Johan Andersson is 23-years-old, Swedish and was awarded just last year with the Jerwood Contemporary Painter’s Prize, and has begun to reach heights not seen for perhaps a century or more. He delights in portraiture, but not in the conventional sense. Illuminating the character and sense of being from his subjects is his aim through destructive methods using elements like turpentine, stripping of the canvas, whilst painting. He appreciates people who have had disfiguring and physical deterrents to make the focus of painting who they are, and not on societal beauty. As he paints, he requires his subjects to be simplistic in pose, nude, and transparent in emotion. He describes it as a sense of “voyeurism” in his work; the viewer then becomes the voyeur, peering into the hidden inner facets of one’s(the subjects’) soul. He paints quickly so as to capture a fleeting moment of emotion, introspection and desire from the portrait, which would appear similar to one scribbling notes as if to not misplace a genius thought or curiosity.
Despite his use of turpentine and his aim to be primarily an experience, which is the true achievement of this artist, he captures his subjects in a glossy light, maintaining a photo-realism that makes the subject an identifiable work for most people. Johan desires for the portraits to not maintain a preconceived notion of beauty, but to behold a grace for the viewer to become enlightened, empathetic, and drawn into the portrait. Each one of Andersson’s portraits are representations of an emotional realization he has had, and he hopes that others will find the same realization, and even to find more facets in the portrait that make it uniquely personal to the viewer.
It is interesting to note that his theory for painting is similar to that of Rudolf Arnheim, a theorist who wrote about shape, line and form to arrive at an interpretation of human beings, derived from an essence and characteristic. While this theory was written in the mid twentieth century, I believe it was being used as early as the Renaissance, primarily in Italy. However, to maintain a common underlying culture, it is fair to remain within a more modern time frame. Vincent Van Gogh was another portraitist who painted quickly, except he used the pointillist method, which differs significantly in textural effect from Andersson’s. Though the ultimate effect remains similar and defining; each artists’ subjects do not appear static nor do they appear beautiful by society’s standards. They intend to be portraits of the state of the soul, their essence. While Andersson’s theory is not entirely new, it is refreshing and familiar. This gives him an aire of authority amongst his peers in that he has combined theory and method from a Master of Post-Impressionsim and of Contemporary art. Like most people of our time, it is common to not be aware of these historical influences on oneself; rather, it is the cultural development that we have been enveloped with over time. Thus, it has become a natural part of our thought-process. I do not want to disregard Andersson’s ability to make this distinction in our contemporary world, for it is easily left in the subconscious, and he has brought it to the glossy light in the eyes of his subjects.
http://www.johanandersson.com/
