Stefanie Gutheil
menschenschattenwesending
7.3.-30.3.2014

With her first solo show at Helsinki Contemporary, the Berlin-based painter Stefanie Gutheil gives us a taste of honey. Honey – the organic, fluid and warmth-inducing substance of honey, understood and seen as a symbol for the act of painting that perfectly well knows where it's coming from, and an act that just as perfectly well manages to articulate a physically and visually attractive contemporary version.

What we see is painting in action. It is taking place right here, right now, dealing with the massively overblown visual information which confronts and surrounds all of us, day in, day out. Gutheil faces this challenge head-on, and with verve. She takes no prisoners, so to speak, when and while these paintings shape the sense of reality we tremble before and deal with. When Die Stimmung is correct, nothing, nothing can beat this feeling.

This is painting as a conscious continuation of the expressive mode, taking us on a tour de force via the German masters of the 1920s and 1930s, all the way to classical painters like Hieronymus Bosch and Diego Velasquez. It is always, constantly boiling over and freezing over. It is a process that definitely stays far, far away from the closing doors of neat and tidy harmony. This is where the weirdness of the boring everyday meets scary monsters and animal-like figures: they shake hands furiously and provide fabulous connotations of imaginary conflicts – and, let us not forget, caressing acts.

They create sensualities and sensibilities that do not merely break even. They become more, much more than we could expect. Like the title of the show – menschenschattenwesending, which translates as the poetic near nonsense combination of people, shadows, essence and things – they add the sharp edge of the unknown but yet expected to the mix, the sweet and tender suspense of the things to come.

With Gutheil, these sensualities and sensibilities turn into paintings, like caterpillars that turn into butterflies, colourful and playful takes on our hybrid realities, articulating the strongly lived-through and felt co-existence of mixed worlds and sensations.

“There is a valid reason for mixing different and seemingly absurd elements with each other. This is clear in the case of painting a figure. If the figure would be, let’s say, only a human being, I would so easily get stuck in the game of representation – as in the question does it look like the type of a human being it is supposed to look like, or not. It is the honest dilemma of what is the role and place for a figure in a painting that is not abstract and not realistic. The question being: if it is not this or that, what is it then?”

“When I mix these things, and the figure of a person is a mix of human and animal tendencies and features, it is impossible to step back and question, or to think whether this is realistic or representational. It turns into something different, something else. For me, it signifies the move from illustration towards doing a painting – and doing this with the means that are available for my type of painting.”

“The idea that I have is to bring together elements and issues, whatever they are, in the visual field, and kind of force them together, carefully and caressingly – showing that at least in the realm and reality of a painting, they actually not only fit but do, in fact, really belong next to one another, that these seemingly paradoxical parts need to be and belong together.”

Quotes from a discussion between Stefanie Gutheil and Mika Hannula

Berliiniläistaiteilija Stefanie Gutheilin ensimmäinen yksityisnäyttely Helsinki Contemporaryssa on maalausta itsessään ja parhaimmillaan. Se on maalausta aistillisena ja kehollisena, viileänä ja villinä läsnäolona. Se on kuin visuaalista hunajaa – orgaanista, lämpöä ja lempeä tuottavana hyvinkin viettelevänä ja viekkaana olemuksena. Maalauksellisena tekona, joka on tarkasti tietoinen omasta perinnöstään kuin myös mahdollisuuksista maalauksen fyysiseen ja henkiseen tämänhetkiseen artikulointiin.

Stefanie Gutheilin kohdalla katsomme maalausta liikkeenä – ja liikkeessä. Se on maalausta, joka aktiivisesti hakee suhdettaan ympäristöön, erityisesti meitä kaikkia koskettavan tiedon ja kuvamateriaalin vyöryn kautta. Gutheil kohtaa tämän viriketulvan aiheuttaman haasteen ja hän kohtaa sen vauhdilla ja voimalla. Hän ei epäile, ei kysy lupaa, eikä ainakaan pyydä anteeksi. Hän suodattaa ja suojaa, muuntaa ja muokkaa. Gutheil antaa mennä – ja menee itse perässä saaden aikaan hyvin omaperäisen ja viehättävän tavan tehdä maalausta.

Kyse on maalauksesta, joka asettuu suoraan jatkumoon ekspressiivisen tyylin kanssa, vieden meidät mukaansa suurelle matkalle, jossa käymme kylässä 1900-luvun alkupuolen saksalaisten mestareiden luona ja jatkamme matkaa aina klassisiin tekijöihin, kuten Hieronymus Boschiin ja Diego Velasqueziin.

