Z ZERO

Speaker 1: I think we are now all here. I would like to welcome you to our final plenary discussion. Over the last two days, you have heard a lot about ZERO, about the art and the artists, about the movement and the circumstances at the time. Yet the question of defining the essence of ZERO remains unanswered. What is ZERO?

Speaker 2: Why are you, the ZERO foundation, asking us this question?

Speaker 1: Because one of the aims of this conference is to attempt to find an answer. For this much is certain: so far no single, consistent definition exists.

Otto Piene said that ZERO was not so much a fixed group as rather a group of artists who shared a point of view or an idea. At the beginning of the nineteen-seventies, long after the artists had ceased to operate under these auspices, Heinz Mack produced diagrams that tell us something about origins and affiliations—Astrit Schmidt-Burkhardt has given a detailed presentation of this topic.

Various attempts have been made to list or count the artists who participated in ZERO exhibitions, that is, using a quantitative approach, which in itself has nothing against it except for the objection that there is uncertainty attached to the term “ZERO exhibition.” Which exhibitions belong or belonged in this category? Certainly not only those that had “ZERO” in the title.

The various approaches of network theory might also provide methods. However, such approaches are complicated by the historical development of the “ZERO group,” which, as a group that initially seemed homogeneous, soon split into different artistic directions, such as the Nouveaux Réalistes, headed by Pierre Restany, or the GRAV (Groupe de Recherche d’Art Visuel), both in Paris, or the Gruppo N (enne) in Padua and the Gruppo T in Milan. While, at the end of the nineteen-fifties, an open field of action had developed, in which artists with different (war) experiences, with individual artistic approaches, and from different countries—such as Italy, Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands, or Switzerland—were involved, at the beginning of the nineteen-sixties the movement had differentiated into individual local groups.

Speaker 3: One definitely has to concentrate on the collaboration during the decisive ZERO years, because it creates a false picture if activities that took place later are characterized as genuinely ZERO.

Speaker 4: However, one could come to the conclusion that ZERO is or remains undefinable because ZERO did not define itself.

Speaker 2: Perhaps we should concentrate on the artistic manifestos, and read and evaluate the statements from that time.

Speaker 5: And we mustn’t lose sight of the zeitgeist of the time.

n.

Speaker 6: If we look at ZERO from the point of view of its constitution, the question arises as to belonging—that is, inclusion, and thus of course also exclusion. Who belonged and who was excluded? Or did ZERO have an osmotic character? Some took part in certain exhibitions, others did not, but the circle was never exclusive. People took part in ZERO when it suited them. In this respect, Piene is right when he says that ZERO consisted of a community of like-minded people. There was no manifesto, but they did share principles. Using these principles, one could try to define ZERO. ZERO was not an autonomous community; rather, they were looking to connect to the zeitgeist.

Speaker 7: We also must bear in mind that there were artists whose work was based on the ideas of ZERO, but who did not necessarily belong or want to belong personally to this circle. In this respect, the community of like-minded people must be critically reviewed. Animosities did exist, so that some were accepted, and others not. And in 1963, the idealism proclaimed by Piene meant that the common ground was already passé. I would say that ZERO was an open network where information flowed.

Speaker 8: When I received the invitation to this conference, I asked myself what ZERO means, this “nought or nil” that has to be seen against the background of the Second World War, as simple as that might sound at first. First and foremost, it meant that you set yourself apart from your contemporaries in order to make a new start, which you had to do. It was no different for musicians, in fact even more so. They set themselves apart from tradition and this defined the group that wanted to do everything differently.

The other point is the view of the individual as an individual and as part of a group. In the visual arts, this meant finding one’s identity between individual and group exhibitions. How many and what compromises could one make and want to make?

And finally, developments in European countries also differed, at least in music. In France, there was no need to distance oneself politically from one’s parents; it was a normal generational conflict.

In our reflections, we have to break down various individual narrative strands in order to see the national and generational conflicts that have not been overcome, and to make the divisions clear that we want to overcome. Then you can see how great the diversity is and what remains in common.

Speaker 1: But the ZERO people deliberately ignored national borders. Their colleagues from the Netherlands, for example, following ZERO, called themselves the Nul group from 1961 onward. The artists were in agreement that they didn’t accept national borders, that they didn’t want to take them into account. I think they did this because of their experiences of National Socialism and Fascism. They wanted to think beyond borders and nations. And yet there were places in which they felt more comfortable than in others. Mack once said that he felt very comfortable in Milan at the end of the nineteen-fifties, and one can imagine that as a German in Italy you perhaps experienced less resentment than in France.

Perhaps the ZERO people were much more united in their resistance toward what they no longer wanted to experience. It is a frequently observed phenomenon that people are more likely to agree on what they don’t want rather than the formulation of a common goal.

Speaker 7: Let’s take a closer look at the question of art. As we heard in Barbara Büscher’s contribution on theater and performance, there was a connection very early on between visual and performative art in ZERO.

Speaker 3: The lecture by Marco Meneguzzo, who explained how ZERO art created new spaces through light—that is, initiated a new way of thinking about space—also fits in with this. This is a feature that one comes across again and again.

Speaker 8: Now how does this relate to the political aspect? We agreed that 1945 played a role. There is also the question of the influence of art and music from the United States.

Speaker 9: It is really astonishing that so soon after the war it didn’t matter whether the artists were from France or Italy, and that they all exhibited in Germany again.

