Discussion Between Peter Sedgley and Maurice de Sausmarez

Leonardo, Vol. 4, pp. 167-170. Pergamon Press 1971. Printed in Great Britain DOCUMENTS The Editorswillpublish in this section ofLeonardo,Jrom time to time, documents that may cast a new light on significant aspects ofcontemporary fine art. Such texts may be in theform ofmanifestos, 'conversations' between artists, reprints ofarticles long out ofprint, translations, etc. Readers are invited to recommend to the Editors materialfor possible publication in this section. DISCUSSION BETWEEN PETER SEDGLEY* AND MAURICE DE SAUSMAREZ** LONDON, FEBRUARY 1967 Maurice de Sausmarez-You came to painting in a quite unconventional way for this decade, I believe, in the sense that you didn't develop out of art school. Peter Sedgley-Yes. For something like ten years I was in building and architecture-and then in 1959 I completely broke with these activities and decided I wanted to concern myself with philosophy . I felt the need to get away and involve myself with the investigation of ideas, including fields other than architecture, and this led me to painting. I don't quite know why. M. de S.-Well, in a sense painting has a philosophical undercurrent because when you decide to do this rather than that in a painting your decision is based on some concept of its rightness or goodness relative to the thing being made. I quite well see that you could become involved with painting through this interest in ideas but it did mean that you came to painting free from accepted notions ofwhat was involved in painting or fixed notions about the creative process. P. S.-It's true that I had to find out things for myself but one can never be wholly free of a concept ofwhat painting should be. At that time, I was subject to a kind ofdecorative involvement. I had heard of Max Ernst and I had seen the work of people who had been influenced by him, in particular the delcomania-frottage-a technical process that seemed to me to belong to the twentieth century. M. de S.-So in a sense you made contact with your century not altogether through ideas but through *Artist, St. Katharine Dock, St. Katharine Way, London, E.1., England. ** Art teacher, born 20 October 1915 at Sydney, Australia, died 26 October 1969 at London. (Received 9 March 1970). 167 a sort of technical break with tradition, while often retaining a suggestion ofimagery that could be related back to past centuries-sky, Moon, land, water and so on. P. S.-Yes, and the next step for me was to try to free myself from that image content that related to the past. And this effort really involved one going into chaos and the next step was in fact chaotic. It had something of Surrealism about it and was extremely involved technically, with a textural content that presented opportunities for seeing through and beyond to hidden potentialities . I came to painting through Surrealism. The paintings from that period are evidence of my struggle (cf. Fig. I). M. de S.-How wrong assumptions could be that are based purely on the evidence of your recent work. P. S.-Yet, if I can't carry something of this with me into my present work I wouldn't paint a picture-that's my feeling-it's a question of retaining something of the mystery. M. de S.-Could one put it that even in your present work the origination, the actual coming into being, still has to have for you an inherent magic -you can't contrive situations, you are still dependent on the element of surprise, the factor of chance. P. S.-Yes, the thing I fear most is that there may not be any element of discovery. M. de S.-You'd be inclined to give up painting if it ever became merely a system? P. S.-Yes, that's exactly it-and yet I always insist on there being a system operative within each painting, a desire to see it work to a sort of logical rhythm. M. de S.-And yet the control, the discipline and the element of decision that enters your work from about 1963 onwards might lead the average 168 Discussion between...