" When something seems mysterious to us it is often because it is unknown; if we delve into the unknown and comprehend it it is no longer a mystery, but knowledge. To extend the know­ledge that we have we must of course, turn to that which is unknown to us. If we want to get something out of the new art and its problems, we must turn to its innermost being and honestly attempt to understand and discover the impulse behind its emergence.« (1]

This was Geertsen's description in 1943 of how we must constantly search, if we are to gain an insight into the problematics of art. We must be in con­stant motion if we are continuously to attain new knowledge. Even though this quotation is 60 years old it still characterises Geertsen's work. Ever since, his search for insight into the problematics of the formal language, or idiom, and his investigations into the individual facets of painting have been crucial aspects of his work. He has systematically studied the principles of arrangement, possible combinations and forms of contrast. They are part of a process, the purpose of which is to demon­strate how abstract, geometrical figures in bright, powerful colours can be perceived differently, depending on how they are combined and the context in which they are seen. It is a matter of showing how much can be changed with how small an effort and of variation in simplicity. And it is especially concerned with the expression of a motion that is harmonious and balanced.
 

The beginning

Geertsen was born in Copenhagen in 1919, but grew up in Arhus. He was trained as a gardener and is a self‑taught artist. As a 16‑year‑old, he was fascinated by the work of Greenland artist Kärale Andreassen and by his mysterious universe. Geertsen's copies of these works were the start of his artistic career. His fascination with this form of art has remained with him ever since, mainly because the objects are often executed with great precision, while it is almost possible to discern the process of execution in the carved objects. During his period as a gardener, he borrowed art books from the library and studied them with great enthusiasm. He was particularly interested in Cezanne and his French contemporaries, as well as the Danish modernists. Geertsen's early paint­ings (from the latter half of the 1930s) bear the signs of Danish work (e.g., Harald Giersing, Edward Weie and William Scharff) done on Cezanne's "flat" paintings and the brushwork and colour schemes of the post‑impressionists. This can be seen, e.g., in such paintings as Opstilling ("Arrangement," 1939). 1939 was the year when he decided to put all his efforts into his career as an artist. During that year, Geertsen's colour schemes became more muted, while he also started to work with larger surfaces than had previously been the case. One source of inspiration was a female portrait by Amadeo Modigliani, with which he was familiar from Johannes Rump's collection, which was deposited by the Royal Museum of Fine Art at Aarhus Museum of Art. Geertsen worked during the following years with figurative arrangements, landscapes and portraits in muted earth colours. One good example is his self‑portrait, Maler med palet ()"Painter with palette,« 1943), which was exhibited in Denmark at the Artists' Autumn Exhibition. Even then, he was already deeply involved in his investigation into the fundamental elements of painting, such as form, composition, arrangement and palpability. Thus, the basis of Geertsen's work was not the subject or the motif, but the composition in colour and form. It was a question of creating tension between the individual figures, so that life, motion and balance emerged in the picture. And his later, non‑figurative works are characterised by precisely the same areas of interest. ""When I wrote my article in 1943, I did not expect to want to work with the abstract. But in reality I was already doing so. My arrangements did not conform to any specific motif, but were done from my imagination, as were my portraits and land­scapes. Even at that time, it was a question of put­ting together forms and colours in a way that made the picture work. The subject was, so to speak, immaterial. It was the rhythm, motion and balance in things that were the main motif. This applied to my early things and it still applies to my work today,« says Geertsen. [2] Geertsen did not work from models or from na­ture, but composed his pictures from his imagina­tion. It is, however, precisely the recognisable in figurative works that can easily introduce a refer­ence to a known and physical world, which refuses to be excluded. "We store in our heads enormous numbers of images to which we relate consciously and unconsciously. Even if we do not have a partic­ular motif in our thoughts, the motifs still manage to emerge somehow or other in practice. Although we are not really aware of it, they are nevertheless the result of our experience‑of our personal store of impressions and images," explains Geertsen. [3] Thus, the pictures were the result of his uncon­scious work on reality, and not nature studies or arrangements painted from models or objects. One example of this unconscious reference to reality is a portrait of a woman from 1940, which was painted without the intention to portray, but which according to Geertsen actually portrayed his maternal aunt. [4] In other words, reality still man­aged to sneak into a picture that was actually com­posed on the basis of general, formal principles.
 

