My Inspiration?


Well, that’s a very important and very good question. And, as you might imagine, it’s one, that I’ve been thinking about for a very long time.

But, nevertheless: I’m pretty sure, that my inspiration is - and always was – nature. The transcendence of nature is probably the main influence that drove me to become an artist. So, apart my recognizable relation to the American expressionism or concrete art, there is for sure a connection to the principles of romanticism.

My work is about life (or being), human knowledge and some things strictly connected to it.

It is about the things we’re carrying with us, that are buried deep inside, that we do not think about, but which we are always aware of. – Like for example ‘time’ or ‘mandatory contradictions’ (day and night, life and death or rule and exception). OK, we are always thinking about time, but in a different manner. We believe, that we don’t have enough time to spend for work or with our families, but we do not think about time as one of the pure conditions, that affects everything we are able to know.

And besides the fact that we are aware of it, time is not real to us in a way we are used to know things, - like we can touch them or something like that.

So these are the things I’m interested in and I’m issuing them in my work. Sounds difficult and metaphysically overloaded? May be. But no, it isn’t.

It’s not that I’m trying to tell a story about it or that I want to explain something to the beholder, but rather to let him reflect his inside, (because as you might recall: we all are carrying these things inside of us - always). So my goal is to catch the beholders attention somewhere beyond visible attraction and more to let him sense those things than to make him think about it.

Now you might ask: ‘Come on Dirk, keep your feet on the ground. All I can see in your paintings is a collection of verticals and horizontals and a may be arranged relation of lines and expanse. What the hell has this to do with something like time and space or any contradiction of rule and exception?’

But well, as I said, I’m not telling stories about those things. And yes, I’m working on completely non figurative compositions, that are reduced to the minimum.

Why non figurative? From my perspective, my ‘sujet’ requires a non figurative approach, because every kind of figuration or even abstraction requests the beholder to find an analogy somewhere in his experience and therefore something that is strictly related to the sensorial world, what would be completely against my intentions.

Why do I reduce the composition to vertical and horizontal lines and expanses? In fact, I don’t need more. Verticals and horizontals are the most important criteria of order in human cognition. They are complete and there is nothing left to add. Everything else is a deduction and more or less imperfect. The relation between those lines and expanses, combined with the deep, that is produced by the transparent layers and a reluctant use of colour, appears to be somehow harmonious and catches the spectators attraction which leads him away from his experience driven knowledge.

What does the reflection, the glossy surface mean to your work, why is that important? When talking about things that are a given, but do not have a physical presence, you inevitably come as well to question what is real.

As a matter of fact, it is merely impossible to see the plain paintings (without reflections). And therefore it’s difficult to tell, what’s in the painting itself and what is only a reflection. – So what is real and what is reflection? Are reflections unreal? Or do they show us a space without physical presence, but a possibility beyond our knowledge?


 

 

>" TITLE=">>">

zurück