Familiar to the general public for his transient or permanent, often hugely controversial interventions in the public space (1), for his recurring use of the vertical stripe motif, and even for taking issue with the museum institution (2), Daniel Buren was also immediately linked by art circles to the Conceptual art movement – in 1969, he was invited to the Konzept Art show in Lerverkusen, Germany, the first of its kind. While happy to engage in critical, reflexive thought on his work and on art in general, Daniel Buren has constantly developed the issues behind his own work. Thus he refuses the importance granted with hindsight by critics to the BMPT group (Buren, Mosset, Parmentier, Toroni) (3) and keeps reaffirming the importance, in his eyes, of the visual dimension and production of the work (the artwork does not exist of itself and the project cannot replace its presentation) – the very opposite of Conceptual art, a label he rejects. As a pioneer of the in situ installation (4), he designs each of his interventions specifically for the site (museum, private collection, public institution or space) where it is housed. He is undoubtedly one of those artists who have gone furthest with this investigation into the contextual dimension of art both in his work and in his writings. How the work and site are to tie in together is planned way beyond the mere formal relationship and involves all kinds of parameters extending beyond art history viewed as an independent field. “Kunst bleibt Politik” (art remains political) wrote Daniel Buren on being invited to a group exhibition in Düsseldorf in 1974, where a work by Hans Haacke was censored, echoing the title of the event “Kunst bleibt Kunst” (art remains art).

At Delme, Daniel Buren was wary of any approach emphasizing the site’s original sacred vocation and taking it as a place of worship to the detriment of its recent history – its deconsecration and conversion into an art centre. However, inasmuch as the synagogue’s former purpose is perceptible through its architecture, this is how the artist chose to handle it. The two-colour (blue and yellow) painting of the space and the application of (blue and white and yellow and white) stripes on the arch mouldings reveals the complexity and power of the architectural structure of the place, where the extreme bareness and powerful light further assert its unitary quality. The power of the religious institution and the complex body of theology are embodied in the very structure of the spaces and as such appear in the architecture of the place as it can be seen today.

C.D.