Abstract Figure 1966

Editor: Lynn Chadwick’s 1966 print, *Abstract Figure*, is composed of geometric forms that, well, abstractly suggest a human figure. The overlapping of different colored triangles gives it a real sense of depth. I'm curious to know how this piece speaks to you, particularly in the context of the mid-1960s. What do you see in this work? Curator: It is impossible to ignore the pervasive influence of the Cold War era in this image. In 1966, society grappled with fear, anxiety, and the rise of technology. Chadwick's reduction of the figure to geometric components could symbolize the dehumanizing forces perceived in burgeoning bureaucratic systems and the ever-increasing shadow of potential nuclear annihilation. Note the stark, almost rigid construction. Does that convey any sense of discomfort or tension to you? Editor: Absolutely, there's a definite rigidity. It's almost confrontational, not inviting at all. Do you think this kind of representation also reflects a disillusionment with traditional modes of representation? Curator: Certainly. There was a broader cultural move away from classical ideals of beauty and form after the Second World War. Abstraction provided artists a new vocabulary to articulate experiences that felt incompatible with traditional aesthetics. Institutions also played a huge role in supporting abstract expressionism as an assertion of western freedom in opposition to Soviet art. Editor: So the move towards abstraction itself can be seen as a political statement, endorsed and encouraged by major institutions? Curator: Precisely. What's fascinating is how seemingly apolitical artistic choices are inseparably intertwined with socio-political power structures. It provides much-needed context. Thank you. Editor: I agree completely. Seeing it in that light provides new perspective on artistic movements I always understood as purely formal experiments. It's been incredibly insightful!