Bouguereau Study at Arcadia Gallery

This painting was shown at the Boston International Fine Art Show last month. I didn’t get a chance to see the show, but apparently it was hanging on the outside wall of Arcadia’s booth, facing the show’s entrance. The gallery got a call yesterday from a collector whose wife saw it at the show and “fell in love with it.”

It’s getting shipped out today…

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?

The pro side countered with some of the advantages of using a large brush, namely saving time, being forced to consider the large forms first, and the painterly quality a large brush provides. 

The con side didn’t dispute the advantages, but questioned the issues inherent in holding such an all-inclusive thought.

Is it not more important to know why one chooses a certain brush? Its material, shape, spring and size all contribute to the marks it makes, and paintings are built with brush marks, even when those marks are hidden such as in my friend Tony Curanaj’s work. 

The debate raised some hackles and good questions. People always react when a belief is challenged, and artists seem to hold quite a few beliefs that can be challenged, such as the “never use black” belief. 

What do you think?

Civilisation, Matthew Collings

Check it out if you like…….

http://www.greenhillgalleries.com/exhibitions/exhibition_details_thalassoudis.html