Geertsen's meeting with abstract artists

An exhibition of the spontaneous‑abstract artists (Århus, 1941) was a landmark for Geertsen. Such artists as Asger Jorn, Ejler Bille, Egill Jacobsen and Richard Mortensen exhibited work in their free, spontaneous idiom. Geertsen helped with the exhibition, in which connection he met a number of the artists. It was at this exhibition that he really became acquainted with art dealer Thorkild Hansen, who was later to open Tokanten (»The Biangle«) ‑ a gallery that was to become highly significant for abstract art. Hansen was interested in Geertsen's work and arranged an exhibition with him at his gallery in Pustervig, Copenhagen, in 1943. This marked the beginning of Geertsen's turning towards the abstract. Geertsen moved to Copen­hagen and became a part of the avantgarde milieu in earnest. Apart from exhibiting, he worked at the Pustervig gallery and thus came into contact with many people in the Danish world of art. Through Hansen, Geertsen found a room at art collector Elise Johansen's in Nyhavn, where he lived for a little less than a year. Elise Johansen took an interest in the latest trends in the art milieu and eagerly collected the spon­taneous‑abstract art, e.g., of Carl‑Henning Pedersen, Egill Jacobsen, Mortensen and Ejler Bille, who was also her nephew. The understand­ing she showed to the younger experimenting artists at a time when spontaneous‑abstract art was not widely recognised had a very affirmative effect on the artists. Apart from giving them purely financial assistance, she let them use her flat as their meeting place. Geertsen quickly became a member of this circle. As early as 1944 Jorn urged him to contribute with a graphic work to the periodical Helhesten (uThe Whole Horse«).
 

Geertsen's expressive period

Geertsen was still searching. His meeting with the art milieu in Copenhagen pushed him towards an abstract idiom and persuaded him to return to colour, as a significant pictorial element. Geertsen met all‑round artist Albert Mertz in 1944, when at Robert Jacobsen's invitation he participated in Mertz's and Jørgen Roos' experi­mental film Historien om en Mand (»The Story of a Man«), in which Jacobsen played the lead. His encounters with Mertz's experimental approach and with artists Jacobsen and Henry Heerup left their marks on Geertsen, for instance, in the farm of his recycled sculptures, such as two Fabeldyr ("Fabulous Monster,« 1946), the one of which con­sists of steel wire and the lid of a preserving jar and the other, of steel wire and a water tap. It was Geertsen's friendship with Mortensen that had the most decisive effect on his new artistic orientation. Geertsen rented a flat in a house in Birkerød from 1944‑7950. Mortensen lived nearby and they met almost daily for a while, At that time, Mortensen was working on a number of expressive paintings in an orgy of colour and figures, often related to the horrors of war. All of the artists around Geertsen were more or less involved in the resistance movement. "We were all political left‑wingers, some of us more so than others,u Geertsen recalls. »Morten was a party member, but I wasn't so active in the resist­ance. I was more inclined to paint and to become a good painter. I had the feeling that if one could paint, one could support oneself. But one couldn't. I could have been more involved in the resistance‑ perhaps exclusively‑ if I hadn't been so determined to paint. I had many friends in the resistance, especially a number who were highly involved in Arhus. My expressive works should be considered as the liberation of colour and an expression of my interest in growth in nature. But I'm sure that there are unconscious traces of the war, which affected all of us in one way or another.« [S] Geertsen has never concealed the fact that Mortensen had a powerful influence on him dur­ing this period, and the collaboration between the two artists is quite clearly reflected in Geertsen's paintings. [6] As is the case with Mortensen's, they are expressive and violent, the colours are notice­ably similar and their expressive lines also have many similarities. For Geertsen, it meant that he could concentrate on lines and colours‑something that finds expres­sion in such pictures as Hasende hanner kæmper om en hun ("Raging Males Fighting over a Female,« 1946) and Skikkelser i landskab (»Figures in landscape,« 1946). In Skikkelser i landskab, a disintegrating circular figure (perhaps a bird) seems to be falling from the top edge on the left­hand side into what looks like the mouth of a large creature with gaping jaws, which are stretched out along the bottom of the picture and upwards along its left‑hand side. The contrast between the motions of the two forms helps to emphasise the aggressiveness with which this pic­ture, with its powerful greens and yellows, is loaded and to which the title refers. The lines seem to have their centre of rotation in the falling motion, emphasised by the upwards struggle of the running colours, so that the dynamic interplay between a linear and circular motion creates the illusion of an almost drop‑shaped moving figure. As compared to his earlier, far more muted peri­ods, the strength and expressiveness of his colours is conspicuous. The fad that they are applied fast and that they run in a few places creates a space that is full of energy. It is a question of motion, but of another and more violent motion than that which characterises Geertsen's later works. He used, e.g., motion, to express the power of nature. He has called these pictures "growths." [7] We can also find references to nature in Mortensen's land­scapes from the same period. But in contrast to Mortensen, Geertsen's point of departure is not mystical, philosophical or metaphysical. He has explained that he was preoccupied with the vigor­ous growth of the garden in Birkerød. [8] Because of his wide‑ranging interests and his great knowledge, e.g., in the areas of modern art theory, psychoanalysis and gestalt theory, Mortensen was fantastically inspiring to Geertsen. And this inspiration from Mortensen provided a springboard for Geertsen's more personal work on the abstract idiom. But his sketches and paintings from this period exhibit an involved and experimenting Geertsen, who is able to combine the expressive with a mysterious, surreal universe in a living and poetic way. At the same time, he also devised the colour scheme with which he later worked so intensively, i.e., yellow, orange and blue.
 

