Paul Gernes, a large, heavy, unkempt, rustic type (rustic in the negative sense of the word), inarticulate, devoid of humor, and without any desire to express himself about anything except the Experimental Art School, which he constantly highlights as having, in his opinion, a very central place in Danish art. He states: when the art history of the 1960s is to be written, it will solely revolve around the Experimental Art School, as all other Danish visual production has nothing to do with art. This impression may stem from the fact that Gernes had a hand in founding the school. 

Another subject he can be persuaded to speak about is art journalism. He says that while we have excellent reviewers, we have no critics. By proper reviewers, he means someone who writes about where an exhibition is held, how long it is open, and possibly whether the artist’s work is larger or smaller this time, or if they are using more or less red than before. According to Gernes, this constitutes reviewing. Criticism, he says, is placing the exhibition in context and relating it to artistic development, which he believes is the most relevant way to evaluate art. 

Gernes would like to take this opportunity to retract all his previous statements about Statens Kunstfond (the Danish Arts Foundation). He has previously been very skeptical about the foundation and its work but has now changed his mind. He finds the arts foundation excellent and even appreciates it. However, he wishes that the state, the Carlsberg Foundation, the Tuborg Foundation, or another institution would take on the task of supporting advanced, development-driving art. Perhaps, he suggests, this is the type of fund that should have been established first, as it is the most necessary and would have the greatest impact. (He has not yet received any grants from the arts foundation.) 

Like most artists, he also believes he is the most advanced person in Danish art. He bases this claim on a long and intricate philosophy rooted as far back as Impressionist painting. He asserts that from Impressionism onward, a development began that, among other things, involved a continuous simplification: first, the solemnity and allegory disappeared; then the recognizable motif was dismantled. Soon, only the constructive elements of the motif remained; then construction vanished, leaving only form, color, and surface. When even these were discarded, only structure remained. According to Gernes, this was an unequivocal and logical progression, and, he says, from this point onward, development in the general sense of the word was no longer possible. Consequently, art became ironic, a negation of itself. The next logical step, he claims, is a new positivism, which he believes his own work represents. 

Among other highly advanced painters, he wishes to highlight ARTHUR KÖPCKE, JOHN DAVIDSEN, PER KIRKEBY, SVEN DALSGAARD, and GRAM HANSEN. There are probably some I’ve forgotten, he says, but not many.