GiG air – Hannes Heinrich

This is the first of a series of ‘air’ exhibitions, based on a visit to the artist studio.

Hannes Heinrich, Untitled (Rockaway), 2022, charcoal & oil on canvas, 45 x 35 cm

When attempting to describe the paintings of Hannes Heinrich, it seems useful to think in terms of Peirce’s typology of the sign. For there are three ways in which a sign might denote the object, all at work in his painting. The first way is iconic, where the sign in some way resembles or imitates its object; the second is indexical, where the sign and the object have a direct connection, and finally, the third is symbolic, where the sign denotes the object by means of a convention or rule that allows for interpretation. Now by large, Hannes Heinrich paints objects he finds in his studio. Nothing uncommon and everything ordinary: there is a chair, a plant by the window, trainers with shoelaces undone. There is his body, his head, face, hands and feet. Especially in the past we could clearly distinguish these objects in his paintings as he traced their shadows directly onto canvas. His work was thus primarily iconic, although the actual shadows cast by the objects would be described as indexical. In the last couple of years a shift occurred in his work, where instead of using charcoal to trace an object’s shadow he began to wrap the canvas around an object and trace it directly, in a kind of vaguely erotic, masturbatory surrealist act. In this new work, the technique of frottage was no longer limited to a textured surface but now included the object in its three dimensional entirety. These charcoal tracings would then become the basis for his paintings as elements were further rubbed away or painted over.  The indexical aspect of his work therefore gained importance. 

Hannes Heinrich, ‘o.T.’, 2021, oil on canvas, 210 x 160 cm

Yet whether more iconic or more indexical, this did not alter the work’s symbolic character. As much as his, or indeed any other painting, looks like or is a trace of an object, it must also be understood as a convention or a sign – a fact of which Heinrich is well aware. Already Braque and Picasso’s art dealer understood this explicitly, associating cubism’s new found freedom from illusionistic practice with the recognition of painting as ‘script’ ( as quoted by Yve-Alain Bois in ‘Kahnweiler’s Lesson‘). But structuralist and poststructuralist readings of western art history especially common in the 80s and 90s, showed that all painting, no matter how abstract or realistic, also functioned within this symbolic system. When introducing cubism as an art movement, Francis Frascina shows that the use of the symbol was already at work in the most illusionistic of Chardin’s still lifes, arguing that a painting like ‘The Ray’ was not only about the painter’s ability to depict the light glistening on the ray’s wet and slimy surface, but also about his ability to play with symbolic meaning. There is sexual significance to be found in the exposed gonads of the ray fish – not to mention its sexually suggestive shape – as well as in a particular kind of jug, that Chardin’s contemporaries would well understand. 


Jean Simeon Chardin, ‘The Ray’, 1728, oil on canvas, 114 cm × 146 cm, Louvre Museum, Paris

http://hdl.library.upenn.edu/1017/d/fisher/n2002100626

If Frascina could still be confident that in the 1700s a jug could stand for a uterus and then show how the later, more contradictory and playful Picasso collage questions the conditions of representability, in our post-internet age signs have shown themselves to be inherently far more slippery. We may think of signs consisting of a signifier and signified, a particular expression linked to a certain content, but within the social context of the sign (a sign always needs to be interpreted by someone) a sign refers to as much another sign as it does a signified. This is why Deleuze and Guattari in the chapter ‘587 BC–AD 70: On Several Regimes of Signs’ of  A Thousand Plateaus do not think of the sign as a Saussurian closed language system, terms defined by a set of relations, but instead as a deceptive signifying regime of endless, circular debt. A sign always refers to another sign and in doing so marks itself as deceptive. We see or hear something, but we also know that meaning is not found in the shapes that we see or the sounds that we hear – that meaning is found elsewhere. What we hear and see is meant to deceive us. There is paranoia associated with the sign, we, forever suspicious as to what a thing might or might not signify. 