Se on maalausta, joka ei koskaan taivu tasan, se ei pysähdy raameihin, ei figuuriin. Se menee ja tulee yhtäaikaisesti yli ja ali, pysyen hyvinkin hanakasti erossa kaikenlaisesta tasapäisyydestä ja sisäsiististä. Näissä maalauksissa arjen armollinen omituisuus kohtaa eläinhahmojen pelottavan fantasian. Ne kohtaavat, kättelevät ja saavat aikaan konnotaatioiden myllerryksen, jossa olennaista on mennä mukaan, osallistua vauhdin luomiseen ja äkkivääriin pysähdyksiin, mutta myös muistaa pitää tiukasti kiinni siitä huivista.

Tuloksena sarja maalauksia, jotka ovat enemmän, paljon enemmän kuin osaisimme odottaa. Pääsemme lähelle sensuaalisuutta ja tunneherkkyyttä, joka näyttelyn nimen mukaisesti menschenschattenwesending - kääntyy yhdistelmäksi ”ihmiset, varjot, oliot ja asiat” – tuo aina ja alati yhtälöön, siihen kohtaamiseen kera, maalauksen elementtejä, joista osan me tunnemme ja tunnistamme, mutta joista osat ovat täynnä oikullisia ja ovelia jännitteitä.

Gutheilin kohdalla tämä jännite, vuoroveto oletusten ja kokemuksen välillä, muokkaantuu maalaukseksi, jossa vastakohdat eivät hyljeksi vaan halaavat toinen toisiaan, luoden maalauksen tilan ja tilaisuuden, joka on monta ja monessa, hybridi-identiteetti täynnä ristiriitaisia mutta nautinnollisia täsmällisyyksiä – tapauksia, joista tulee se yksi, se singulaari, se tietty ja tämä.

“On olemassa validi syy erilaisten ja näennäisesti absurdien elementtien sekoittamiseen. Tämä on selvää hahmon maalauksen kohdalla. Jos hahmo olisi, sanotaan vaikka, ainoastaan ihminen, jumittuisin helposti esittämisen peliin – kuten kysymykseen; näyttääkö se sellaiselta ihmiseltä, jolta sen on tarkoitus näyttää, vai ei. Kyseessä on rehellinen dilemma siitä, mikä on hahmon rooli ja paikka maalauksessa, joka ei ole abstrakti eikä realistinen. Kysymys kuuluu: jos se ei ole sitä tai tätä, niin mitä se sitten on?”

“Kun sekoitan nämä asiat, ja hahmo on sekoitus ihmisen ja eläimen taipumuksia ja piirteitä, on mahdotonta astua taaemmas ja kyseenalaistaa tai ajatella, onko tämä realistinen vai kuvaava. Se muuttuu joksikin erilaiseksi, joksikin muuksi. Minulle tämä tarkoittaa siirtymää kuvittamisesta maalauksen tekemiseen – ja tämän tekemistä keinoilla, joita on tarjolla minunlaiselleni maalaamiselle.”

“Ajatukseni on tuoda yhteen elementtejä ja ongelmia, mitä ne ikinä ovatkaan, visuaalisella kentällä, ja ikään kuin pakottaa ne yhteen, varovaisesti ja hellästi – näyttääkseni, että ainakin maalauksen alueella ja sen todellisuudessa ne itse asiassa eivät ainoastaan sovi, vaan suorastaan kuuluvat yhteen, että näiden näennäisesti paradoksaalisten osien täytyy ja kuuluu olla yhdessä.”

Lainaukset keskustelusta Mika Hannulan kanssa

Den första separatutställningen på Helsinki Contempoarary av den berlinbaserade konstnären Stefanie Gutheil är måleri i sig och som bäst. Det är måleri som sensuell och kroppslig, som sval och vild närvaro. Det är som visuell honung – organiskt, värme- och kärleksingivande, väldigt förförande och lömskt. En målningsakt, som är utmärkt väl medveten om var den kommer ifrån och likaså om möjligheterna till det rådande målandets fysiska och psykiska artikulation.

I Stefanie Gutheils fall observerar vi målningen som en rörelse - och i rörelse. Det är målning, som aktivt söker relationen till omgivningen, speciellt via informations- och bildflödet, som berör oss alla. Gutheil möter den här utmaningen orsakad av stimulansflödet och hon möter den med hastighet och kraft. Hon tvekar inte, frågar inte om lov och ber framförallt inte om ursäkt. Hon filtrerar och skyddar, förändrar och bearbetar. Gutheil släpper loss – och följer själv efter, skapande ett väldigt originellt och fötrjusande sätt att måla.