Geertsen and Linien II

Together with such artists as Mertz, Richard Winther and »Bamse« Kragh‑Jacobsen, Geertsen was one of the founder members of the artists' society Linien // ("Line Il"). This society was intended to be a youthful alternative for abstract art to the spontaneous‑abstract i artists and Høstudstillingen (an autumn exhibition). The form and content of Linien H's first exhibition was Dadaistic. Collages, paintings, sculptures, etc., as well as extensive happenings, theatrical performances and concerts, were all an the exhibition's agenda. Mertz was a vital driving force in this direction. Geertsen exhibited his expressive works at Linien H's initial exhibition in 1947. The trend was differ­ent at the next exhibition, in 1948. Geertsen's paintings had become far more disciplined, their arrangement far simpler and their motion calmer and more balanced than had been the case in the ~t previous year. s i3evægelser omkring et punkt (Komposition I) ("Movements around a point (Composition I)«) is a good example of this tendency towards a stricter arrangement and the use of geometricised forms, which characterise his subsequent work. The forms are at the surface of the pictures and appear to hover in rotary motion, in an airless space. Their motion seems to be gliding and tranquil. Similar a ways of laying figures on the surface and letting e them »hover« in an undefinable space can be _ found, e.g., in Kandinsky's disciplined pictures from the Bauhaus period, in the 1920s. There had been much interest in Kandinsky's work since the 1930s in Denmark, when Linien U's pre­decessor and model, Linien, published articles by Kandinsky and reproductions of his work in their periodical. Vilhelm Bjerke‑Petersen, who had been 3 a co‑founder of Linien and who was a guest of Linien II, had himself been a Bauhaus student in 1930‑31. He was aware of Kandinsky's theories, works and teaching, and was one of his most important promoters in Denmark. Not least Mortensen was very preoccupied with Kandinsky, especially in the years after the war. Thus, Geert­sen had, even though he points out himself that he had not read Kandinsky's writings, several i sources on which to draw, where inspiration by Kandinsky was concerned. And he knew Kandinsky's pictures. "For me, painting is a form of life," wrote Geertsen in Linien II's 1949 catalogue. »I want to form new realities with the help of physical phenomena n and processes. My method is to choose physical elements that can give me a new visual experi­ence, and to combine and create using them, until new visual units emerge. Every visual element and the sequence of every process must contain an inner tension that is a reality to me. Together, these complexes of elements and processes form the range of my visual experiences and my activa­tion of the psycho‑physical functions." [9] It is a question of creating tension between the forms a motion, an energy, an abstract harmony‑a phe­nomenal universe, which does not reflect our world of objects, but which is a part of our world. This idea is fundamental to abstract art and it was expressed by Kandinsky as early as 1912, in "Con­cerning the Spiritual in Art" and again later, in 1926 in "Point and Line to Surface.« [10] Another reason for Geertsen's shift towards a more disciplined idiom was the influence on him of the group of artists, associated with the French Galerie Denise Rene, who had exhibited at Tokanten in April of the same year. This exhibition took place thanks to Mortensen and Jacobsen, who had been to Paris the previous year and had been exhibited at the galerie. The exhibiting artists included, e.g., Victor Vasarely, Jean Dewasne, Jean Deyrolle and Serge Poliakoff. This exhibition became the start of an important col­laboration between Denise Rene's artists and the artists of Linien II.

