He believes that the work community at the Eks-school was positively influenced by the fact that they worked on the same things. They defined a shared field of work within which they had to operate. There was mutual inspiration, and they also did not work individually. When they created sculptures, for example, they often started from a common foundation. For these sculpture sessions, a certain amount of wire would be purchased in advance, and they would then have to express themselves using that material. On another day, it might be polished metal sheets, and on a third, soft celotex boards, and so on. 

The fact that a specific group of people was required to explore a particular, preselected material meant that, in addition to their own ideas and discoveries, they were confronted with ten, twelve, or even twenty different interpretations of the same material, all stemming from other people’s individual approaches to that exact piece of wire. It was very exciting. Without actually planning it, they had the idea that when the three hours were up, the product had to be finished. That would be the end of that session, and they had to have some kind of result.

It was a learning situation. The teachers were just as involved as the students, and the concept of teacher-student was not in use. To emphasize this, they often said that the school had only one student – Poul Gernes. And then there were twenty professors – the others. Those who had originally started as teachers were obligated to carry out their own independent painting or whatever medium they worked with within the school’s framework. Private home studios were essentially abolished.

When they had messed about with wire for three hours, individually, and then placed the products side by side, they could clearly see that one was a constructive piece, another was sensitive, another naturalistic, and so on. Then they would discuss them, and regardless of artistic style or differences in expression, they were able to critique each other’s work, evaluate it, and decide whether it was good or bad. No matter whether they were constructivist or something else, they could all look at a surrealist sculpture and say that if it had been just a little longer, stretched out a bit more to the right, there would have been greater tension, it would have made it more expressive.

There was something about accepting each other and each other’s artistic expressions – about the fact that they actually managed to communicate across different artistic languages. What characterized the school’s environment was that the works that emerged from it, both then and now, were highly diverse. And the individuals who participated back then, many of whom still remain connected to some extent, have continued to be strongly individualistic.

Poul Gernes feels that the school brought together people who were able to accelerate each other. Something happened. He does not believe that these people had been specially selected in advance. Rather, he believes that the school environment fostered development, that people grew far beyond their individual abilities, and that the collaboration and shared experience nurtured something in them that would not have matured otherwise.

At least, this was true for him. He has a strong sense that although he might have reached the same level eventually, it would have taken him significantly longer. The school constituted a dynamic environment where they greatly accelerated each other.