|
in him the importance of continuing to build on, as well as with,
this vision, and the challenge to continue pursuing the figurative element
in painting.
Working with the
Cubist paradigm during its second generation, provided Skov with the
immense advantage of being able to assimilate the earlier aesthetic
discoveries, practically simultaneously, integrating them without regard to
their original chronological development into Neo-cubism.
However, in order
to obtain a better understanding of the inner workings of this medium, he
felt it necessary to pursue a detailed analysis of each phase of Cubism, by
drawing and painting his way through his own process of discovery. Since
his previous work already had placed him well along the path of the
discoveries differentiating Cubism from earlier art, this assimilation
process could be significantly accelerated. Skov’s paintings from the
previous Madeira period, for example, clearly anticipated this
development, as does also his work from the La Colle period in 1937 - 38.
His prolific work from 1947-1952, bears witness to his effective
consolidation of the Cubist aesthetics and visual methodology, including
the use of simultaneous viewpoints, multiple light sources, the inverted
perspective, planar analysis and synthesis of objects, pictorial
concretization of the space surrounding the objects, and so on.
Already conversant with the work of most
of the contemporary modern artists, Skov examined for some time the work
and achievements of the first-generation Cubist painters, including George
Braques, Juan Gris, Pablo Picasso, Fernand Leger, Le Fauconnier, Albert
Gleizes, Robert Delaunay, Jean Metzinger, etc.. His paintings from the
early nineteen-fifties show that little remained unexamined by Skov
regarding the structure and ramifications of the Cubist idiom, its
aesthetics and its iconology; and his work developed according to his own
visual perceptions and without mimicking the chronological sequence of
steps followed by these earlier Cubists.
Skov’s Neo-cubist
oeuvre takes on a special significance due to its comprehensive scope and
continuity as well as the extension of its continued development. In Denmark, and in Scandinavia generally, Cubism had been pursued only by a few
artists, who did not reach beyond relatively short-lived proto-cubist
phases of experimentation, and eventually either broke away from this idiom
or receded into mannerisms.
In Denmark, even as late as the nineteen-eighties, unlike
the
recognition afforded Cubism the world over, the art establishment,
including
the Art Academy, museum directors and art critics had not accepted the
truly revolutionary significance of Cubism as a living art form. It
remained for Skov to provide the most comprehensive answer about the
continued
relevance of Cubism in Scandinavian art; and this places him in the
unique position as the only substantial second generation Danish cubist
painter
devoted to Cubism for over a generation
|