 

The figure‑ground problematic

It was clear from Linien R's 1949 exhibition that constructivist art had taken over Dadaism's role. The group now included Gunnar Aagaard Andersen and Paul Gadegaard. Geertsen had tightened up his idiom. He used clear, delimited colour surfaces, often in long, tense geometrical forms, which did not leave the same impression of space as in the previous year. From that time forwards, Geertsen's focus became the figure‑ground problematic. When is a figure the ground and when is it a figure? And what is needed to make the pictures seem flat, so that there is neither figure nor ground, but instead a surface without depth? His interest in these pro­blematics is reflected in such pictures as Kompo­sition (blå‑gul‑sort‑hvid) (")Composition (Blue­Yellow‑Black‑White,c 1949), which consists of a number of sharply cut‑off, flat figures. They weave in and out among each other, in a move­ment that rotates about the centre of the picture. This rotating movement is created by the direc­tions that are apparently given by the figures: downwards on the left‑hand side, upwards on the right‑hand side, towards the left above and to­wards the right below. Regardless of whether we follow the yellow figures, which dominate the pic­ture as far as the surface is concerned, or whether we follow the blue and black forms, which as »U‑« and »V‑« forms are in contrast to the former, motion is present, but in such a way that in certain places it meets the counterplay of an acute angle moving in the opposite direction. The accentuation of the centre resides not only in the fact that some of the lines seem to radiate from a central area between the forms, but also in the fact that the dominant forms group themselves around the cen­tre, and not in it. The curved lines, which are bro­ken by the contrasting forms of rectilinear sur­faces, constantly hint at circle sections, which by their slightly displaced relationships to each other reinforce the impression of the circular, of rotation, while the displacements themselves and the appar­ent layering evoked by the straight lines generate a kind of unpredictability in the dynamic move­ment. The most aggressive, warm colours‑the yellow, black and darkest of the blues‑are located around the centre, which with its light‑blue and creamy‑white forms is less dominant. But as these less powerful colours dominate the extreme left of the picture and press in towards the centre be­tween the other colours, they behave as figures just as much as the figures painted in the stronger colours, which predominate in the right‑hand side of the picture. Depending on which of the frac­tured surfaces we focus between the individual colour surfaces, either the stronger, warmer, or the weaker, cooler, colour surfaces can appear to be in front of the others. The figure‑ground problematic was one of the most significant turning points in post‑war con­structivist art in Denmark and internationally. This interest in what it is we are seeing when we study a picture was especially apparent in Mortensen, who had studied gestalt theory in Edgar Rubin's treatise, Synsoplevede figurer (uVisually Perceived

Figures«) in the 1930s. [11] From this paper, it can be seen, for instance, how different figures are perceived, depending on the context in which we see them. This interest was also apparent in Geertsen, even though he did not adopt any stance on the phenomena at a theoretical level. This can be seen, for instance, in his jacket for Linien's catalogue for the Lund exhibition of 1950. He strove to make his pictures as flat as humanly possible, so as to emphasise the pictures' own effects‑colours and figures. This picture was to be abstract and flat, because it was to be some­thing in its own right and to have its own inde­pendent, tangible existence. It was not in any way to refer to the real and visible world. It was pre­cisely the spaciousness of the picture that was per­ceived as a reference to an external visual reality. The picture was instead‑through its own inde­pendent universe‑to express such more abstract phenomena as harmony, balance, motion, collabo­ration, collectivism, etc. This struggle contained, e.g., a desire to make art into an active part of society. There was a notion that art should be a tool, which has the goal of beneficially imprinting us and, thus, society with especially optimistic and beneficially‑charged  rhythm and motion. There was space for the indi­vidual figures to unfold, but in the context of and in collaboration with the others, and through the common rhythm that they expressed. They )"reflect society's idea," as Mortensen put it. [12] Dewasne, Vasarely and the others in the circle around the progressive Parisian Galerie Denise Rend firmly supported this understanding. Dewasne was of the opinion that the works should be accessible to the whole of society. [13] The very idea that works of art were not for the individual but for the public at large was also one of the Russian construdivists' main ideas, just as it hallmarked the European avant‑garde of the 1920s, for instance, in the group "De Stijl" and the Bauhaus. Several of the artists who had been part of this avant‑garde lived in Paris in the post‑war years and were linked to Galerie Denise Rene, and many of the younger post‑war constructivists followed in their footsteps.

