Végvári Lajos: Imreh Zsigmond (Borsodi Kismonográfiák 13. Miskolc, 1981)

the timbre, that is why ha was so fond of still life, and the possibili. ties offered by a studio. Most of his pictures were made in crayon the technique of which he became an outstanding master. It cannot be explained from the busy life of a teacher, or the intensity of family life, it was rather due to his aptness of quick grasping a motive and the fast fixing of the emotional-logical resonation. Against his impressive nature, his aim was not the depiction of momentary impressions: he was interested in the problem of synthesis. He said: „I try to make unity of the equilibrium of different means of expression, the colour, the tone, the structure not for the sake of some partial problem but on the field of realistic depiction." He consciously developped his colorite through his studies of theory of colours. He mastered the colours. However, he did not accept colour to be the absolute and sole mean of picture painting, as the impressionists did, but showed at its complexity. Building a systematic order of the tone value of colours he formed the self standing logic of the dimension of depth and of security of space structure. Thus he avoided the air space of impressionism and the perspective-geometric space depicting model of the Renaissance. Some of his paintings reflect Cezanne's spherical space depictive method, that is he places the focus of the space not in the infinite, but regarding the spectator as centre directs the main planes of the objects in the picture towards him. His theory of colours and his order of colour timbre indicate that he depicted not uncertain patches but structures of colours. The different motives do not stand apart, he wanted to catch the dominant colour. He dealt neither with details nor with reflexions. His artistic logic formed an intimate logical structure of the natural motive yielding a bright order in his pictures. His structure building mind shows no connection with the ancient geometrical forms, characteristic of Cezanne's successors. He did not compare an apple or a leafage to a sphere, a vase to a cylinder or a house to a prism: colour had potential importance in forming the object, giving the impression of created structure. Thus he succeeded in realisation of his assumption that a synthesis and a modern view of form can be reached preserving, in the same time, the natural outlook. Though he turned away from Vaszary he remained true to his teaching, in many respects. Mainly it can be felt in the way he put on the colours. His dinamic, broad leading of the crayon reminds of a sweep with dry brush. The visibility of the different layers offers the impression of dinamism of micro spaces. In other cases the direction of crayon leading closes up the patch of colour and gives 40