June Artist of the Month...

[Keith Russell]

...Gottfried Helnwein, b. 1948, Wein, Austria. Lives and works in Los Angeles and Ireland.



I've mentioned Gottfried Helnwein quite a few times at WetCanvas, probably several times in this very forum, but he remains one of my favourite artists. He was a successful commercial illustrator who made the "transition" to a fine art career. His work is imaginative, yet grounded in superb "realist" techniques, including photography. (He is also an in-demand photographer, having photographed numerous celebrities for international publications.) His current work is often violent and/or erotic, yet at the same time, it offers a visceral critique of violence--in particular, the racial violence of his native Austria under the Nazis, and the horrific violence perpetrated against children, today a global problem.

In 1979, Helnwein painted a picture of a dead child, it's head resting on a plate of poisoned food. This picture, published along with a letter written by Helnwein, helped force the resignation of a doctor who had been appointed to Austria's government after admitting that he had poisoned hundreds of children during the Nazi occupation of Austria.

In 1988, the installation Selektion (Ninth November Night) was exhibited in Cologne, Germany. A three-hundred-foot long wall of larger-than-life photographs of children's faces, their placement suggesting the selection of victims for concentration camps. Shortly after its installation, the work was vandalized, presumably by Neo-Nazis.



Since then, Selektion has been exhibited several times in cities around the world, and Helnwein has opted to exhibit the slashed photographs, the unrepaired vandalism adding another layer to the meaning to the work.

A series of paintings in the mid 1990s showed groups of Nazis admiring a Madonna and child (the latter bearing an uncanny resemblance to an infant Hitler). These photo-realistic black-and-white paintings were viewed by some as blatant anti-religious (or, more specifically, as anti-Christian) diatribes, but others viewed them as a warning of the fascist tendencies within religion, as well as being a grim reminder of the many collaborations between Catholic clergy and the Nazis themselves.



Helnwein does not recognize the usual art-world distinctions between 'commercial' and 'high' art. He often uses pop-culture imagery in his work (Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse) to critique consumer culture, and routinely uses his own photographs as the basis for his large-scale paintings. His paintings have been used on record and CD covers, and his celebrity photogaphs have been exhibited in art galleries. He has designed state sets for ballet and opera companies, and has collaborated with Marilyn Manson.

[~JON]

First, thank you for being our June presenter, Keith.

Your choice of artist is an intriguing one.
I find his works to be provocative and somewhat unsettling; I imagine this is the intent of the artist.

I look forward to reading the comments of other members.


Note:
Previous Artist of the Month topics:
January
February
March
April
May Damien Hirst

[Eraethil]

Yes, I find them unsettling as well, definitely in a good way. The images are complex enough to demonstrate technical expertise, and I think these examples are also well balanced and intriguing.

My favorite of the examples is the Messiah-Hitler image. I thought it was a photo initially, and knowing now that it is a painting, I can understand how he achieved such a provocative image with the child's very serious, almost predatory, stare at the viewer. The madonna and child reference is obvious, as is the Hitler reference, but I love the irony anyway. Are they wise men or are they shepherds?

[Use Her Name]

I've loved Gottfried Helnwein since first seeing his art in Omni Magazine in the early 80's. I used to tear them out and save them-- I still have 2-3 color plates of his. It's good to see he is still working and putting out great work. He and Etienne Sandorfii used to be my favorite Omni artists.

[Diane Cutter]

Thank you so much for re-introducing me to Helnwein. I'd seen his work years ago but then got busy elsewhere. I admire his skill as an artist and his passion with his message.

Diane

[Mario]

Yes, thanks for the presentation Keith. While I agree politically with the
'message', I don't go for art with a message. It could be used on either side
of the political ax and it seems to be stuck in the 'illustrator' mode...ugh.
It's tiring to have to interpret symbols and juxtapositions...Art ought to be an immediate zonk into the unconscious (in my opinion..)
This kind of art comes close to fascism in it's own rite in that it doesn't allow for anything but the depiction of 'perfect' realism, albeit with a blurr here and there..double ugh.. (We disagree in taste)

[Keith Russell]

Originally Posted by Mario

While I agree politically with the
'message', I don't go for art with a message.

I'm not trying to be dense when I ask--honestly--can you name a work of art that does not have a message? (I don't believe it's possible, so--truly, honestly--I don't know what you mean.)

It could be used on either side of the political ax and it seems to be stuck in the 'illustrator' mode...ugh.

I understand why this seems "illustrative" to you (it doesn't seem 'too' illustrative to me; I see a world of difference between this and, say, Jack Vettriano, or Thomas Kinkade, or Norman Rockwell.

But I really don't understand the "ugh". Not your thing, not to your liking, not your favourite style--I 'get' these, but I don't 'get' the 'ugh'. Should I be tired of this, too? Does your taste not allow me mine?

What sort of thing do you prefer? Care to name an artist or work of art that is more to your liking?

It's tiring to have to interpret symbols and juxtapositions...Art ought to be an immediate zonk into the unconscious (in my opinion...)

Can you name a work of art, or an artist, that provides this "zonk" for you?

This kind of art comes close to fascism in it's own rite in that it doesn't allow for anything but the depiction of 'perfect' realism, albeit with a blurr here and there..double ugh.. (We disagree in taste)

Yes, but more than that, you place a negative value-judgement (fascism!) on works that you don't like. Rather than just saying, "I don't like it", you say, "I don't like it, andit's fascist", as if you're trying to bolster your opinion, to convince yourself that your opinion (while only an opinion) is also 'right'. That seems far more fascist to me, than any artistic style or technique...

There is a great deal of Helnwein's work that is not hard-edged realism. Further, I don't think Helnwein is trying to 'disallow' (in any way) everything but 'perfect' (whatever that is) realism. He's a huge fan of Beuys, for one thing...

