Guvder, also known as Jean Guvdérelian 

Beirut, 1923

​

Hailing from a milieu that had been destroyed by the Armenian genocide and exile, Guvder underlined as one of the principal points of his biography – and in highly symbolic fashion – the fact that he was born on the high seas in 1923. He was going in exile to a society that was not deculturalised, as one might want to believe because its religious functions were socialised, but in the process of formation, and where the classic social divisions left little choice, despite an apparent freedom.

​

One of the peculiarities of Armenian drawing is an absence of sensitivity, compensated by a mastery of technique that verges on a mannerism that serves as style. This desensitization of the line beyond its function is also a means of supporting this function. The form is grasped as definitively flat and one works on this: the drawing-maker  – “el hacedor” Borges would say – replaces what would otherwise be the uncontrollable variations of mannerism. This manner of seizing form, of lowering it, suggests a frontal approach and the grasping of the subject as a block; a need to shock because the refinement of the nuances costs strength and time in the psychic economy. 

​

Guvder tosses and wearies reality by his drawing; he exhausts the drawing with reality. His work has the honesty of great art, which he thought it had to have, even if the humbleness of working on an endless motif does not impose a vision but a manner of painting. 

​

In his work, sometimes something appears that recalls the strength of Hélion, attentive to reality, making sure to stylise it, to render it more expressive. As in the Oriental tradition, the drawing dissolves space instead of putting it in perspective, a line divides the plan to the right and the left, and when the figure is introduced, it is like stenography, a reminder of the reality of the figure. The whole drawing is born from the old Oriental and Byzantine basis, without any frontal perspective. 

​

Guvder surrounded his still lifes with a background of gold leaf. In his drawing, something broken that served as sensitivity definitively subjugated this Oriental perspectiveless tradition.

​

After spending eleven years in Paris (1946-1957) and four years in Rome and around Italy (1959-1963), Guvder returned to Lebanon and opened a painting academy (14th October 1963-1973), which played an important role as a meeting place and artistic hub. 

​

He positioned himself as a pedagogue in front of the great masters, whom he dissected brilliantly for his students. He was also the pedagogue of his own art, in his manner of transmitting a superior craftsmanship, which is the basis of every apprenticeship. He only advanced in his art by reducing the limits of his ambition while always placing himself below the possible.

​

Guvder was important for his cultural reading of reality. Even if he saw the artist as an artisan and a creator, he did not see him as a manufacturer, for whom repeating a formula guaranteed the achievements of the canvas. He led a personal enterprise, with motivations and reference points, he trained painters, but he felt trapped – as the first customer of his own formulae, which he did not manage to surpass. 

​

What he exhibited was not a moment drawn by his drawing from the end of his logic. It was a virtuosity that turned itself into a dead end by exhausting the resources of the drawing, to such a point that he became its only witness. In a unique possibility, the ambition to compete with reality met the virtuosity of seizure. 

​

On the level of cultural history, the only proceedings consisten in community tragedies. The relationships between beings were only tangential and official: formalities and representation. 

​

For the individual who, like Guvder, cannot position himself within the time of a community, institutions propose a cultural frame – in general that of educational institutions. From the 1960s, some super-community institutions emerged, including the Guvder Academy, which closed its doors in 1973. The painter also taught at the American University of Beirut and at ALBA.

​

Guvder seemed to draw as a preparation for the perpetually nurtured project to be a great painter. Yet he did not start this project, being cornered by the drawing itself, and by his own virtuosity.

​

His other peculiarity was to have been an Armenian, whose exile was not at the level of the refugee camp, but at the edge of painting itself. 

​

Drawing’s path was too complex to reach painting, which he tried to possess through ferocity and repetition – yet ferocity and repetition did not necessarily imply taking possession, just as drawing could not be understood as tangible craftsmanship. It was not so much a proof of reality than a virtuoso exercise. He therefore stopped to this point. 

​

This does not mean that Guvder was going from a society without tradition, to a Lebanese society that did not have much more, but at least tried to build one. The way in which he functioned came from a desire to take possession of the world and of reality through drawing, but this was his only aim. What could this attempt lead to?

While Guv painted his anguish in order to conjure it, Guvder had to confront the impossibility of painting beyond a milieu and a society. When his only recourse and unique gamble were to develop himself as an individual, the question was asked again: can an individual develop a painting alone ?