Painting, that's like this old instrument someone finds in his cellar and he feels reminded of all the different kinds of music you could play with it. If you are trained you could play Bach, Grateful Dead, or some children songs.
Charlene von Heyl's tune is the old one between abstraction and representation and the mind's ability to find in every gesture with a brush something representational. If you take a theoretical position rethinking the possibility of painting after the end of art, than von Heyl's approach is a legitimate one. There should always be respect in front of something you haven't seen before, and you can not be sure that the structure of the language and the vocabulary, which come to mind to get some understanding, are appropriate. Especially when all these words are borrowed from thoughts about art which already is existing.
But, isn't it strange, when something you haven't seen before doesn't make
you think twice, to define it in a new way? It's legitimate in the sense that it surely makes pleasure to create
paintings like these and maybe more is not possible ... in the moment.
Rainald-- Get a proofreader. The grammar is so incorrect here that none of this makes any sense. You aren't doing the show any justice this way.
Dear Rainald, I just stumbled onto this site and you! Please drop me a line. I have a video I wanted to send you and had no idea where you are. So many things to catch up with. Best regards ...