[serenely asymmetric]

Vive la différence.

I thought the artists comments about the potential humour in his work were interesting, not what I would have imagined.

Kenneth Baker, Chronicle Art Critic

He brightened at the question whether people admit to seeing humor in a painting such as "Epiphany I" or "American Madonna" (2000), in which the naked child points accusingly at two cops lifted from '40s American film noir.

"I think many of them have an aspect of humor in them," Helnwein said. "It doesn't mean that they're meant to be funny. But everything depends on the person who sees it. You have 10 people seeing a picture from different backgrounds and, for them, it's a completely different picture than for me. It's amazing how subjectively people see. It's like Duchamp said, the artwork is really a collaboration -- 50 percent is the artist and 50 percent is the viewer, which I totally agree with. I always have to remind myself that it's just a little bit of pigment on canvas and the rest is totally illusion."

[Mario]

Originally Posted by Keith Russell

I'm not trying to be dense when I ask--honestly--can you name a work of art that does not have a message? (I don't believe it's possible, so--truly, honestly--I don't know what you mean.)

Well, a Bonnard wouldn't send a 'message'..I'm using him as an example
only because I was looking at a monograph on his work yesterday.
Cezanne would not strike me as a message pusher neither. I'm sure that
I could come with more but I don't know yet if you agree about these two.


I understand why this seems "illustrative" to you (it doesn't seem 'too' illustrative to me; I see a world of difference between this and, say, Jack Vettriano, or Thomas Kinkade, or Norman Rockwell..)

..well, Rockwell, and this work look similar to me..only Rockwell spells it out
even more. This work has more symbolism that has to be interpreted...

But I really don't understand the "ugh". Not your thing, not to your liking, not your favourite style--I 'get' these, but I don't 'get' the 'ugh'. Should I be tired of this, too? Does your taste not allow me mine? .)

My 'ugh' is only my own gut reaction..I voiced it because it was there..you certainly can like what you like without my judgement.

What sort of thing do you prefer? Care to name an artist or work of art that is more to your liking?


Ok, my long-time favorite artist is Chaim Soutine.



Can you name a work of art, or an artist, that provides this "zonk" for you?

Again, Chaim Soutine does. Whereas the work featured here doesn't.



Yes, but more than that, you place a negative value-judgement (fascism!) on works that you don't like. Rather than just saying, "I don't like it", you say, "I don't like it, andit's fascist", as if you're trying to bolster your opinion, to convince yourself that your opinion (while only an opinion) is also 'right'. That seems far more fascist to me, than any artistic style or technique.

Well, it's difficult, for me, to explain this because I don't have the skill to.
However, a German friend once made an attempt at explaining 'fascist' art to me. It's those 'monumental' and 'archetypal' depictions of 'perfection'. The picture of the Nazis had that look but maybe that's a plus for the work..what
I was referring to is the look of 'photography'...there's a cultural acceptance of what is captured, in a click of the mono-eye, as REAL ....I don't like photography used that way..I see it (photo-realism (oxymoron) as 'fascist'..this is my own point of view/prejudice..I don't care if no one agrees.

There is a great deal of Helnwein's work that is not hard-edged realism. Further, I don't think Helnwein is trying to 'disallow' (in any way) everything but 'perfect' (whatever that is) realism. He's a huge fan of Beuys, for one thing.

I'm not that familiar with his work, yet. I will look into it. thanks

this is the first time i entered the color coding correctly..yipee!

[Keith Russell]

Well, a Bonnard wouldn't send a 'message'.

While Bonnard doesn't send an overtly political message, there is meaning in his work, both overt and implied...

Cezanne would not strike me as a message pusher neither.

I seem to recall Cezanne (the person) being fairly opinionated about art in general, and his own art, in particular. I also seem to recall that he intended his work to convey specific meanings, if not messages, especially via composition, colour, etc.

...I don't know yet if you agree about these two.

No, I don't think I do agree about these two.

..well, Rockwell, and this work look similar to me..only Rockwell spells it out even more. This work has more symbolism that has to be interpreted...

IMO, Rockwell was mostly trying to fulfill his client's wishes for an art that preached a "wholesome", "happy" sentiment. I know that there are examples of a more socially-conscious Rockwell, but they remain the exception to a much more familiar rule.

(Personally, I can't stand most of Rockwell's work.)

My 'ugh' is only my own gut reaction..I voiced it because it was there..you certainly can like what you like without my judgement.

Of course...

Ok, my long-time favorite artist is Chaim Soutine.

OK. He's not among my favourites, but...OK.

Well, it's difficult, for me, to explain this because I don't have the skill to. However, a German friend once made an attempt at explaining 'fascist' art to me. It's those 'monumental' and 'archetypal' depictions of 'perfection'. The picture of the Nazis had that look but maybe that's a plus for the work..what I was referring to is the look of 'photography'...there's a cultural acceptance of what is captured, in a click of the mono-eye, as REAL ...

So you don't like this type of art, because you believe that "contemporary Western visual society' has a preference for this 'look'? Aren't you letting others, with their preferences, dicate your own tastes?

You don't like this, simply because lots of other people, do?

I don't like photography used that way..I see it (photo-realism (oxymoron) as 'fascist'..this is my own point of view/prejudice..I don't care if no one agrees.

There are definitely others who agree with you. My seniour painting teacher (2006-2007) called my own student work (created under her guidance!--and her work was every bit as hard-edged as mine), "fascist"--as if there is a 'fascist' aesthetic which exists independently of a 'fascist' political system (I don't believe there is.)

I didn't understand her use of the word then, and I disagree with your own use of the word, now.