sceptre and clapper. a portrait.

the relentless hunt for the true reason of life and the final and irrevocable definition of the worlds universal motor is man’s most arduous and at the same time most unfulfillable mission. no butterfly may wander unguided after its fluttering activity, no food bag in a far away land may fall over unaffected. with this sacred but rushed dictation nothing remains without interpretation, whether superficially deep or heartbreakingly shallow, everything that exists is carefully and for general reassurance given a roof with an assured content.

therefore it can be assumed that an uncounted number of viewers of ruprecht von kaufmann’s works succumb to this very urge, as his pictorial world offers ample opportunity for terms such as ‚riddle‘, ‚dream‘ or other imponderables. in direct contact, exposed to the treachery of spontaneously convulsing perplexity, the wagging gesture becomes a community-forming life jacket after the primary clarification of meaning. but why this? if direct access to the understanding of what is depicted were the clear and unambiguous focus of the creator, wouldn’t his works be designed differently? isn’t it precisely this obvious refusal of an insight-feeding fast look that points to the actual gate through which one should enter the world of the artist? let’s dispense for a moment with the promising, pigeon-toed roast insights from the interpretative charlatans of competing artists and enter his stage with an open mind.

if the king hangs the fool, he must fear for his own end. here and now, the jester only dares a critical dance around the ruler’s power. thus their play forms an interdependent pair. the cunning entertaining guild representative’s radius of action, on the other hand, is only a short leash. the lure too sweet, the mockery too salty – pow, here comes the sudden end of madness with a jingling hood. the cleverly woven noose of humor, irony and mockery must be tied casualy around the neck. here comedy meets tragedy, ruprecht von kaufmanns set-up, a fragile, artistic stage in the gray semi-darkness of indecision between laughing or crying.

king and fool, beloved by the greeks, redefined by shakespeare – the fine breath of drama winds its way through all times and media in a continuous flow. attentively tracing the wafting documents of this eternal tussle, the artist plucks together the elements to form his own version of this epic with nimble finesse. whether cleverly stolen from classical art, modernism or comic books here, or undetectable purloined from literature, theater or film there, von kaufmann brilliantly collages one found object after the other into his painting space. the floating, falling, plunging figure thus becomes the supporting element of his motifs invention. whether with or against us, above or below, the artist’s depiction of man drifts along in a bottomless no man’s land. the circus arena is wide open on all sides and, tirelessly circling the scene, the painter lays down his narrative image sections with a light hand.

preventing sudden identification of the material values floating around us and not to clumsily clutch at our brain lobes, von kaufmann casually presses the fog machine from time to time and continues to diligently tap away at our carefully hoarded treasure trove of memories behind a wafting, concealing wall of haze. with the artist’s skillfully celebrated sleight of hand, it is no wonder that he shies away from depicting the bitter fanale. eliminating the final scene, he is well aware of the audience’s compulsion to complete the story, to finish the script internally, come what may.

in doing so, ruprecht von kaufmann bewitches us to become the roundabout of our own projections. the fact that he makes us run against our own limiting walls with a cold smile does not seem to be unknown to him. the artist is a calm person. he has time and will also use our bloody nose if need be. sometime, without us noticing.

martin eugen raabenstein, 2014

interview

raa – ruprecht, tease but don’t touch, push but don’t redeem. what’s wrong with contemporary art?

rvk – nothing… is perhaps the cynical and succinct answer. there are as many good artists as ever. the court jesters still sing and dance and try to stick their long feet uncomfortably in the way. it’s just that the kings of the world have either banished them to golden boxes, where they are paraded before an astonished audience at opportune moments, as ‚permissive‘ trophies of the masters of money, or they are simply left to starve to death. creating art and marketing art, as well as the studio and the art market, have become increasingly distant from each other, forcing the artist into the uncomfortable position of professional schizophrenic when trying to navigate these two worlds.

raa – your works are full of pictorial quotations. are there any role models that stand out by name among your diverse worlds?

rvk – i think i have a very eclectic taste. i have a lot of very different role models, ranging from velasquez to goya to rothko. but most of my inspiration actually comes from writers and musicians. texts by salman rushdie, jonathan lethem or the lyrics of tom waits are very important sources for me. it’s often just two or three words that set off whole avalanches of images in my head.

