Philib Seibel
Die Zuversicht Der Dinge
Jan 20 – Feb 18, 2017
Berthold Pott Gallery
Cologne
An der Schanz 1a
50735 Cologne
Germany
Die Zuversicht Der Dinge
Jan 20 – Feb 18, 2017
Berthold Pott Gallery
Cologne
An der Schanz 1a
50735 Cologne
Germany
Images courtesy the artist and Berthold Pott Gallery
In his current
exhibition, The Confidence of Things,
Seibel presents three pairs from his ‘Panels’ series (painting on bare or
wooden-veneered aluminium honeycomb panels) and sculptures that oscillate
between object, objet trouvé (wooden
root), furniture, and interior, as well as two delicate pencil drawings of growth structures.
exhibition, The Confidence of Things,
Seibel presents three pairs from his ‘Panels’ series (painting on bare or
wooden-veneered aluminium honeycomb panels) and sculptures that oscillate
between object, objet trouvé (wooden
root), furniture, and interior, as well as two delicate pencil drawings of growth structures.
The theme of the ‘Panels’
is defined by the structure in the wood itself: either using real veneer
mounted on an aluminium honeycomb panel or as an imitation of woodgrain,
painted onto the aluminium panel with the help of pigments and lacquers, as
well as special paintbrushes and sanding and polishing processes.
is defined by the structure in the wood itself: either using real veneer
mounted on an aluminium honeycomb panel or as an imitation of woodgrain,
painted onto the aluminium panel with the help of pigments and lacquers, as
well as special paintbrushes and sanding and polishing processes.
The current exhibition
features a sculpture consisting of two nearly identical wooden roots that lie
next to each other on a cabinet-like piece of furniture: original and copy. The
furniture constructed by the artist appears to be a hybrid from various epochs:
Intricately and finely lathed legs are reminiscent of the technical attention
to detail and perfection of the Renaissance, while the body of the ‘cabinet’
covered in brown faux leather triggers associations to the sober high-tech
design of the 1980s. In strong contrast to this are the seemingly archaic and
mighty wooden roots: The one is an objet
trouvé, while the other, nearly identical root has been cast in synthetic
resin and, similar to the panels, covered by the artist with several layers of
finely painted wooden structures.
features a sculpture consisting of two nearly identical wooden roots that lie
next to each other on a cabinet-like piece of furniture: original and copy. The
furniture constructed by the artist appears to be a hybrid from various epochs:
Intricately and finely lathed legs are reminiscent of the technical attention
to detail and perfection of the Renaissance, while the body of the ‘cabinet’
covered in brown faux leather triggers associations to the sober high-tech
design of the 1980s. In strong contrast to this are the seemingly archaic and
mighty wooden roots: The one is an objet
trouvé, while the other, nearly identical root has been cast in synthetic
resin and, similar to the panels, covered by the artist with several layers of
finely painted wooden structures.
Whereas previous
exhibitions of works by the artist were strongly marked by the rhythms and
formal-aesthetic dimensions of natural structures, such as those found in
wooden veneers and crystal cultures, the focus of the current show is laid –
more decidedly than usual – on the meaning and function of the copy. In this
context, the artist is interested in two aspects in particular: ‘the copy as a
weapon against the inflation of the concept of creativity’ and ‘the copy as
decoy for verticality’.
exhibitions of works by the artist were strongly marked by the rhythms and
formal-aesthetic dimensions of natural structures, such as those found in
wooden veneers and crystal cultures, the focus of the current show is laid –
more decidedly than usual – on the meaning and function of the copy. In this
context, the artist is interested in two aspects in particular: ‘the copy as a
weapon against the inflation of the concept of creativity’ and ‘the copy as
decoy for verticality’.
On the theme of
‘the copy as a weapon against the inflation of the concept of creativity’, Seibel
states: ‘Copying is the opposite of original creation, which is so
characteristic of the artistic cliché. Born out of the longing to
circumnavigate this stereotype of the creative individual, since nowadays
everyone is creative as soon as they compile their Spotify playlists or
individualise their iPhones. Creativity and consumption have thus become so
strongly amalgamated with each other (at least conceptually and in the
perception of the majority) that, for me, the resistance against the
consumerist cult has led to an aversion to the obviously creative and
individual, i.e. the classically “artistic”. No painterly clichés (gesture,
thick layers of oil paint, etc.), no creative outpourings that could be quickly
perceived as being “art”. Instead, veneered panels which are reminiscent of
doors and table tops, and objects that are closer to pieces of furniture than
to sculpture. References to craftsmanship and design instead of to art history.