 

Dewasne and Geertsen

Dewasne seems to have been a vital source of inspiration for Geertsen's work on the figure­ground problematic and decisive inspiration for the development of his idiom that took place in 1949‑50. And Dewasne's ideas on the social func­tion of art left their traces in Geertsen. Of the group of artists around Denise Rene, De­wasne was one of the most politically‑committed (a member of the communist party), theoretical and most radical in his attempts to unite the con­structivist idiom with society. Dewasne was staying in Denmark at exactly the same time that Linien II was busy defining itself as construdivist. He visited Copenhagen at the beginning of 1949 and only intended to stay for a few weeks, although he remained here for nine months in the end. Over the course of these months, he became a central figure in the Danish art milieu, primarily through Jacobsen. He gave lectures on abstract art [14] and exhibited at Bruun Rasmussen's auction house and gallery [15] and, together with Linien 11, at their important 1949 exhibition. He also wrote a mono­graph on Robert Jacobsen, Le Gros Robert. [16] Dewasne developed his characteristic work on the figure‑ground problematic during his sojourn in Denmark. He used small, oblong, curved and jagged black figures, which cut into corresponding figures in such colours as red, yellow and blue, His composition reflected a living, energetic and harmonious motion. A good example of this can be found on the jacket for the catalogue of Linien II's 1949 exhibition, which is a part of Dewasne's Joie de Vivre (see below). If we consider Geertsen' work at that time, the similarities to Dewasne's idiom are conspicuous. The two were so close that they were able to create joint works, as Dewasne also did with Jacobsen in the same period (Komposition (rød‑sort‑hvid) (»Composition (Red‑BlackWhite),«) Geert‑Wasne, 24th July, 1949). Geertsen and Dewasne travelled together to Århus to see the university. Although Geertsen spoke neither English nor French, the two artists still managed to discuss central topics within modern art. At first glance it seems incredible that they were able to hold a discussion without understanding each other linguistically. But their common interest in and attitude to the abstract idiom must have been a significant factor in their communication. A conversation on Romanian artist Constantin Brancusi's egg‑shaped sculpture, Le Commencementdu Monde (1924), gave Geertsen the idea of working with the ovoid, which later developed into his tear‑drop. [17] »We were especially interested in the ingenious way in which Brancusi made his uegg« living and expressive with the aid of the straight and curved forms. His »egg« is namely a little oblate on the upper side and generously rounded on the lower side. The »egg's« external impression thus becomes full of vitality, in contrast to the symmetrical form of a natural egg, which just does not have the same vitality, but rests in itself and signals that it carries life within.« [78]

 

