Conversation with Sivert Lindblom

Conversation with Sivert Lindblom Beate Sydhoff, Konstrevy no. 2, 1967

Beate Sydhoff: In our conversation about your sculptures, you've introduced concepts like primary and secondary emotions. What do you mean by a form that is not associated with secondary emotions?

Sivert Lindblom: First, I should probably explain what I mean by secondary and primary emotions. The secondary emotion is based on our direct experiences and is a consequence of them. It is purely subjective. The primary emotion, the one common to all, can perhaps be explained as one of the biological factors, characterized by a basic structure. However, its existence is difficult to prove. This primary emotion is certainly both a goal and a driving force in all creation, but it cannot be treated as a means. The primary emotion is thus not directly communicable but must first be objectified by some means, thereby becoming indirectly communicable. That the secondary emotion exists is obvious, but it is neither directly nor indirectly communicable, as it is not common to all. If one views form as a means of communication, it should therefore not be associated with the secondary. One must concentrate on the language itself, on the form. Ascertain where, on what plane, form functions as a means of communication and, on this plane, seek distinct and precise formulations. To utilize the conscious self, the intellect, as much as possible, in order to objectify one's experiences with the greatest clarity.

BS: Does this mean your works are "emotionless"? SL: Regarding secondary emotions, I hope that is the case. If one avoids these relative elements, an active emptiness arises for me, approaching the concept of freedom. An emptiness that the viewer can "fill" themselves and therefore truly experience. The form of the vessel determines the content.

BS: What was the reason you arrived at these ideas? SL: The reason was the limitation of learned formal conventions. A situation arises where one cannot progress without resorting to very forced intentions. A kind of paralysis.

BS: You experienced a freedom when you discovered that you could completely reject secondary emotions as a means. SL: To consciously exploit one's emotions is a paradox for me. When the consequence of this became clear to me, I truly experienced a great liberation, a feeling of infinite possibilities. In such a situation, observations become possible; the arbitrariness of sentiment disappears; one is no longer dealing with metaphysics but with seeing.

BS: Can one find anything consistently characteristic in your idea of form? SL: As I mentioned earlier, I tried to ascertain how we experience formal and substantive registration. The discovery of two-dimensionality in both form and content was crucial for the continued work.

BS: What do you mean by two-dimensionality? SL: Our visual capabilities. I mean that two-dimensionality becomes palpable upon direct observation of how human senses and intellect function when perceiving form and content, e.g., our eyes' inability to register anything other than the surface of the form. If we see a cube, we perceive it as a three-dimensional object, but what we see are surfaces joined in given positions. A texture is just a more complicated surface phenomenon. To form an idea of what lies behind the surfaces, we can consult our own experience, and that of others, but it is still impossible to prove anything with our senses. Not even a cut into the object can tell us anything; it merely gives us new surfaces. The substantive formulations bear a similar relationship to their mechanisms.

BS: If one transfers this reasoning to your sculpture, what was the consequence? SL: The consequence was that I could determine where my language should be perceived, and thus I could concentrate on working there with the greatest possible clarity. So that the content lay in the visible (as close to the surface as possible).

BS: What did this mean regarding the choice of material? SL: The material suddenly became indifferent and served only a technical function as support for the surface.

BS: How does color function on these surfaces? SL: Color as a material is professionally used to define the surface. It is therefore habitually perceived as two-dimensional. The different colors, the hues, have been chosen without aesthetic valuations. The aim was to find colors that humans register as factual information, for example, on traffic signs.

BS: You don't want to convey substantive elements? SL: The substantive and the formal in my works are difficult to treat separately. The substantive is the formal, and the formal is the substantive. The content, the poetic intention, has received its clearest formulation, and here I can only inform about the reading, the way of seeing. Regarding color, I must state that I present these work results to an audience that, by convention, confuses content shaped by art's conventions. One believes one sees more than one can see. For this reason, I must therefore try to renew the way of seeing and use clarifications, and in doing so, I have sometimes used color. There are thus details that are solely intended to guide the gaze.

BS: How do you want your sculpture to be perceived? SL: A further consequence of two-dimensionality and the working methodology that has emerged from that observation is that the objects become "immaterial" and should be perceived as thought-controlled operations, i.e., thought registrations. The important thing is to involve the viewer in the intellectual adventures, a kind of co-creation in the speculative investigations.

BS: What is your stance on the new "immaterial" sculpture in England? SL: Technically and formally, I am curious and feel somewhat related, but I find it very difficult to understand the meaning of their works. In my eyes, they have stopped halfway. There is a trait of conventional formal thinking that I cannot sympathize with.

BS: You mentioned some earlier speculative investigations. Do these have anything to do with Bauhaus? SL: They have nothing at all to do with Bauhaus. The entire background to Bauhaus' belief in form and function is no longer relevant to us. What is quite obvious right now is that we are completely unfaithful to what Bauhaus meant by form. Idea and intention require us to choose the form that is most effective as a means of communication, regardless of whether it is simple or complex, clear or unclear, pure or impure.

BS: Bauhaus believed in a pure world. Is your idea also the opposite of that point? SL: My idea is different. It is not a question of an opposing relationship. I am not trying to prove something that excludes something else. Partly for that reason, Bauhaus' belief is uninteresting to me. The way I work primarily concerns myself and my possibilities for communication.

BS: Is your art programmatic? Do you have intentions that lead towards a specific goal? SL: I wish I could participate in a positive and progressive creation that can develop human mechanisms and thereby enable a more nuanced experience of existence. The social function of art.

Photo: Lars Olsson