Det är frågan om måleri, som utgör en direkt fortsättning på den expressiva stilen, som tar oss med på en hisnande resa via de tyska mästarna från början på 1900-talet, hela vägen tillbaka till klassiska målare som Hieronymus Bosch och Diego Velázquez.

Det är måleri, som aldrig går jämnt ut, som aldrig stannar innanför ramerna eller i figuren. Det kommer och går samtidigt över och under, det stannar långt ifrån all sorts jämställdhet och rumsrenhet. Det är här som det underliga i den skonsamma vardagen möter den skrämmande fantasin av djurliknande figurer. De möter, skakar hand och åstadkommer ett virrvarr av konnotationer. Det är väsentligt att gå med, att delta i ökandet av farten och i de tvära bromsningarna, men också att komma ihåg att hålla ett hårt tag om den där scarfen.

Resultatet är en serie målningar, som är mera, mycket mera än vi kunde vänta oss. Vi närmar oss sensualitet och sensibilitet, som enligt namnet på utställningen menschenschattenwesending – som översatt utgör kombinationen “människor, skuggor, varelser och ting” – alltid och ständigt tar oss till ekvationen, den med mötet med målningens element, där vi känner till och igen en del, men vars delar är fulla av besynnerliga och sluga spänningar.

I Gutheils fall förvandlas den här spänningen, växlingen mellan förmodan och erfarenhet, till målningar, där motsatserna inte stöter ifrån varandra utan kramar varandra, skapande utrymme och möjligheter i målningarna, som är många och i många, en hybrid identitet full av kontroversiell men njutningsfull precision – fall som blir ett, singularet, just det specifika.

”Det finns en giltig orsak till att blanda skilda och skenbart absurda element med varandra. Det här är självklart då man målar en figur. Om figuren vore, ska vi säga, enbart en människa, skulle jag så lätt fastna i spelet av representation – som frågan om den ser ut som den människa den ska likna, eller inte. Det är frågan om ett uppriktigt dilemma, som handlar om vilken är rollen och platsen för en figur i en målning, som inte är abstrakt eller realistisk. Frågan lyder: om den varken är det här eller det där, vad är den då?”

”När jag blandar ihop dessa saker, och figuren blir en blandning av mänskliga och djuriska tendenser och drag, är det omöjligt att ta ett steg tillbaka och ifrågasätta eller tänka om det är realistiskt eller representerande. Den förvandlas till något annorlunda, något annat. För mig betyder det att förflytta mig från att illustrera till att måla – och att göra detta med de medel som är tillgängliga för mitt sätt att måla.”

”Idén jag har är att föra samman element och problemställningar, vilka de än är, på det visuella fältet, och liksom tvinga dem ihop, försiktigt och smeksamt – och visa att i alla fall inom målningens område och verklighet passar de egentligen inte bara in, utan faktiskt hör hemma bredvid varandra, att dessa skenbart paradoxala delar måste finnas till och hör ihop.”

Citaten ur en diskussion mellan Stefanie Gutheil och Mika Hannula

Stefanie Gutheil

Discussion – Stefanie Gutheil & Mika Hannula

menschenschattenwesending

Mika Hannula: Talking about and with paintings: how does your working process begin?

Stefanie Gutheil: I never do sketches, or if I do, I do them in my head. I begin with an idea, and this idea is often of a certain character, a character that is then connected to a certain type of a Stimmung, in German, a certain type of atmosphere or sensibility.

It’s all very strongly based on an intuition – like in the work with the sitting person with a red deer’s hybrid constructed head. I knew I just wanted to paint that particular animal’s head. What then happens, what is added, and which way the painting’s route takes me, is decided during the process.

This Stimmung can be and takes place within a whole wide range of possibilities. Like in the work with a pineapple and a man sitting on a table: here the feeling for it – or how it began – is how that man sitting there on a table looks kind of lost and lonely, but how what is then gathered and placed around him makes him more balanced in a strange and weird way, because the elements in the painting are odd and do not really make sense. However, the result, in one way, is that now he has been found. He is no longer alone; he now belongs to and with the painting.

MH: What’s the theme, the background of this current series of works?

SG: I don’t know. There is no single theme or background. What I do is that I am influenced by everything that is around me – all the overblown amount of visual information which is thrown at us. And well, then, then I try to relate and reflect with that in and through the paintings.