The ovoid form

One example of the inspiration from Geertsen's conversations with Dewasne is the painting Komposition over standardiserede former (8evægelse, Variation I) (»Composition of Standardised Forms (Motion, Variation I),« May, 1950). Here, the ovoid form has been sectioned in different ways, to show the variation inherent in this simple form. The very act of sectioning it in different ways made the form more living, partly because it can be seen in different ways. A rotating motion appears to arise through the curved lines that con­centrate themselves around the centre of the picture. Motion is also the theme of Geertsen's second picture in this series, which bears the same title but with the difference that its name includes "Variation II". The circle appears as a motion‑promoting factor in several of Geertsen's early abstract paintings. It can be seen, e.g., in Aggressiv figur and, in partic­ular, in his works from Linien H's 1948 exhibition, for instance, in Bevægelse omkring et punkt ("Motion Around a Point«), which appears to have been inspired by certain of Kandinsky's works. Geertsen's sectioned ovoid enabled him to link two of his most central principles of contrast, i.e., curved and straight lines, with which he still experiments for their power to evoke motion. The tear‑drop gradually takes form in his pictures and sculptures during the course of 1953‑54. A good example of this is his large painting, Rum­komposition ("Spatial Composition," 1954). In this picture, the tear‑drop appears together with flat, tube‑like forms in peaceful, balanced motion. The colours are a muted blue and dark green. The tear‑drop is not completely symmetrical, but a little distorted, which is because the one straight line that enters the point is longer than the other. It is an ovoid with an angle instead of simply a dividing line. The straight lines in the tear‑drops are laid in extension of the rectilinear figures and thus enter into a harmonious symbiosis with them. The contrast primarily exists in the conflict be­tween the straight and curved lines, between the picture surface and the drop. As in Komposition (b1å, gul, sort, hvid) (»Composition (Blue, Yellow, Black, White)«), the points emphasise a rotating motion in the picture. With its muted colours and flat figures, it reflects the figure‑ground problem­atic, as well as any other related spatial problem­atics involved. The format and the main motif, which is motion and the figure‑ground problematic, bear great similarity to the large painting, .Joie de Vivre, which Dewasne executed while in Denmark in 1949. [19] As far as Dewasne was concerned, art's purpose was to attract attention to a special, beneficial and joyful rhythm, which was to have an infectious, optimistic effect on us. Like Geert­sen's, this work was six metres long and it needed more space than is available in a private home. Joie de Vivre had a social function, which could suggest that this was also the case with Geertsen's painting. Rumkomposition was painted for the exhibition of art in the public space, which took place in 1954 at the Artists' Autumn Exhibition, Charlottenborg, Copenhagen. Dewasne's idiom emerged in character in Joie de Vivre. He had finally found his idiom. We can say that where Geertsen is concerned the same applies to Rumkomposition. He had achieved his charac­teristic tear‑drop and the principles of composition that he was to investigate with such enthusiasm in the future. The use of so large a format can, thus, be seen as an expression of a confident Geertsen, who dared to go public with his idiom. The same new certainty also shows itself in the fact that he simultaneously decided on his typical colours, which were standard colours for long periods‑specifically, six pure spectral colours (red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet), each in a light and dark shade, together with light and dark ochre.[20]

 

The 1950s ‑ the alphabet is defined

The standard forms and systems that Geertsen would use in the future are anticipated in the 1950s. The tear‑drop, the straight line that bends and the characteristic intersecting line at an angle of just a few degrees all appeared in these years. He studied and established systems for the use of these ever‑more standardised elements. Geertsen started to work increasingly with the division of surfaces into two highly contrasting fields, e.g., as is the case in Komposition okker‑blå ("Composi­tion Ochre‑Blue," 1957). His formulation of the figure‑ground problematic, which started to be­come far more complex, energetic and refined, was typical of the early 1950s. It is clearly visible in such pictures as Komposition, bevægelse (",Com­position, Motion," 1951). His forms are once again driven around the centre in a rotating motion, but this motion is more dynamic than previously and it takes place in a deeper image space. This is partly due to the fact that the indi­vidual forms are more complex. They can be read from more angles and they switch between "going into" and "coming out of« the picture. We can find similar problematics in Mortensen during the same period. His compositions become flatter and less complex once more at the end of the 1950s. The motion seems to congeal. Large individual figures are brought right up to the picture's surface. Geertsen draws a line between the forms, as in Komposition okker‑blå (1957), a line that acts as an intersection or a fold, which divides the picture into two. The contrast still resides in the relationship between the curved and straight lines, but it is emphasised by the folding effect. Crucial to Geertsen's work are the displacements, which are particularly visible in his later works. We have seen above how part of the motion in his pictures is attained by the figures shifting relative to each other. Dis­placement also finds expression in such pictures as Grøn‑orange ("Green‑Orange," 7959). In this case, the picture is split into two parts‑the upper part, which consists of a tube‑like figure in dark green, brown and bright yellow surrounded by orange ‑the lower part contains a similar figure in green and orange surrounded by dark orange. The lower figure has been pulled further to the left in rela­tion to the upper figure, and this is where the dis­placement arises. His use of large, broad, rounded and sharpedged colour fields is typical of this series of paintings. They are located right at the surface and their execution is strict and clean. The pictures have a sharp, precise appearance. This precision of execution can also be found in the work Komposition lyseblå rød, (»Composition lightblue red«) 1958‑1992, which from the view­points of both its technical aspects and colour scheme (light‑blue, red) is evocative of Dewasne's paintings of the same period.