What is it then, that we see or hear in this paranoid way, if the signifier always deceives us, hiding its meaning somewhere else for us to find? Deleuze and Guattari would argue that what we encounter in the signifying regime is a mask or a face. Or rather, the face is always already a mask. We do not see the order behind the visible, but the structure of the visible, and that takes empty, hollow shape of the mask. That we are able to negotiate this world of signs and not fall into a constant state of paranoia, is because of the meaning we find in the face itself and which we then project onto the world. According to Deleuze and Guattari, the face is the means by which the signifying regime controls and organises the world, the semiotic configuration of political power. As such it is despotic, in that someone – the despot – has to tell us in a manner that brooks no argument: see this, in that. The despot needs the face in order to wield his power over us.  

(And it has to be said, there is something despotic about the way semiotic interpretations have been used in art history and it is indeed unsurprising that someone like Frascina mentions masks in his discussion of cubism. The distorted faces of Picasso’s ‘Les Demoiselles d’Avignon’ are presented as references to the ‘primitive’ African mask, signifier of the then contemporary obsession with ‘primitive cultures’ and marked by the fear of the other.)

But despite including his face as one of the objects in his studio that he wraps in canvas and traces in charcoal, in a gesture that echoes St. Veronica’s veil – and let us remember, for Deleuze and Guattari, faciality is something they specifically associate with the rise of Christianity in western culture – there are no faces in Hannes Heinrich’s paintings. There isn’t even a faciality at work. As signs, his canvases with their traces of charcoal and paint do not deceive us, instead I would argue, they betray. Rather than confronting us with an empty frontal stare, they turn their face away, and we are forever looking around the edge of the canvas, with its marker line, to guess at the pattern of the folds, the movement of charcoal, and the object that the canvas once held. How is it that Heinrich repeatedly confronts the objects in his studio? He wraps them in canvas to hide them, so that they cannot be seen, so that their gaze is averted, veiled. If in Hebrew the word for face is ‘presence,’ then the veiled face, the face hidden in the hands of Moses, would be understood as absence.  

For Deleuze and Guattari, betrayal is central to the new post signifying or passional regime, to which it bears witness. They argue that we do not live in the one signifying regime – neither do we only live in the other, the post signifying one – but always in a mix of both. In the signifying regime we are always faced with a multitude of signs, one forever leading to another; in the passional regime, there is a plurality of the subject, a ‘redoubling of the subject with a point of subjectification.’ In their reading of Althusser, when someone or something calls to us, we, as social individuals become constituted as interpellated subjects. You call and ‘I’ answer, your call determining in part that ‘I’ I become and which I in answering accept. On the other hand, the point of subjectification is the object that Heinrich so obsesses over – the chair, shoes, plant, whatever the case may be – that he cannot let go, that he repeatedly covers and rubs all over. The object of subjectification also calls out, yes, but not to me, because it is standing in profile and looking somewhere else. Heinrich obsesses about his object because as much as he wants to see it, the object doesn’t want to see him. The love here is unrequited. 

For Deleuze and Guattari this moment of unrequited love turning away is an act of betrayal, and it is worth mentioning that in Meyer Schapiro’s account of symbolic form, within our system of visual representation – the account that Frascina draws on so heavily – Judas, the ultimate betrayer, is presented in profile. When it stands in profile, the object as a sign betrays you, because it does not do what it was supposed to do, face you, so that you can find meaning within its mask-like structure. Before, in the paranoid system, everything was about me – me finding significance in everything. Now, I nothing is about me, and I seem irrelevant. By facing somewhere else, the point of subjectification indicates meaning is to be found elsewhere, by a different subject within a different social context and a different organisation of power. The task is now up to me, to assume authority and lend interpretation. But I also betray the object of subjectification, as cannot absorb the this object, I cannot fully mirror the speaking subject that interpellates me. And this double betrayal creates a powerful bond between us. 