raa – the introduction covered your motifs only. what is the reason to use rubber, silk and linoleum as supports in addition to canvas?

rvk – i have always felt very strongly that paintings are also objects that stand out from the wall and not only open up a pictorial space, but also enter into a dialog with the space in which they hang. with paintings on canvas, this can happen through the structure of the canvas, the application of paint or the textures that the brushes leave behind on the canvas. what has always bothered me about classic canvas paintings, however, is that the viewer hardly moves back and forth in front of the painting, even when the motif is very animated. they take up the seemingly ideal position and stay there. at best, small details can stimulate a back and forth movement, but the angle of view is clear. however, this overly unambiguous point of view also leads to an overly unambiguous level of meaning. that is why I allow the picture surface, the picture carrier itself, to become a sculpture. as a result, certain parts of the picture are always distorted in such a way that the viewer is forced to move back and forth in front of the picture in order to be able to grasp the entirety of the picture. the composition is created by alternating between detail and an overall view. This reflects our experience of life, the way we perceive the world, much better than the flat canvas.

raa – the two-dimensional image illusion is simply too simple for you? but there’s more to it than that…

rvk – i’m very interested in painting itself. in the last few decades, painters have always been forced to either work narratively, thereby negating modernist painting, or vice versa. therefore, painters have split into two camps, with a no-man’s land secured by a lot of barbed wire in between. it is precisely this long fallow land that fascinates me. it holds endless possibilities for an artist who, firstly, is stupid enough to deal with painting and, secondly, doesn’t want to join one camp or the other. i don’t think that the formal aspects of a composition necessarily have to be subordinate to a narrative. the two can certainly enter into a very constructive dialog together in a composition, and even reinforce each other.

wanting to tell a story with a picture does not necessarily exclude dealing with painting and color as pure matter. text and composition do not weaken each other in music. on the contrary, the melody can decisively change the meaning of the text, the sung word. likewise, the melody can enrich the text interwoven with it. the same applies to painting. the narrative element complements the pure material of the painting with a broader approach. i think painting can be emotional, emotional intelligence should not be underestimated.

more at rvonkaufmann.com

ruprecht von kaufmann

sceptre and clapper. a portrait.

the relentless hunt for the true reason of life and the final and irrevocable definition of the worlds universal motor is man’s most arduous and at the same time most unfulfillable mission. no butterfly may wander unguided after its fluttering activity, no food bag in a far away land may fall over unaffected. with this sacred but rushed dictation nothing remains without interpretation, whether superficially deep or heartbreakingly shallow, everything that exists is carefully and for general reassurance given a roof with an assured content.

therefore it can be assumed that an uncounted number of viewers of ruprecht von kaufmann’s works succumb to this very urge, as his pictorial world offers ample opportunity for terms such as ‚riddle‘, ‚dream‘ or other imponderables. in direct contact, exposed to the treachery of spontaneously convulsing perplexity, the wagging gesture becomes a community-forming life jacket after the primary clarification of meaning. but why this? if direct access to the understanding of what is depicted were the clear and unambiguous focus of the creator, wouldn’t his works be designed differently? isn’t it precisely this obvious refusal of an insight-feeding fast look that points to the actual gate through which one should enter the world of the artist? let’s dispense for a moment with the promising, pigeon-toed roast insights from the interpretative charlatans of competing artists and enter his stage with an open mind.

if the king hangs the fool, he must fear for his own end. here and now, the jester only dares a critical dance around the ruler’s power. thus their play forms an interdependent pair. the cunning entertaining guild representative’s radius of action, on the other hand, is only a short leash. the lure too sweet, the mockery too salty – pow, here comes the sudden end of madness with a jingling hood. the cleverly woven noose of humor, irony and mockery must be tied casualy around the neck. here comedy meets tragedy, ruprecht von kaufmanns set-up, a fragile, artistic stage in the gray semi-darkness of indecision between laughing or crying.

king and fool, beloved by the greeks, redefined by shakespeare – the fine breath of drama winds its way through all times and media in a continuous flow. attentively tracing the wafting documents of this eternal tussle, the artist plucks together the elements to form his own version of this epic with nimble finesse. whether cleverly stolen from classical art, modernism or comic books here, or undetectable purloined from literature, theater or film there, von kaufmann brilliantly collages one found object after the other into his painting space. the floating, falling, plunging figure thus becomes the supporting element of his motifs invention. whether with or against us, above or below, the artist’s depiction of man drifts along in a bottomless no man’s land. the circus arena is wide open on all sides and, tirelessly circling the scene, the painter lays down his narrative image sections with a light hand.

