magazine (1940-1947). Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1991.

Hoffman, Katherine. Explorations: The Visual Arts Since 1945. 1st ed., repr. with corrections 1993. Icon Editions/HarperCollins, 1993.

Hunter, Sam. Art Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, 1963, pp. 266-68.

Kramer, Hilton. The Age of the Avant-Garde: An Art Chronicle of 1956-1972. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1973.

Museum of Modern Art (New York, N.Y.), Jean Dubuffet, and Virginia M. Allen. Jean Dubuffet: Drawings. Museum ofModern Art, 1968.

Selz, Peter. The Work of Jean Dubuffet. Museum of Modern Art/Doubleday, 1962.

S. R. “1943-1964.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, vol. 61, no. 4, 2004, pp. 43-55.

Rhodes, Colin. “Jean Dubuffet. Paris.” The Burlington Magazine, vol. 143, no. 1185, 2001, pp. 779-81.

Rich, Sarah K. “Jean Dubuffet: The Butterfly Man.” October, vol. 119, 2007, pp. 46-74.

Rousseau, Valérie, Sarah Lombardi, Kent Minturn, Jill Shaw, Jean Dubuffet, Anne-Imelda Radice, Megan Conway, Cindy Trickel, Norman Hathaway, and Käthe Roth. Art Brut in America: The Incursion of Jean Dubuffet. American Folk Art Museum, 2015.