Hannes Heinrich institutes his painting within a regime of signs, a mixed regime, as much signifying as passional. Or rather the hold of the object over him, and his paintings over us, is of passion, lending this configuration of power its semiotic structure. His objects are in profile, as are we, when we encounter them in his paintings. I keep returning to his work, not because I find the objects interesting or because they have some hidden meaning but because I am forced by them to look somewhere else, and in doing so, to be someone other than me. 

5 Years

Tim Bennett, Jenny Dunseath, Jonah Gebka, Andrea Hanak, Jane Hayes-Greenwood, Hannes Heinrich, Melina Hennicker, David Henrichs, Stefanie Hofer, Lukas Hoffmann, Lou Jaworski, Steffen Kern, Stefan Lenhart, Jo Love, Michael Lukas, Robin Mason, Kathrin Partelli, Rebecca Partridge, Plastique Fantastique, Berthold Reiss, Miriam Salamander,  Michael Schmidt, Maria Thurn und Taxis, Stefanie Ullmann, Maria VMier, Susanne Wagner, Youjin Yi, Andrea Zabric, Janka Zöller.

23.07 – 19.09.2020

P1030974
5 Year GiG, installation view, 2020

 

P1030976
Lukas Hoffmann, Untitled, 2020, MDF, Sulphur, Aluminium, 80 x 70 x 20 cm

 

P1030977
Foreground: Andrea Zabric, Pigment Sculpture 21110, 2020, 5 kg cadmium red pressed pigment, size variable
Background: Lukas Hoffmann, Untitled, 2020, MDF, Sulphur, Aluminium, 80 x 70 x 20 cm

 

P1030984
5 Year GiG, installation view, 2020

 

P1030972
5 Year GiG, installation view, 2020

 

P1030983
5 Year GiG, installation view, 2020
Foreground: Maria VMier, o.T., 2020 stained wood and marbles, 140 x 50 x 50 cm and Lukas Hoffmann, Untitled, 2020, MDF, 15 x 2,5 x 4 cm

 

P1030980
5 Year GiG, installation view, 2020
Foreground: Kathrin Partelli, Aus Tagundnachtgleiche, 2018, Gummi, Porenbeton, Ziegelstein, 55 x 65 x 95 cm
Background: Michael Lukas, Frame, 2013, Mixed technique on wood, 46 x 32 x 4 cm

 

P1030985
5 Year GiG, installation view, 2020
Foreground: Kathrin Partelli, Aus Tagundnachtgleiche, 2018, Gummi, Porenbeton, Ziegelstein, 55 x 65 x 95 cm
Background: Susanne Wagner, Conchita, 2020, Gefärbter Gips, 120 x 40 x 10 cm and Tim Bennett, untitled (o-garden I) gipskartonrelief, akrylfarbe, 85 x 70 cm

 

 

5 Years

Tim Bennett, Jenny Dunseath, Jonah Gebka, Andrea Hanak, Jane Hayes-Greenwood, Hannes Heinrich, Melina Hennicker, David Henrichs, Stefanie Hofer, Lukas Hoffmann, Lou Jaworski, Steffen Kern, Stefan Lenhart, Jo Love, Michael Lukas, Robin Mason, Kathrin Partelli, Rebecca Partridge, Plastique Fantastique, Berthold Reiss, Miriam Salamander,  Michael Schmidt, Maria Thurn und Taxis, Stefanie Ullmann, Maria VMier, Susanne Wagner, Youjin Yi, Andrea Zabric, Janka Zöller.