Clearly, I have a strong affinity with some of the classical masters, obviously with Hieronymus Bosch, and with Velasquez, for example, but they are kind the backdrop, works and pictures that have been there with me for a long time, not necessarily that active in the ongoing processes, or even in the consciousness. What is interesting is how their meanings – when mentally and physically moving from their own time towards today – have either changed or stayed similar, and their effects, too. Just think about the whole mess and chaos in them or the brutality of the scenes of war and so on. It kind of shows me that life and all the connected things around it were indeed never that clear cut or as simple as is often claimed. The mess is, well, undeniably part of our lives and us.

A lot of what I do has this specific and peculiar sense to it, this notion that basically, when thinking about it, quite a lot of what’s going on in the world, whether in politics or society, or in the arts, I am quite lost and baffled. I do not really get it. I feel that I don’t really understand what’s going on. And this open confrontation with the notion of not understanding, and facing it, dealing with it, is a source and motivation that drives me, and the works, too.

MH: You often combine different figurative means and worlds, such as animal and human aspects. Where does that idea of mixing come from?

SG: Again, I can’t really say. What I do know is that I am interested in – and I am also myself partly like that, living it and at it daily – how we often are a strange combination of seemingly non-matching things and entities, such as animal and human features or beings or, for example in the question of gender (which for me is not about either-or categories but about something else), something that is fluid and on the move.

What I am interested in is this hybrid identity, mixed forms co-existing. I don’t feel for or understand the kind of categorization, that there is first one closed unity there, and that it then is totally isolated from another unity of something else. For me, these differences exist within oneself, and also within one painting, one work.

MH: How is then this manifested in your paintings?

SG: In terms of painting, there is a valid reason for mixing different and seemingly absurd elements with each other. This is clear in the case of painting a figure. If the figure would be, let’s say, only a human being, I would so easily get stuck in the game of representation – as in the question does it look like the type of a human being it is supposed to look like, or not.

It is the honest dilemma of what is the role and place for a figure in a painting that is not abstract and not realistic. The question being: if it is not this or that, what is it then? And, well, somehow these combinations of animal and human figures are one way of solving this dilemma for me, not generally but within each work.

When I mix these things, and the figure of a person is a mix of human and animal tendencies and features, it is impossible to step back and question, or to think whether this is realistic or representational. It turns into something different, something else. For me, it signifies the move from illustration towards doing a painting – and doing this with the means that are available for my type of painting.

The idea that I have is to bring together elements and issues, whatever they are, in the visual field and kind of force them together, carefully and with caressingly – showing that at least in the realm and reality of a painting, they actually not only fit but do, in fact, really belong next to one another, that these seemingly paradoxical parts need to be and belong together.

MH: How has your working process evolved through the last years? For instance, it appears you are using textile fabrics less as a material in your works?

SG: Yes, I think that is right – I kind of grew bored with the means of mixing textiles into the surface of the painting. For some reason they became a kind of hindrance, standing in my way, mentally and also physically. Somehow the materiality kind of stopped the flow of the painting process – and that, obviously, is not good.

It has been a long process, continuing throughout the years of my working process, wanting to face this dilemma of mixing textiles with oil, and trying different ways of making a painting with these means – kind of constantly making them work against each other, and, of course, together, but also in and through one another. It has been a very productive type of a dilemma, something that I have clearly enjoyed dealing with. For now, I have left that task aside, but well, I might return to it.

Another thing that has changed is how I go about the composition of the whole. Whereas there was a period not that long ago when I would deliberately go and fill each painting to the max, adding different characters and elements so that it would be really completely full and chaotic, in the new works I have turned the other direction and have chosen to use fewer elements and less of a messy chaos. This is the strategy of reducing the elements, not to anything like minimal style, no. But in comparison, the new series has quite a lot less ingredients in the whole constellation.

One of the ways I now use is playing with the levels and layers of grey on grey and all its possible variations. This is manifested in the game of shadows, or shadowy figures that appear in the painting, both in the central positions, but also in the background. Right now there is something in this double conjunction, this double take of shadows of shadows, or shadows that slide and mix into each other, that I find really fascinating.

In terms of materials, linking back to what we discussed before, instead of using textiles, what I am now interested is the kind of shiny and even sterile surface that I can achieve with oil paint, making the contrast, for example, between various versions of a shadow, like the playful difference between a slightly awkwardly painted shadow of an object and the slightest shadow that a thick layer of paint manifests. It is this certain temperament of irony, the game between expectations and visual information, that I am fond of.

And now that I began to think about what has or has not changed through the years, yet another development is how I have recently started to work on really small-size canvases. For a long time I felt that I could only work with the large and, well, even larger, not to say huge sizes, but now I feel it is a productive challenge for me to force and lure myself to work in a very, very different dimension and scale – kind of also feeling and trusting that this helps me to continue with the larger frames, too.

7.3.2014