Dragon c. 1975

Editor: So, this is Victor Vasarely’s "Dragon," from around 1975, made with acrylic paint. It's surprisingly playful. The colors are so vibrant and the shapes, while abstract, definitely suggest a creature of some kind. How do you interpret this piece? Curator: The 'dragon' presents us with layered symbolic meanings. Dragons are ancient symbols, embodying both chaos and creative power across cultures. Vasarely abstracts the form, but the cultural memory of the dragon persists. Does the simplification amplify its primal nature? The bold colors - do they diminish or accentuate this? Editor: That's interesting – I hadn’t really thought about it in terms of primal symbolism. I was mostly just reacting to the bold shapes and colors. Curator: Consider how the geometric shapes suggest scales, teeth, perhaps even flames. These visual cues are embedded in our collective unconscious. Vasarely taps into something very old using a very modern, almost industrial, visual vocabulary. Is the tension there deliberate? How does it work? Editor: It feels like he's merging ancient mythology with this very modern, almost graphic design aesthetic, which is striking. It makes the dragon feel…contemporary, almost like it could exist in our world. Curator: Exactly. By stripping away detail, Vasarely isolates the core idea of 'dragon-ness'. The vibrant colors further detach it from the literal and grounds it as an immediate perceptual experience. How much do you think he might be playing with psychological archetypes in his construction? Editor: It's almost like he's distilling the idea of a dragon to its purest visual essence, remixing the historical significance into something completely new. I’ll definitely see Op art differently now! Curator: Indeed, it reveals how abstraction doesn’t negate meaning, but perhaps heightens and complicates it by engaging with established cultural symbology in new, visually arresting forms.