Vernissage Maria Zgraggen, Collegium Budapest, 12.11.05

Simone Mahrenholz

Excellency,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It's a pleasure for me to welcome you to this Vernissage of the Swiss Artist Maria Zgraggen, and I would like to make a few remarks about her biography and some reflections upon her oeuvre.

Maria was born in Schattdorf, in Kanton Uri, Switzerland. Her main studies as an Artist took place in Britain at the Bath Academy of Fine Art, Corsham, where she studied Painting and Printmaking, and at Chelsea College of Art, London (M.A. in Painting). Further working scholarships have included Rome, London and New York, and for the last 9 months she has been Fellow of the Landis & Gyr Foundation at Collegium Budapest. When she is not abroad like now, she lives together with her husband Bill Hodgkinson in a remote house in Kanton Uri in a village called Bürglen.

Now, when I approached the oeuvre of Maria Zgraggen, I came across the initial mystery that always shows up when we try to understand people that are drawn into something with some sincerity. When I asked Maria for her inner drive or motivation, part of her answer was: "I paint what I see!" (Which is, after a short contact with her oeuvre, not at all an obvious, or tautological answer.) She also said that she was interested in Form and Structure as early as at the age of three. (Of course it sounds pretty incredible that somebody remembers her interests at that age, but when you know Maria for a while you can believe it without hesitation.)

This basic interest in a kind of detached Form and Structure is encountered in her work everywhere. She furthermore spoke of two things: of a certain non-verbal or visual thinking, a kind of research while painting, and of an accompanying special state, where she is no longer confined to the narrow perspective of herself but gets, as she puts it, "rid of herself", "wo ich mich los bin ". Paradoxically she qualified this special state as a situation of being more alive - a condition that she doesn't want to miss.

Now, I would like you to join me for a moment in considering these remarks from a slightly different angle - by quoting two eminent thinkers who are very remote from each other and both very remote from painting.

Two days ago, the American historian Hayden White from the University of California was given an honorary doctorate here in Budapest at the CEU. In his reply during the ceremony, Hayden White started with the confession, that he is continually asking himself why he does what he does - and what the use for this might be. Especially if, as in his case, he is not dealing with natural sciences, where proofs and experiments are given to validate the results.

One could now put this basic problem he refers to - "what am I doing and why?" - into a more general framework by considering a remark of the logician George Spencer Brown, who in his book "Laws of form" from 1969, puts the problem this way. - (And think of Maria's "I paint what I see.")

"We cannot escape the fact that the world we know is constructed in order … to see itself. […] But in order to do so, evidently it must first cut itself up into at least one state which sees, and at least one other state which is seen. In this severed and mutilated condition, whatever it sees is only partially itself. […] In this condition it will always partially elude itself. It seems hard to find an acceptable answer to the question of how or why the world conceives a desire, to see itself and […] to suffer the process."

So, why does the world suffer this process of self-mutilation, in order to see - even if huge parts of it always elude itself?
We not only learn from this that the price of inquiry is partial blindness, we also see, that our initial, and never ending task in order to do so is to really cut ourselves out of the rest of the universe - always anew.

Now, seen in the light of George Spencer Brown we are prompted to conceive Maria Zgraggen as part of the universe that has cut itself into at least one state which sees - her - and at least one other state which is seen - us - Budapest, and above all the things she paints. And now, her answer to the original question - what drives her - gets another shape. Her answer is now to be read as: when I see the world (by) painting it, it is no longer my own particular subjectivity, I am part of the universe that is about to split itself - into at least one state that sees and at least one other state that is seen.
You might infer that this - one could say - "space-mission" of self-awareness is not only a condition of being that one doesn't want to miss for long, once one has experienced it - (a kind of joy or addiction- becoming MORE oneself in becoming less oneself - that also scientists experience in their inquiries, for sure many of those here in the Collegium), it is above all a highly non-trivial task.

Lets see now why this is non-trivial - by having a closer look at Maria's Oeuvre.

An interesting question - and maybe a key one - is to find out, how this place, Budapest, has influenced her work. And as far as I understood it was in at least a threefold way. First, it influenced her technically. The acrylic colours that she found here showed a completely different behaviour from the ones she had worked with before. So she found herself in the situation of a chemist coming to Hungary, making the same experiments as in his home country, and, to his joy and irritation, coming across entirely different chemical laws! So she did the obvious and changed the settings of her experiments, in switching technically from putting several layers of colour on paper - to now working more with monochrome painted surfaces, on board for example, and combining them into a kind of multi-dimensional plane. The result - you can see them here - was a kind of mixture between picture and object, between two and three dimensions, and a more collage-oriented style, The second influence of Hungary to her art was even more fundamental. She, who, by her own account, could not even write emails (not quite sure whether that is to be taken seriously), switched to a completely new medium: the digital camera, and learned to post-edit these photographs on the computer.
And that leads to the third, most direct influence. The subjects of these pictures are largely chosen from Budapest. So her oeuvre has been enriched here with a completely new kind or species of artwork!

Let me close my remarks by adding my hypothesis, that these photograph-based pictures are likely to build a bridge to her entire oeuvre. You might remember that Maria referred to her very early interest in form and structure. Yesterday here in the Collegium we made a little experiment. We took one of these photographs, all of them depicting perfectly familiar objects from the City of Budapest, and asked the fellows who happened to pass by whether they recognized the object in it.
No one recognized it - but all of them said when they heard what it was - oh yes, of course!!! - One fellow made the interesting remark: "well, I am not used to abstract looking!" - And this seems to me to be the key.
I think that what Maria Zgraggen's pictures - not only the photographs - intend and convey - is an awareness of the relations of forms, colours and structures to each other - in the encounter with the concrete object. It is indeed a special way of seeing! So, her inquiry aims at the same generalization within the particular individual item - as the inquiry of a scientist would do. In this respect, the interaction between sciences and arts, that is promoted here at the Collegium, seems a particularly reasonable arrangement: in fruitful and satisfying world-cutting!

Thus I would like to encourage you to engage in the special kind of worldly self-examination that Maria Zgraggen proposes - and to enjoy the champagne.

Thank you!