23.07 – 19.09.2020

71285180-985E-477D-B87A-CEE20FBADEF6

Image: Hannes Heinrich

Hannes Heinrich

Look Mum No Hands

15.03 – 3.05.2019

 

fullsizeoutput_deaHannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_dd7Hannes Heinrich, o.T., 2019, oil on canvas, approx. 65 x 50 cm

 

fullsizeoutput_dacHannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_dd5Hannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_ddfHannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_de0Hannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

DSCF2394_04-XFHannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_de2Hannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_de5Hannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_de7Hannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_de3Hannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_dd9Hannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_de4Hannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_ddcHannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view

 

fullsizeoutput_ddeHannes Heinrichs, Look Mum No Hands, 2019, installation view
(All images courtesy of Hannes Heinrich and Jan Erbelding)

 

When one thinks of the description, “a reflective painter” one thinks of a solitary man in studio, quietly considering each brushstroke he makes. Morandi and his objects for instance, slowly gathering dust – Raoul de Keyser would be a more recent example, a “painter’s painter,” pausing when painting the bark of the birch tree to ask, in a very serious voice, “What is a painting?” and hear nothing but silence as his response. 

Hannes Heinrich is a reflective painter in this contemplative sense. He works alone in his studio paintbrush in hand. He has a set of motifs he repeatedly returns to, an inventory of which would read as follows: grids, trees, branches, shadows, shadows of hands, woodgrain. All of these motifs have strong art historical references. The grid reminds us of how the canvas is woven but also of modernist painting. The shadow paintings recall the story of Butades’s daughter, Kora, tracing the silhouette of her lover. Larger than life handprints are like those left in prehistoric caves. Heinrich combines and recombines these elements systematically in a palette of blues (deep ultramarine and pale, like a robin’s egg) reds, yellows and black. Sometimes the grid is painted first, other times, the tree branches in oil crayon. At other times it is difficult to discern the painting process, as despite being painted in layers, the surface seems even, each block of painting lightly resting against the next. There are abstract paintings and more figurative ones and a concern with the boundary between abstraction and illusion. There is no privileging of the original in the classical sense, painting considered to be twice removed from its Platonic form – no stress over painting’s capacity for representation. Heinrich seems happy to be part of the contemporary post digital world, where the kind of illusion offered by figurative painting is one of many and where talk of originals has long ceased. 

But to call Hannes a reflective painter also does him a disservice. It neglects the natural exuberance of his work, its openness, its willingness to engage the viewer. Contemplation implies solitude and while Heinrich’s paintings are certainly thoughtful they are also chatty. The question, “What is painting?” is not asked to silence, set within the four walls of the small studio. It is not even asked to the other paintings that might already be within. It is asked to us. And not in a demanding fashion, expecting us to know, but in a friendly way, with a slight nudge and half smile, “Hey, what IS painting?” Don’t you want to know?

Magdalena Wisniowska 2019

Hannes Heinrich

Look Mum No Hands

15.03. – 03.05.2019

fullsizeoutput_c8f

Vernissage: Freitag 15. März, 18 – 21 Uhr,
15. März 2019 – 3. Mai 2019
Bitte nach Vereinbarung unter contact@gig-munich.com
Finissage: Freitag 3. Mai 2019, 19 – 21 Uhr

 

GiG Munich is excited to open 2019 with the solo exhibition by Hannes Heinrich, Look Mum No Hands.

Hannes Heinrich (b. 1989) is a figurative painter, recently graduated from the Academy of Fine Arts, Munich (Klasse Kneffel). His work has an easy, natural exuberance, a riot of colour and psychedelic-type patterns, Matisse-like brushstrokes and woven grids. His motives are often art historical, as if taken straight out of 19th century academic paintings. There is the myth of Zeuxis and Parrhasius, competing for status of best painter, Butades’ daughter, Kora, tracing her lover’s shadow and wood grain belonging to the carpenters table, two times removed from its Platonic ideal. In his work however, painting’s capacity for illusion lies not at the origin of painting, but is treated as one option out of many available for the painter. Resemblance here no longer belongs to a discourse of the copy and the original but a Road Runner world happy to be full of simulacra, copies were no originals exist. 