Speaker 2: There were also other new beginnings of art in Europe, such as the Situationists in Paris, who expressed themselves far more politically. In literature, the “zero hour” was seen by Adorno as the impossibility of continuing to write poetry. Painters said that they no longer wanted to paint figuratively. On the other hand, some Germans felt the need to become artistically active right now. ZERO made a new start by celebrating freedom. They wanted to leave the conclusively or authoritatively fixed spaces and go out into nature. Art, nature, and technology should come together.

Speaker 7: I see ZERO as an artists’ initiative with an open or semi-open network—perhaps the term “competition” would also be appropriate. Back then it was certainly different from today’s perspective; I would describe it as “Düsseldorf cosmos.”

Speaker 10: The Evening Exhibitions were important. In these, the artists came together, as artists always do very well and efficiently in my experience. As I said, it was the time of many initiatives in the nineteen-sixties in Europe. Like-minded people were very well connected and the network developed in all manner of directions. But it was no longer considered necessary to draw up a joint manifesto or something like that. This meant that the artists as individuals were concerned with different things and so it was only logical to disband in 1966. At the moment of their greatest success, so to speak, with exhibitions in the USA and Europe, they no longer saw any point in continuing their activities as a group. And indeed, it was three very different characters who came together in the Düsseldorf ZERO group. This cold and emotionless ZERO art, which was not based on any tradition and was therefore not contaminated, certainly met with astonishment in France and America.

In all our reflections thus far, however, we have overlooked one thing: the marketing effect of the “traveling circus” ZERO, which created a “brand” that still exists today.

Speaker 7: Which went under at first, but ZERO has survived: as art, as a brand, and with its posters.

Speaker 10: The ZERO brand has survived and that is decisive.

Speaker 4: I would like to go back to two topics. The first is the idea of ideologization. The first avant-gardes in the nineteenth century all went hand in hand with a concept that was an “ism,” which is basically a politico-artistic term. ZERO is now no longer an association or a grouping or a tendency, but a fixed association, in essence an aesthetic party, so that it is now no longer this political ideologization qua label.

The nice thing for me is simply that the ZERO foundation can serve three typologies that work. One is obviously the map, the second is planning, and the third is the network. And all three typologies are contained in the three diagrams presented—the topographical distribution of the different imaginary dimensions, contextualization, and planning.

Speaker 2: But is it legitimate to use these diagrams made afterwards to answer the question of what ZERO was? For me, it plays a decisive role from which authorial perspective a diagram or a definition is formulated. The group at the time would certainly have given different answers than we do today. But maybe that’s just a slight shift.

Speaker 8: May I ask another question that has always bothered me with regard to music? What do the artists decide, and what do others decide? How can we distinguish between content and marketing strategies? How can we describe the relationship between content and distribution?

Speaker 5: I see it differently; good art was always rejected in its time and only became established later on.

Speaker 8: Which actors contributed to this?

Speaker 5: You could perhaps describe it as a large network.

Speaker 2: Let’s take another look at the experiences of these artists born between 1926 and 1936, who were between ten and eighteen years old at the end of the war; an age at which one is fully cognizant of one’s memories. If we compare the ZERO cohorts with those born after 1937—with artists such as Sigmar Polke—differences in their approach to politics or political issues quickly become apparent.

Speaker 7: I think that the experience of this collective war trauma is certainly important; it is often underestimated.

Speaker 11: Yes, but you should also bear in mind that there were countries where people felt very strongly that they were victims of the war, and they had to come to terms with that. That’s why I was always surprised that ZERO was received with such open arms in other countries. I think that this was a sign that at that time everyone just wanted to look ahead and perhaps gave up national perspectives as a result. Which was certainly not easy for the neighbors behind the Iron Curtain.

Speaker 1: Thus it was easier in Germany to bring out a publication with the title “ZERO”—a nice-sounding word here but always quickly associated with “nought, nil” abroad. By the way, it’s not always easy for the ZERO foundation to have to introduce itself as the “nil foundation.”

Speaker 1: However, over and above artistic concerns, the brand “ZERO art” certainly also served marketing purposes. Otherwise, the decades-long discussions about who belonged to it and who didn’t would have been uninteresting. The ZERO “traveling circus” was also about marketing, but not exclusively.

Speaker 2: I think we have collected a lot of thoughts and viewpoints. Yet we may have forgotten something crucial. Everyone: please think again whether all the important keywords, thoughts, ideas, and suggestions have been addressed.

Speaker 12: Here are the results of yesterday’s group work. There are a few more terms that should be mentioned, such as “turning toward the cosmos” and, based on this, a macro and a micro structure.

Another term that has not yet been mentioned in the discussion is “expedition”: ZERO as an expedition. We have already talked about “ZERO as an umbrella brand.” And again and again we have come across the network, sometimes referred to as a “traveling circus” and at other times as an artistic initiative.

Speaker 7: ZERO is often described as a movement.

Speaker 2: I like the expression because one can read a double meaning into it, the associations with a movement of the mind and at the same time something physically real. Movement as restlessness, change, metamorphosis.

Speaker 1: And it will probably stay that way, because we have now heard many opinions and conducted exciting discussions, but I’m afraid we still have no definition of ZERO. One question about ZERO spawns a thousand new ones like the heads of the Hydra.

Many thanks to you for your thoughts and suggestions, and to the organization team for the excellent hospitality at all times during the conference. Have a safe journey home.

This text has been translated from German into English by Gloria Custance.