 

The 1960s and after. Standardised forms

Where the contrasts between the straight and curved lines had previously predominated, Geert­sen now based more of his works on the conflicts between rectilinear figures and the vertical, hori­zontal and slanting lines. The slanting, intersecting lines, which had earlier been used in such works as Komposition over stan­dardiserede former (1950) and Rumkomposition (1954), were now visible in earnest in the division of the surface into two contrasting parts. This division is clearly visible in Geertsen's series, which now assume an important place in his pro­duction from that point in time. When Geertsen began work on a series he also restricted his pictorial formats to a few different, often quite large, canvases, which gave the series a cohesive, uniform appearance, which in turn supported their character of standardisation. These series were particularly well‑suited to the investigation of the standard forms' potential for r. combination and variation. The principle was the same in his figure‑ground paintings, i.e., to draw i our attention to the way in which we decode pictures, and in reality, to how we decode our surroundings. The purpose was to make us aware of the fact that reality is dependent on the context in which we see objects and, thus, to heighten our attentiveness.
This problem finds expression in Geertsen's series by showing how the standardised, homogeneous forms assume different appearances, depending on how they are composed and the colours that are used. Although forms and colours are simple, t their combinatory potential seems infinite. An excellent example of this can be found in the series Mangfoldighed I‑XII ("Multiplicity I‑XII," 1965), which is a frieze consisting of 12 pictorial modules. It can be seen here how the expression of Geertsen's standard form, the tear‑drop, changes, depending on the accompanying colours. As in Geertsen's earlier work, it is a matter of vari­ation within simplicity. And as the title suggests there is diversity, which is precisely what the sequence of this series clarifies so well. Diskussion I, III, /Vas Mangfoldighed are in many ways multifaceted works. Their composition cohe­res across the individual pictures, which are framed in groups of either two or three pictures. There is a rhythmic sequence of repetitions with variations‑the effect of letting our gaze wander across the series evokes musical associations. The vertical yellow fields scale the rhythm. The motion is first energetic‑the first surfaces are filled with dancing drops. Then there is a pause in the sequ­ence, in the form of the deep blue vertical, which is empty, then a brief motion, then a deep blue pause‑and so the sequence begins again from the start. The tear‑drop, which Geertsen developed in 1953­54 from the ovoid and a slightly acute angle, was now disciplined into a constructed 3/4 circle com­bined with a right‑angle, or as Geertsen explains: »[...] a circle inscribed in a square, from which I have removed three of the corners." [21] This standardised form, which has almost become Geertsen's trademark, appeared in the period after 1960 and he has used it ever since. It is characterised by the combination of circular motion with a direc­tion, as given by the arrow‑like right‑angle. Many of Geertsen's pictures including the tear­drop pictures, were first executed as templates. Geertsen has his standard forms, which he com­bines until he thinks that the composition works. Then he paints the picture. The tear‑drop is used as being inherently contrast­ing. Other examples of the use of the tear‑drop are what we could call )"drops within the drop." Kinetik X,XI og XII ("Kinetics X, XI and XII," 1975) are good examples of how drops in different colours and sizes take up position within each other, preferably in a rotating motion. The title itself (Kinetik) bears testimony to Geertsen's growth during and from the 1970s. The colours in Geertsen's paintings become notice­ably more vehement, garish, almost luminous, in the series Bevægelse ("Motion," 1984). Its colour scheme is mildly irritating to the eye and the figures seem to vibrate on the surface of the pic­ture. This has the effect that we cannot fixate a figure on the surface and that it really does seem to be in motion. This way of experimenting with colour was characteristic, e.g., of Vasarely's de­velopment in the 1950s of the construdivist art that was called »Kineticism« or »Op Art." Geertsen experimented with other standard forms in parallel with his increasing use of the tear‑drop. One of these was the "broken" square, which he introduced in the series Hilsen til JosefAlbers ("A Greeting to Josef Albers," 1970), the title of which referred to the Bauhaus artist who, from 1949 until his death in 1976, created only colour varia­tions of squares inscribed within squares, although displaced along typical, slanting, inter­secting lines in Geertsen's versions. A similar system with which Geertsen worked is the division. His major series, Delinger ("Divisions," 1990‑97) is also concerned with divisions along a slanting, intersecting line, although in this case the ""broken" form is a tall rectangle and the colures on each side of the intersecting line work as contrasts to each other, even if this is in reality not the case.