'Draw Me a Sheep'
Sara Breitberg-SemelSomething predictable has happened to painting. During the last fifteen years it has been regarded as the unnecessary, heavy-handed, impure art form-the flesh that covers the skeleton. The interest lay in the skeleton, not in the flesh.
It was Conceptual Art that left painting out, its motto being `art as idea', denoting on the one hand rejection of manual work, and on the other focusing on presentation of an idea through necessary, barely sufficient, i.e., minimal, means.
Drawing, which was a popular medium during the Conceptual Art period, was presented as a direct and minimal technique for the concretization of an idea. Art products were described in an apologetic tone as documenting an idea whose physical existence was merely temporary (the `Running Fence' drawings of Christo, Kadishman's painted tree prints, and photographs of earth works). In that atmosphere, painting was rejected as a medium in which the quality of an artwork is determined by the actual execution rather than by the idea behind it. Colour was rejected as an unnecessary ornamentation which overshadowed the idea, as opposed to the black-and-white drawing which illuminated thought.
The works of art characteristic of the period whose end-or at least the end of its militant phase-we are witnessing, were temporary projects, performances, black-and-white drawings, meager painting, conceptual minimal sculpture, video art, etc.
Fifteen lean years have generated thirst. And today, he who is thirsty seeks the source of water. This is the predictable development which has taken place in painting. The younger generation, which was brought up on Conceptual Art, and which until recently has not been aware of its predecessors, is today discovering painting in an almost passionate manner.
An abundance of paint, in contrast with black-and-white, much expression, as opposed to the conceptual idea, much romanticism, as opposed to conceptual rationalism. In historical terms, we are concerned with a thesis and an anti-thesis, and not yet, in my estimation, with the phase of synthesis. `
What are the expectations from the new painting? What is its main concern? Certainly not the painterly quality in its
conventional sense, if only because we are dealing with a generation which was not educated in the culture of painting and
which is unfamiliar with its subtleties. This generation lacks the tools to produce a classically constructed and refined
painting, and to a great extent it also lacks the patience to do so. The painting of the younger generation is close in spirit
to the American Action Painting. It is a kind of demonstration of life and emotion, and a substantial part of its strength
emanates from its rejection of the Conceptual past. Its aesthetic concepts, still not consolidated, include such words as
freshness, vivacity, vigour, dynamics, personality. And here Kadishman enters the scene.
Menashe Kadishman, an artist in his prime, a reputed sculptor of the St. Martin's School in the sixties and an artist of
interesting projects in the seventies, took up painting two years ago. A special case.
Question; Kadishman, why did you suddenly start painting?
Answer; It all began with prints. After the Biennale, I made many prints from the photographs I had of the flock of sheep
I exhibited there and of the tree sculpture series. I would go to the printers choose a colour, and paint. I loved the
preoccupation with paint. Later, I got the idea of continuing and extending the possibilities of colours. I asked the printer
to print the photographed sheep on linen sheets which I brought from home, instead of on paper, and I would paint
patches of colour on the backs of the printed sheep, as I had done at the Biennale. These were my first paintings. But my
preoccupation with colour goes still further back in many works. Even at the Biennale, where I exhibited the flock of
sheep, I painted their backs blue.
Kadishman describes the sequence of events as they occurred. We, on our part, can list additional precedents which
support this relatively long-standing affinity between Kadishman and paint: his painted metal sculptures of the sixties
(`Suspense' of 1965, a yellow sculpture in the sculpture garden of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem; 'In Suspense' of l96o,
a blue sculpture in the Tel Aviv Museum); the yellow metal forest, first exhibited in Montevideo, Uruguay; the telephone-
book pages done in the seventies, with which from the dullest of books he created fascinating colour pages. The yellow-
painted tree in the Valley of the Cross, and the pink- and blue-painted trees in Tel Hai are additional precedents. In other
words, his inclination for paint had existed before, as had his involvement in the world art scene (the shift from sculpture
to projects in the seventies) and as had his attraction to nature. But above all, there has always been an individual
approach to art, emphasizing the joy of creating, the sense of fun, the relating to ordinary and basic things around us, and
the fascinating originality in the shaping of images and forms. He has the ability to produce original forms from next to
nothing. Not favouring any particular material, as is common among sculptors, he is able to perceive everything as
material for art, not defining but rather blurring the technical boundaries: painting-sculpture-projects-objects and all
their possible combinations. Everything can come into account. Today it's glass, tomorrow a page of a telephone book,
and the day after the painting itself becomes material, a sheep, a tree, nature.
His touching of nature is cautious, harmless. He is not the `rapist' artist. He is the kind of artist who conquers nature
seductively in order to increase charm and beauty. Reflecting on his overall involvement in nature-the painted sheep and
trees, the metal forest within the real forest-one pictures him as the 'makeup artist' of nature who underlines beauty, but,
whose contribution is removable.
As is his approach to material and the shaping of forms, so is his approach to the creation of images: very direct and
simple. So simple that no artist will be able to touch his imagery. Variations by others on a theme of Kadishman's are not
possible. There will be no others painting pages of a telephone book nor others colouring trees, neither will there be
another `laundry' forest hung at the Israel Museum.
The common denominator of Kadishman's diverse images is his ability to recall childhood and its mode of thinking.
It is important to distinguish between that art which imitates childish techniques with which we are closely familiar, and
between Kadishman's art which seems not to have lost the child's vision and manner of thinking. Kadishman's entire
creativity within its various periods, its various forms, has always included the realms of childhood. Through this ability of
his, one can acquire a second taste of those things which had once impressed us (the `laundry' forest, metal suspended in
the air), of the things dreamed of then (`Draw me a sheep', begged the little prince); even of the painterly solutions of
childhood (the erasing of names in a telephone book with coloured pencils, the tree negatives which resemble children's
paper cutouts, the technique in painting of filling space with patches of colour). His fondness of `kitsch' as well is
explained when seen against this background of what is called `the taste of childhood', like the pasting of flowers on
a painting.