As in earlier works, the copy leads to a rhythm as the return of the same, or
at least of the similar. The copy and repetition as an antithesis of the cliché
of creativity, as a weapon against the inflation of the concept of creativity,
but also as a stylistic means of consolidation, including rhythms, rhymes, and
samples.’
‘the copy as a weapon against the inflation of the concept of creativity’, Seibel
states: ‘Copying is the opposite of original creation, which is so
characteristic of the artistic cliché. Born out of the longing to
circumnavigate this stereotype of the creative individual, since nowadays
everyone is creative as soon as they compile their Spotify playlists or
individualise their iPhones. Creativity and consumption have thus become so
strongly amalgamated with each other (at least conceptually and in the
perception of the majority) that, for me, the resistance against the
consumerist cult has led to an aversion to the obviously creative and
individual, i.e. the classically “artistic”. No painterly clichés (gesture,
thick layers of oil paint, etc.), no creative outpourings that could be quickly
perceived as being “art”. Instead, veneered panels which are reminiscent of
doors and table tops, and objects that are closer to pieces of furniture than
to sculpture. References to craftsmanship and design instead of to art history.
As in earlier works, the copy leads to a rhythm as the return of the same, or
at least of the similar. The copy and repetition as an antithesis of the cliché
of creativity, as a weapon against the inflation of the concept of creativity,
but also as a stylistic means of consolidation, including rhythms, rhymes, and
samples.’
And on the theme of ‘the copy as decoy for verticality’,
the artist explains: ‘Through the juxtaposition of original and copy (both in
the paintings and in the sculptures) and the total blurring of the borders
between these, the viewer is motivated to step closer and discover: What is
real, what is fake; how can one tell the difference between the two? The viewer
is thus drawn into the details and the structures of the works, seduced by the
perfect surfaces into the depths of the structures. The result is a vertical
analysis of the works, which contrasts with the horizontal processing of
information in everyday life. The almost infinite fineness of the details is
extremely important in this regard. Instead of in one hundred thumbnail images
per second on Instagram (many, but “flat”: i.e. horizontal), the viewer should
find his happiness in the infinity of details and structures (few, but “deep”:
i.e. vertical). The layer-by-layer exploration of the work through time and
patience in front of the original, as opposed to the fast-paced “consumption”
of digital mini-reproductions.’
the artist explains: ‘Through the juxtaposition of original and copy (both in
the paintings and in the sculptures) and the total blurring of the borders
between these, the viewer is motivated to step closer and discover: What is
real, what is fake; how can one tell the difference between the two? The viewer
is thus drawn into the details and the structures of the works, seduced by the
perfect surfaces into the depths of the structures. The result is a vertical
analysis of the works, which contrasts with the horizontal processing of
information in everyday life. The almost infinite fineness of the details is
extremely important in this regard. Instead of in one hundred thumbnail images
per second on Instagram (many, but “flat”: i.e. horizontal), the viewer should
find his happiness in the infinity of details and structures (few, but “deep”:
i.e. vertical). The layer-by-layer exploration of the work through time and
patience in front of the original, as opposed to the fast-paced “consumption”
of digital mini-reproductions.’
As in his previous exhibitions, this show is also
marked by Seibel’s use of contradictions: The wood, the root, the tree and its
growth structures as representative and symbol of the natural, the organic,
indeed the archaic, is juxtaposed with a world of artificiality (the use of
industrial materials, such as aluminium honeycomb panels or lacquer, and
techniques, such as sanding, lacquering, casting, and veneering). The artist’s
act of copying thus becomes a link between the past, the archaic, the natural
and the present and future – and thus becomes a tool to combat the flood of the
pseudo-creative.
marked by Seibel’s use of contradictions: The wood, the root, the tree and its
growth structures as representative and symbol of the natural, the organic,
indeed the archaic, is juxtaposed with a world of artificiality (the use of
industrial materials, such as aluminium honeycomb panels or lacquer, and
techniques, such as sanding, lacquering, casting, and veneering). The artist’s
act of copying thus becomes a link between the past, the archaic, the natural
and the present and future – and thus becomes a tool to combat the flood of the
pseudo-creative.