preventing sudden identification of the material values floating around us and not to clumsily clutch at our brain lobes, von kaufmann casually presses the fog machine from time to time and continues to diligently tap away at our carefully hoarded treasure trove of memories behind a wafting, concealing wall of haze. with the artist’s skillfully celebrated sleight of hand, it is no wonder that he shies away from depicting the bitter fanale. eliminating the final scene, he is well aware of the audience’s compulsion to complete the story, to finish the script internally, come what may.

in doing so, ruprecht von kaufmann bewitches us to become the roundabout of our own projections. the fact that he makes us run against our own limiting walls with a cold smile does not seem to be unknown to him. the artist is a calm person. he has time and will also use our bloody nose if need be. sometime, without us noticing.

martin eugen raabenstein, 2014

interview

raa – ruprecht, tease but don’t touch, push but don’t redeem. what’s wrong with contemporary art?

rvk – nothing… is perhaps the cynical and succinct answer. there are as many good artists as ever. the court jesters still sing and dance and try to stick their long feet uncomfortably in the way. it’s just that the kings of the world have either banished them to golden boxes, where they are paraded before an astonished audience at opportune moments, as ‚permissive‘ trophies of the masters of money, or they are simply left to starve to death. creating art and marketing art, as well as the studio and the art market, have become increasingly distant from each other, forcing the artist into the uncomfortable position of professional schizophrenic when trying to navigate these two worlds.

raa – your works are full of pictorial quotations. are there any role models that stand out by name among your diverse worlds?

rvk – i think i have a very eclectic taste. i have a lot of very different role models, ranging from velasquez to goya to rothko. but most of my inspiration actually comes from writers and musicians. texts by salman rushdie, jonathan lethem or the lyrics of tom waits are very important sources for me. it’s often just two or three words that set off whole avalanches of images in my head.

raa – the introduction covered your motifs only. what is the reason to use rubber, silk and linoleum as supports in addition to canvas?

rvk – i have always felt very strongly that paintings are also objects that stand out from the wall and not only open up a pictorial space, but also enter into a dialog with the space in which they hang. with paintings on canvas, this can happen through the structure of the canvas, the application of paint or the textures that the brushes leave behind on the canvas. what has always bothered me about classic canvas paintings, however, is that the viewer hardly moves back and forth in front of the painting, even when the motif is very animated. they take up the seemingly ideal position and stay there. at best, small details can stimulate a back and forth movement, but the angle of view is clear. however, this overly unambiguous point of view also leads to an overly unambiguous level of meaning. that is why I allow the picture surface, the picture carrier itself, to become a sculpture. as a result, certain parts of the picture are always distorted in such a way that the viewer is forced to move back and forth in front of the picture in order to be able to grasp the entirety of the picture. the composition is created by alternating between detail and an overall view. This reflects our experience of life, the way we perceive the world, much better than the flat canvas.

raa – the two-dimensional image illusion is simply too simple for you? but there’s more to it than that…

rvk – i’m very interested in painting itself. in the last few decades, painters have always been forced to either work narratively, thereby negating modernist painting, or vice versa. therefore, painters have split into two camps, with a no-man’s land secured by a lot of barbed wire in between. it is precisely this long fallow land that fascinates me. it holds endless possibilities for an artist who, firstly, is stupid enough to deal with painting and, secondly, doesn’t want to join one camp or the other. i don’t think that the formal aspects of a composition necessarily have to be subordinate to a narrative. the two can certainly enter into a very constructive dialog together in a composition, and even reinforce each other.

wanting to tell a story with a picture does not necessarily exclude dealing with painting and color as pure matter. text and composition do not weaken each other in music. on the contrary, the melody can decisively change the meaning of the text, the sung word. likewise, the melody can enrich the text interwoven with it. the same applies to painting. the narrative element complements the pure material of the painting with a broader approach. i think painting can be emotional, emotional intelligence should not be underestimated.

more at rvonkaufmann.com