Joining the new tidal wave of painting, he does so only with his unorthodox approach to the painterly professional
tradition and its values. He differs from the others in his existential stand and hence in his stand as a painter. His aesthetic
and stylistic conception of painting leans on the long tradition of the colour-patch abstract with which he is well familiar,
but the manner of execution is vivacious, liberated, and innocent, like that ofa loud inscription on a street wall.
`Draw me a sheep`, begged the little prince, and Kadishman does. Many sheep, giant portraits of sheep. Kadishman's
sheep is free of any artistic, religious, or national associations. It is not a homage to Rauschenberg's goat, nor is it a model
of the homeland landscape as in Danziger's interpretation, although it may evoke the sense of man's relation to the land.
In the language of imagery, Kadishman`s sheep is merely a `timid sheep' which he perceived as worthy of a magnified
portrait. A small subject, a giant portrayal. In an era of sophistication, he has sought to paint the possibility of contact
with ordinary and real things.
Kadishman himself regards the sheep as an excuse for his having begun painting, as a subject he had at hand after he
exhibited, at the invitation of Curator Amnon Barzel, his flock of sheep at the l9~78 Venice Biennale. Today, he paints
other themes as well, which are all a part of his private collection of images compiled over the years, like the tree negatives
and telephone-book pages, but none of these is painted to the same extent of scope and intensity as the sheep. The sheep is
part of the Kadishman originality, of his gentle stand in the world. Knowingly or unknowingly, he proposes a
preoccupation with content which is less charged dramatically or philosophically, more appealing in human terms.
The strong and dominant quality in Kadishman's painting is his natural talent for coloration and colour combinations.
The ability to produce such an extremely rich and diverse coloration is a rare one in a country which does not abound in
bright-colour painters. I would like to mention here Kadishman's mother, a naive painter whose main strength lies in
colourful surprises. Something of her natural and unscholarly approach to colour can also be found in the paintings of
Kadishman, even though his ultimate results may be different. His overwhelming, liberated coloration is the first
experience on encountering Kadishman's canvas, an experience which probably results from the fact that Kadishman does
not see himself as a fully fledged painter, but rather as an artist who is currently going through a painting phase. Thus,
lack of commitment to the painters' guild may sometimes prove to be a kind of advantage. Kadishman has no fear of the
canvas, nor does he dread the lack of standard knowledge.
Kadishman started by painting on linen sheets, as well as torn linen sheets, and has only recently shifted to the use of a
stronger type of cloth. He avoids such questions as the quality of facture, of the placing of paint, the surface, the shifts in
tones, and all of those questions which are the basics of the professional painter. For Kadishman, the vivacity and
doctrinaire liberation are a substitute for quality in the painterly traditional sense, although, as has been mentioned, the
structure in his work does lean on familiar traditions. Additional proof of Kadishman's nonconventional approach can be
found in the fact that after a period in which the sheep print served as a basis for the placing of paint, he decided to
eliminate the print stage. Transferring the execution of the initial stage to the painter of movie posters, Shlomo Brosh, who
prepared the enlargements of sheep for him, Kadishman would then mount colour on the sheep but would not cover them
completely. In his later paintings he refrains from using these preparatory techniques. Today, a painting of Kadishman's is
a Kadishman from beginning to end. His pure painterly form is more complex and alternates with the painted backs of
sheep which served as a springboard for his first paintings. The themes, too, have grown and expanded beyond his print
stereotype and the heads of sheep. .
One could continue discussing Kadishman`s painterly creativity and still not reach the essence. Art is usually discussed
through worthy aesthetic concepts, but beyond these concepts, be it to our liking or not, lies the artist's personality which
is projected into the work and which bears great weight on our acceptance or rejection of a work. This is a point little
discussed by those concerned with art, yet it seems to harbour multiple possibilities for such discussions, particularly on
modern art whose intrinsic canon is so fluid, whose aesthetics constantly change and increase. In the case of modern art,
the degree of a work's credibility-its authenticity-becomes one of the common criteria for examining the work, and,
clearly, the authenticity of the work means the authenticity of the artist.
When examining Kadishman's works, it is essential as well as only fair to discuss them in terms of the human values which
they project and without which it would be difficult to understand the key to their enchantment.
Characteristic of Kadishman's paintings is their abundance and generosity; they are imbued with a life-like quality,
simplicity, and compusure. In the `Mussag' magazine, Kadishman wrote: `The painted tree was an act of lovc, a kind of
personal declaration, a stage in a long attempt to interfere in and mingle with nature... Declaring love makes me fccl
uneasy, but if instead of love a cognitive action were to be displayed, it would be inaccurate, somewhat puffed up and
cold.' The paintings of Kadishman, described by him in words loaded with gentleness as are his paintings, recall to mind
the famous phrase by Matisse on the good painting which for the spectator is like a comfortable armchair.
The qualities in Kadishman's painting which I enumerated are a projection of human qualities as reflected through their
reincarnation in form and colour. It is these qualities which form the genial ground for accepting Kadishman's particular
painterly skill which is as though it were marked by deficiency. They constitute the main message of Kadishman's
paintings, and after the initial enthusiasm one experiences at the colourful celebration, they are the real essence of his
creativity. It is they which render irrelevant the technical side of the total work, and, moreover, draw their strength from
the completely liberated technique as part of the primal joy of life which Kadishman`s creativity so forcefully projects.