Untitled Fragment 1, 1965

The Optical Illusion That Redefined Modern Abstraction

Few works encapsulate the radical shift in 1960s British art as sharply as Bridget Riley’s Untitled Fragment 1. Created in 1965, this acrylic composition distills the Op Art movement into a single, pulsating visual experience. The painting’s interlocking black-and-white curves generate an immediate sensation of movement—a hallmark of Riley’s mature style, where geometric precision meets perceptual instability. Unlike earlier Op Art experiments that relied on repetitive patterns, this fragment demonstrates Riley’s ability to create dynamic tension through asymmetrical forms, a technique she refined during her pivotal 1960s period.

The work emerged during a transformative phase in Riley’s career, following her groundbreaking 1962 exhibition at Gallery One in London. By 1965, she had abandoned the smaller, more controlled studies of her early years in favor of larger, more ambitious compositions that engaged viewers’ vision on a physiological level. Untitled Fragment 1 exemplifies this evolution: its undulating shapes appear to expand and contract when viewed, a phenomenon Riley achieved through meticulous adjustments to curve widths and spacing. The painting’s optical effects are not merely decorative but structural—each line’s placement determines the viewer’s perceptual response, a concept Riley explored in her 1965 essay ‘The Pleasures of Sight’, published in Studio International.

Riley’s 1965: The Year Op Art Conquered the Mainstream

By 1965, Bridget Riley had become the most visible figure in the Op Art movement, a status cemented by her inclusion in The Responsive Eye, the Museum of Modern Art’s landmark 1965 exhibition. This show, curated by William C. Seitz, positioned Riley alongside international artists like Victor Vasarely and Jesús Rafael Soto, but her work stood out for its rigorous approach to perceptual psychology. Unlike Vasarely’s mechanical precision or Soto’s kinetic sculptures, Riley’s paintings—including Untitled Fragment 1—demonstrated how subtle variations in static two-dimensional forms could produce the illusion of depth, movement, and even color where none existed.

The fragment’s creation coincided with Riley’s first major museum acquisition: her 1962 painting Movement in Squares entered the Tate’s collection in 1965, the same year she began working on larger, more complex compositions. This period also marked her transition from commercial emulsion paints to acrylics, a medium that allowed for sharper edges and more consistent surfaces—critical for the optical effects she sought. As art historian Robert Kudielka notes in his 1971 monograph, Riley’s 1965 works represent a “deliberate exploitation of the gap between the physical reality of the canvas and the viewer’s perceptual reality,” a gap that Untitled Fragment 1 exploits with particular sophistication.

Riley’s 1965 fragments reveal her shift from systematic repetition to controlled irregularity—a strategy that forces the eye to constantly recalibrate, creating the illusion of spatial fluctuation without any actual depth cues.

The Engineering Behind the Illusion

Composition: Calculated Asymmetry

The painting’s apparent simplicity belies its structural complexity. Riley abandoned the strict vertical/horizontal grids of her earlier works in favor of diagonal curves that intersect at carefully plotted intervals. Each black shape’s width varies by millimeters—a deliberate irregularity that prevents the eye from settling into a predictable rhythm. This asymmetry distinguishes Untitled Fragment 1 from her 1961–62 black-and-white paintings, where uniform repetition created a more stable (if still oscillating) visual field.

Surface and Execution

Riley’s technique involved multiple layers of acrylic applied with a fine brush, building up the black forms to achieve absolute flatness. The white ground was left unpainted, its raw canvas texture providing a subtle contrast to the matte black curves. This approach ensured that the optical effects resulted purely from the interaction of shapes and negative space, without any textural distractions. The 30×40 cm scale—smaller than her monumental works like Fall (1963)—allowed Riley to experiment with tighter curves and more abrupt transitions between forms.

Where to Display Bridget Riley’s Optical Energy

This print’s high-contrast palette and dynamic composition demand careful placement. The 30×40 cm dimensions make it ideal for smaller walls where its optical effects can dominate without overwhelming. Hang it in a modernist interior with neutral tones—white, gray, or black walls amplify the painting’s vibrating effect, while warm wood accents (like teak or walnut) provide necessary contrast to the stark monochrome. Avoid busy patterns nearby; the work needs visual breathing room to fully activate its perceptual tricks.

For maximum impact, position the print at eye level in a narrow corridor or staircase landing, where viewers’ shifting perspectives will intensify the illusion of movement. In living spaces, pair it with mid-century modern furniture—think Eames chairs or Saarinen tables—to echo the 1960s context of its creation. Under track lighting, the matte surface reveals subtle texture variations that enhance the optical experience.

More Works by Bridget Riley

Explore Riley’s evolution from early black-and-white studies to her later color investigations.

Bridget Riley

Kiss, 1961

View print

Bridget Riley

Untitled Diagonal Curve, 1966

View print

Bridget Riley

Arrest 1, 1965

View print

Bridget Riley

Hesitate, 1964

View print

You May Also Love

Arte Povera

Alberto Burri

White Cretto, 1975

View print

Metaphysical Art

Carlo Carra

Quirinal Stables

View print

Spatialism

Lucio Fontana

Concept Spatial

View print