 

EASY images and text

fullsizeoutput_1b0d

fullsizeoutput_1b13

fullsizeoutput_1b2a

fullsizeoutput_1b2d

fullsizeoutput_1b6b

fullsizeoutput_1b69

The exhibition was not meant to be called “EASY.” As is often the way, it started with the opposite idea. At the time I was reading Deleuze’s late essay on Beckett, “The Exhausted,” and wanted to do a show, which would make use of its definition of the image. “It is extremely difficult to make a pure and unsullied image, one that is nothing but an image,” writes Deleuze and seeing the late Beckett plays I could believe this was the case. “Of course it is not easy to make an image…”

As all four artists – Jonah Gebka, Hannes Heinrich, Steffen Kern and Janka Zöller – work with images, Deleuze’s definition seemed appropriate. Things changed after I visited them in their studio. We were talking about the possibilities available to contemporary painting and I gave the example of Gerhard Richter – how at the time, to do both, abstraction and figuration, was a challenge that filled him with anxiety. To which Janka replied, “What, only two? Bah!”

Painting now is not difficult in the same way it was 40, 30 or even 10 years ago. Opening up to new possibilities, expanding some pre-conceived notion of what painting might be, what it might do in a contemporary critical context no longer holds the same kind of urgency. And if not, if painting is no longer defined by that kind of hardship and struggle, it would seem painting must be easy instead.

In various ways, Jonah Gebka, Hannes Heinrich, Steffen Kern and Janka Zöller acknowledge this lack of anxiety in their work. For them the fact that painting might seem easy is a strategy, offering a means with which they can engage with the viewer.

Jonah’s work is about surface. Through a variety of means (digital manipulation, engagement with printing processes, the use of mixed media) he makes the surface of the image, specifically its physical aspect, apparent to the viewer. For GiG, he shows a watercolour on paper, stretched around its wooden frame. The image is of a generic blue and white checked deck chair, like those found around pools in holiday resorts around the world. Yet the image is not found, but carefully constructed by the artist.

Janka’s interest lies in contemporary cultures, both high and low, traditional and post-digital. For her current project – and she has many – Janka combines lyrical, Matisse-like abstractions with paintings of eyes taken from her Instagram selfies. Always starting from scratch, always on the move, she paints with restless energy, quickly and directly. The two components of her work, abstraction and figuration, sit next to each other without speaking, never coming together to form a coherent whole.

Hannes works with painting’s capacity for illusion. At its most basic, a grey patch can be a shadow; a few crisscrossing lines make it clear that one lies on top of the other. Is it surprising how little it takes to produce the impression of an endless sunset? He paints wooden frames around his paintings and uses paintings of wood to make sculptures. But unlike the mythical Parrhasius he never tries to trick the viewer into believing that what he sees, might be real. For Hannes, illusion is something very obvious and in its obviousness, intimidating.

Steffen likes to transform one visual register into another, often changing the original narrative along the way. For his drawing “O.T.” he takes a performance by Ana Mendieta and describes it in a few lines of text, referring to the filmed nature of the piece through the introduction of VHS type glitches. In “Props” he takes some tools he found abandoned in an attic and covers them in black paint. They now exist in a no-man’s land, never quite achieving their fictional potential because never quite losing their status as useful objects.

Magdalena Wisniowska, 2017

Save the date: EASY opening on the 28th of April!

easy online

Over the years painting has been many different things. Painting had meant something; it could do things. It was utopian in its aspirations. Then painting was dismissed as elitist and patriarchal. There was the death of painting and its inevitable return. Good painting, bad painting, painting that could be critically viable, provided it tests the limits of representation. What painting was not, was easy. The painter and his struggle was a dominant 20th century narrative, clearly manifest on canvas, visible for all to see.

For the group of young artists participating in EASY, Jonah Gebka, Hannes Heinrich, Steffen Kern, Janka Zöller, the challenge is different. Their effort goes into removing all traces of worry from the pictorial surface, so that painting becomes, quite suddenly, easy. “Easy” is their strategy, their way into painting. It is also a way in for us, painting’s audience, to discover what painting might be.