American says Len Lye’s concept “without parallel in history of art”

Press, 31 March 1977, Page 21

American says Len Lye’s concept “without parallel in history of art”

An exhibition showing three of the works of the Christchurch-born artist, Len Lye, opened at the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery in New Plymouth on March 5. One of the works, “Blade,” is on loan from the artist, but the other two. “Trilogy” and “Fountain,” are intended to be on permanent display. The exhibition is the result of five years’ efforts by a small group of art enthusiasts in New Plymouth. Len Lye is now 76 years old and has spent most of his life overseas. He was as keen as his helpers in New Plymouth to have a permanent exhibition of his work in his own country. It is understood Lye was paid about $7OOO — half from the New Plymouth City Council and half from the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council — as well as all travelling and accommodation expenses, to erect the exhibition. He is believed to have rejected an offer of $125,000 from an Australian art gallery to mount a similar exhibition there. Len Lye’s kinetic sculp-

ture, of which all three exhibited works are examples, is described by him as “tangible motion sculptures, extending the infinite variety .of fundamental patterns of movement, and emphasising the beauty of motion per se.”

When kinetic sculptures were first shown in the United States in the 19605, one major art critic greeted Len Lye’s concept as being so revolutionary that it was “without parallel in the history of art.”

Writing in “Art Forum,” Philip Leider said: “The single artist who seems to transcend all the confusion — aesthetic, mechanical, rhetorical — of kinetic sculpture is Len Lye, whose work manages to compress so ferocious an energy that the viewer stands paralysed . . . The effect is beautiful, frightening, utterly beyond the petty limitations of other artists.”

Even this effusive description only very inadequately describes the feelings of a viewer standing alone before “Trilogy” in quadruple harmonics, or

the seering effect of it on the nervous system.

Yet it is not only in the artistic sense that these works are pioneering efforts. When the builders of the 20ft “twisters” in New Plymouth were faced with harmonising the structure, they sought the assistance of the Engineering Faculty at Ilam in working out the mathematical concepts on which to base the work. After a delay of several months, they were advised by Ilam that the problem was mathematically insoluble.

The biggest “twister” ever made before for the “Trilogy” had been sft long, 3in wide, and l/64in thick. Yet Len Lye advised New Plymouth that he wanted a “twister” 20ft long. He has had no scientific training, does not follow algebriac equations, and has always built his pieces by trial and error until satisfactory.

Shortage of funds had prevented him from working on a "twister” more than sft long, and he passed the problem over to a New Plymouth engineer, Mr John Matthews, who spent hundreds of hours of his own time, and an unknown amount of his own money, testing differently-sized “twisters.”

Because of the cost, Mr Matthews was unable to use the high tensile surgical Swedish stainless steel of which the two “twisters” were finally made. This is not available in New Zealand. Instead, he used ordinary stainless steel which, under the tension created by a motor no stronger than that driving a car’s windscreen wiper, used to buckle and be twisted horribly out of shape.

Finally, after countless trials, and with more hope than certainty, Mr Matthews hit on the proportions of 20ft long x 7in wide x 3/32in thick. Whether this is the best combination only the mathematicians may some day decide, but when tried on the special stainless steel it worked.

So great was the energy generated by a 1/20 h.p. motor on the 2001 b “twisters” when first affixed to the ceiling of the art gallery — itself a modified old picture theatre — that the main roof beam cracked and had to be braced.

Not the least remarkable aspect of Len Lye as an artist is his ability to visualise the awesome effect of work concocted theoretically in a field in

which he has no practica knowledge or training.

The “Blade” is an interesting and enlivening experience, while the “Fountain” soothes the viewer with its concentration on inward harmony and relaxation. But it is the “Trilogy” of two “twisters” and the “flip” which constitutes the real experience, and also the best insight into Len Lye’s work.

He says all art is what it means to the viewer — that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if you like. But he is quite happy to say what he sees in the “Trilogy.” He sees it as a conflict, one of the three polarities continually warring in the human frame — male v. female, mind v. body, inner v. outer. “Trilogy" is a work of conflict, mostly of male v. female conflict.

The two “twisters” he sees as male symbols, writhing, humming, releasing, crashing, renewing, tensing, twisting, and on occasions doing all these things at once. The little motor is controlled by programming done by Len Lye himself, and by the time both “twisters” are into quadruple harmonics they are performing all these male functions at once.

Also, the highly polished surface of the steel, the black curtains on three sides, and the glaring of eight direct arc lights from different angles, makes light run up and down the “twisters” — as Len Lye says, “like spermatazoa” to reemphasise the maleness. The “flip” between the two “twisters” is a slowmoving loop of shiny steel that continually crashes inwards as the motor drives the rod on which both ends of the 30ft length of steel are clamped. This is the female symbol.

The motors driving all three lengths of steel are so weak that once they have begun the movement, the steel drives them at least as much as it drives the steel. This lends a (deliberate) element of insecurity to the “Trilogy” as it is never possible to programme with complete accuracy once the steel has taken over.

Len Lye says the other polarities are present in the “Trilogy” as well as his concern for nature and human self-replication, but it is the male-female polarity which is most striking. And the “Trilogy’s” visual impact is far greater than its philosophic impact.