Eugen Gomringer, 1999

Elementary and constructive

Observations in the work of Ulrike Kessl

Artistic practice has over the past few years been particularly prolific in the fields of “constructive” and “concrete” ( concrete in the sense of geometrically ) composition – which can perhaps be seen as analogy to an architecture of rather terse forms, but which in any case gains a much greater response in terms of attention and public integration than that normally attributed to it in art publications. On the other hand, an “extrapolating” theory of “constructive art today” does not receive the attention it deserves. Constructivity was no longer a subject of discussion and writing in many disciplines apart from art; it even seemed as if no field of conceptual study could dispense with the term. The work of Ulrike Kessl should not be seen from a constructive perspective – although a new notion of constructivity could perhaps be formulated from her work. Any contemporary notion of constructivity is dominated by the perennial discussion on subjectivity versus objectivity, which is now enjoying new currency due to recent advances in perception studies. It is true that the demands and forms of Constructivism as practiced in the 1920s are aroused quite unobtrusively by her daring perspectives as well as her rather rigid ethos. Otherwise these are a thing of history. This fact should, however, only be mentioned because constructivity is always judged against the backdrop of Constructivism, which would appear quite incongruent with regard to contemporary constructive art. Indeed, even where a “vision of modernism” is founded on the “construction principle”, the vision does not take account of that yielded by constructivity within the framework of the principle, which is, however, no less strict and consistent. Constructivity is not formulated in relation to mathematical stringency or geometrical design. There is, rather, sufficient evidence of constructivity being defined in art practice as a psychological Gestalt factor, and something better classified as “elementary”. If the observer surveys the arrangements by Ulrike Kessl from memory or on the basis of illustrations, he will notice with amazement just how diverse these present themselves in terms of dimension, volume, physicality, in fact as full phenomen. They form a sequence of inventions, partly with spatial reference – as installation – partly as moveable objects. The invention, however, appears to be linked to a certain idea, that can be fundamentally and easily- “elementarily”- transformed. The question arises regarding dominance: which was the decisive factor, the invention based on a certain situation, or the searching, subjective idea for a suitable situation and objectivating possibility? The reply to this questions from the work of Ulrike Kessl can be formulated easily: both procedures are inventions, which may in certain cases be preceded by discovery of a situation, a room presentation, etc. The essence of constructive procedure is thorough its simplicity, a basic recognition of the “assignment” and ultimately the transparency of the creative act. Ulrike Kessl shares such characteristics with not a few colleagues. Her sense for the precise accuracy of a design with a really broad perceptive spectrum allows the observer to enjoy the sequence of her inventions with special attention and keeps him braced for surprises. Constructivity as realized in the work of Ulrike Kessl, without ideological operations as it were, amounts to a new invention of the design subject.

Eugen Gomringer