THE PHAROS OF ALEXANDRIA
When in 1967 Jacques Derrida published Speech and Phenomenon he used the terms «Deconstruction» and «Difference» for the first time in the sense of destruction of formalism and institutionalism that typified the theories of meaning which had dominated from the time of Plato to beyond Wittgenstein. «Generating maximum insecurity through maximum security» was to be the synopsis for stimulating these movements that would also include an ironic attitude towards the apocalyptic meaning of so much eschatological discourse that invades us. There is a demanding appeal for clarity amidst such historic turmoil that affects all categories of our European philosophical and artistic traditions. The demand would bring a harmless dose of poison to the dominant academic world, which is in itself allergic to all these sorts of, let’s call them «marginal», movements. We are talking about concepts of Identity, Opposition, Totality, and the great problem of the relationship between «presence» and «representation», between original and repetition. We are trying, surely, to produce insecurity by opening it to `without’; this can only be achieved from a certain ‘within’. Thus the critical energy of Deconstruction determines an exacting disparagement of idealistic beauty, and implacably denounces both the vulgarity of the writers who «want to write well» and the painters who, absurdly, «want to paint well». (It might be useful to point out that, rather like Derrida, a certain resistance to the so called «aesthetic pleasure» can be detected here). So, the programme of Deconstruction should be sited as an attempt to pass to a «certain without» (unknown) from a «certain within» (known up to a certain point). «Within» would comprise the system, essential differences, the sense of Being – in short Metaphysics; as opposed to «without», whose profile would be «material / form», «empirical / ideal», «sensible / intelligible», «essence / accident», symbol / allegory», or rather «representation / presence»; being in any case the device that encloses «the interior» within and expels «the exterior» without.
Understood thus, Deconstruction does not invite a gratuitous confusion or chaos but implies a strategic differentiation situated between the Same and the Other, inscribed in the context of a struggle against classic security and violent efforts to restore lost convictions. An important part of the anti-classical gesture of the notion of Difference would be the new sensitivity towards originality and event, a desire for language, for a personal voice, for an untransferable rubric, «unmistakable in its epoch», as Gilles Deleuze noted and Barthes, Lacan, Levi Strauss and Foucault reinforced; all innovators in Thought and the Word in this concluding century just as the German (and some Swiss) Expressionists were in painting. All this without forgetting, I repeat, that underlying the historic and problematic-conceptual basis of Deconstruction and Difference is the dionysian philosophy of Nietzsche, an acknowledgement of the plurality of vital forces, the analytical sobriety of Freudian analysis, the methodical opening up to a structural ambivalence of the psyche (Eros and destruction, desire for life and desire for death, I and it, conscience and unconscious etc).
Almost paradoxically, a clear parallel of all that has just been said is shown in the paintings by the Swiss artist Andreas Meyer (Zurich, 1944). His broad education and training, his journeys (always based on observation and learning), his continuous contact with painting, literature, film, music and philosophy since the nineteene sixties,and the constantly pervasive restlessness of one who is «never sure of anything» have all contributed to his artstic task approaching a certain deconstructivism – albeit in clear opposition to the formal constructivism of a Mondrian or a Lissitzky. Lines and strokes are in flight towards outside as if they emerged from a central nucleus, or core, from a violently interior, to cover the whole of the canvas with a multicoloured blast.
Meyer began his training with Werner Urfer and Benito Steiner and the Zurich school of «Gestaltung» under the direction of Johannes Itten, where the teachings retained the new spirit of the Bauhaus; that essence of freedom wich undoubtedly gave him his wings. In the seventies and eighties he actively participated on the Swiss artistic scene,collaborating in collective shows and conferences. In 1987 he exhibited at the Schoneck Gallery, Thalwil, (Switzerland), together with Freidrich Kuhn, one of the European artists who has contributed most to freeing his painting. Oscar Wilde once said: «Things exist because we see them, and what we see and how we see it depends on the type of art that has influenced us.» It is fairly evident that the kind of abstract expressionism currently displayed by Andreas Meyer has also been practised by Kirkeby or Federle, but the vital journey of an artist is unstoppable (for as long as forces permit), just as the landscapes of the mind are boundless and infinite. More than ten years in Spain, and exhibitions and works distributed over half the country have also made his island-workshop in Arcos de la Cantera (Cuenca) a focal point for projecting outwards with which to close the century, except for with this show at the ‘Carmelitas’ in Cuenca and at the Kulturcentrum Adliswil in Zurich, Switzerland. Personally, and as a critic, I appreciate and consider Andreas Meyer’s development, situation and ‘centre’ to be well proportioned, given that from an artist who lives and grows in continual doubt and permanent trepidation one can always expect something «extraneous» to be residing in the painting.
JESUS ANTONIO ROJAS 2.’99 Translated from the Spanish by Chrissi Harris