In writing this post I found two images that are near-identical, but with different titles.
The one on the left, “Head of a Child 5″ 1998, is now in the Denver Art Museum, as seen below with its former owners, Vicki and Kent Logan, standing in front of it. The image on the left is from http://www.helnwein.com/ and is called “Untitled” [Detail] 1998.
On Helnwein’s site (http://www.helnwein.com/), is a quote from William S. Burroughs stating that “It is the function of the artist to evoke the experience of surprised recognition: To show the viewer what he knows but does not know that he knows. Helnwein is a master of surprised recognition”
I agree that Helnwein can indeed provoke surprised recognition, and can agree with Burrough’s definition of the artist’s function, although I think it is rather narrow in its scope. What I wonder about is whether his current painting method can really be called painting? According to another site, http://www.helnwein-museum.com/article1801.html, Helnwein prints digital photos onto large canvases and then dabs paint onto them. I would describe that as retouching a photograph, or something like that. Calling them “oil and acrylic on canvas” seems disingenuous. If Helnwein’s objective is to create images that spur “surprised recognition” then I wouldn’t think it would matter how the image is constructed, because the image’s impact is not keyed to painting. Why not create a new description for the process, one that doesn’t leave out a key component in order to prevent “the initial dazzle of Helnwein’s technique fad[ing] slightly with the knowledge that he begins with a photograph.”
Irish Landscape3 (Nire Valley) 2003
All this leaves me mainly unmoved. Part of me is glad to know how Helnwein manages to pull off these images. Part of me is glad he is making such big, impacting images.
But can it be called painting?
Hey Richard, First, I am really impressed with your paintings, they are beautiful!! Second,I have often wondered about Helnwein’s paintings, if not for the sheer number of paintings he produces in a year. Recently at the Modernism Gallery in San Francisco, where his work is represented, I was lucky enough to see his work, (and meet him) and receive a video called The Silence of Innocence, a film by Claudia Schmid, with Martin Muller. The work at Modernism was figurative, and it definitely was painted. (How much, and how much by him, I don’t know.) In the video, it shows Helnwein drawing his projected image on the canvas, and actually shows him finishing paintings, but not the “painitng process”, if you will. I would recommend the video, but it is mostly about Helnwein’s life, and not really his painting “secrets”. I really enjoyed it!
As Suzy Smith stated, Helnwein uses projectors to transfer the anatomical foundation accurately to the surface of the canvas. His paintings are then painted, NOT printed onto the canvas. For you to suggest otherwise, while offering no evidence to substantiate your claim, is offensive to the artist and misinformation you provide to anyone reading your blog. Helnwein, like many great artists throughout history, has employed the use of whatever technological and optical aids are available to him. The most important aspect of Helnweins work is the message. The process, although important, plays second fiddle.
If you still believe your statement to be accurate, please cite your sources so I can offer my apologies.
Hey Luke. No apology necessary. There’s a discussion of this on Helnwein’s own site, and mentions the disappointment viewers experienced when they found out he was painting on photographs. I know that Helnwein also projects, and the aim of the post was to explore where the boundaries of painting shift into another medium.
This is pulled from my post (I guess you missed it…)
“According to another site, http://www.helnwein-museum.com/article1801.html, Helnwein prints digital photos onto large canvases and then dabs paint onto them.”
The article is still online, if you care to read it.
Luke, you seem kind of sensitive about this issue. I went to your site and saw that you’ve painted on top of photographs at least once. Now that you’ve had time to read the article on the site above what do you think? Care to discuss?