Pop, Irony and Seriousness
Albert Oehlen in conversation with Thomas Groetz about Martin Kippenberger
Page [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
TG: Then there's this self-portrait in the Picasso underpants - where Kippenberger is messing around clumsily with this vehicle. What kind of construction is that, actually? What's being thematized here?
AO: The theme may be embarrassment - fat man in unattractive underpants - or maybe the triumph over embarrassment. When the photo was taken he poked his stomach out further than he need have. In his films Otto Muehl pulled his stomach in. This was inspired by a photo of Picasso that shows him standing there in underpants or bathing trunks, with a dog on a lead, looking into the distance and cutting an incredibly good figure. At the time there was an article in the newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung I think, in which Picasso was venerated in the highest possible terms. What was particularly emphasized was that his drawings were simply sketched on blue hotel writing paper. This made Martin very angry, the fact that Picasso was getting bonus points for the blue hotel writing paper. A god, whose appreciation and valuation seemed able to go no higher, gets a bonus point for blue hotel writing paper. So Martin hit back with these photos and a great, fairly comprehensive series of drawings on hotel writing paper. In the picture there's an appliance that was also to be seen in the Peter exhibition. The important thing about this sculpture was that people scratched their heads about the possible function of the appliance. The logo of the imaginary Lord Jim Loge, with hammer, bosom and sun, is incorporated into it. But don't ask me what that means.
TG: The self-portraits painted in the early 1990s are less grotesque than that image.
AO: They were based on a very reasonable observation: what profit is there in presenting yourself in a self-portrait as good-looking? None at all, for, either no one will believe you and you make yourself look ridiculous, or they won't like you. But if you portray yourself ass-uglier than you are, both artist and painting benefit.
TG: There is nothing satirical for example about the picture where Kippenberger's outstretched hands become the bearer of expression - one outwards, the other inwards. Can we detect a certain tragic aspect here - something slipping away, loss, self-sacrifice, failure?
AO: We can, but we needn't. The hands were a theme we competed about. I once mentioned to him that I had heard that one could see from painted hands whether someone could really paint. We were standing in front of one of my self-portraits where the hands were really bad. He wanted to go one better.
TG: In your opinion, how seriously do you think we can take Kippenberger's late paintings, where he can be seen as a wounded, half-dead figure? Here the ironic and the grotesque really seem to have taken a different turn, don't they? The only question is: where to?
AO: I don't know either. We both, but Martin particularly, often slipped into roles, always in unpleasant or embarrassing self-portraits-as-so-and-so - down with inflation. In these pictures there is no longer any sign of humor. There has been much speculation about whether he saw that he was soon to die. That may well be. Then these pictures would fit; but not only then. Martin could be a perfectly serious person. But that did not come across in the pictures until this moment. That doesn't mean though that it didn't have to come at sometime or other. After all, he wanted everything. So, sooner or later, he had to tackle being serious.
Page [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
Page [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
TG: Then there's this self-portrait in the Picasso underpants - where Kippenberger is messing around clumsily with this vehicle. What kind of construction is that, actually? What's being thematized here?
AO: The theme may be embarrassment - fat man in unattractive underpants - or maybe the triumph over embarrassment. When the photo was taken he poked his stomach out further than he need have. In his films Otto Muehl pulled his stomach in. This was inspired by a photo of Picasso that shows him standing there in underpants or bathing trunks, with a dog on a lead, looking into the distance and cutting an incredibly good figure. At the time there was an article in the newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung I think, in which Picasso was venerated in the highest possible terms. What was particularly emphasized was that his drawings were simply sketched on blue hotel writing paper. This made Martin very angry, the fact that Picasso was getting bonus points for the blue hotel writing paper. A god, whose appreciation and valuation seemed able to go no higher, gets a bonus point for blue hotel writing paper. So Martin hit back with these photos and a great, fairly comprehensive series of drawings on hotel writing paper. In the picture there's an appliance that was also to be seen in the Peter exhibition. The important thing about this sculpture was that people scratched their heads about the possible function of the appliance. The logo of the imaginary Lord Jim Loge, with hammer, bosom and sun, is incorporated into it. But don't ask me what that means.
TG: The self-portraits painted in the early 1990s are less grotesque than that image.
AO: They were based on a very reasonable observation: what profit is there in presenting yourself in a self-portrait as good-looking? None at all, for, either no one will believe you and you make yourself look ridiculous, or they won't like you. But if you portray yourself ass-uglier than you are, both artist and painting benefit.
TG: There is nothing satirical for example about the picture where Kippenberger's outstretched hands become the bearer of expression - one outwards, the other inwards. Can we detect a certain tragic aspect here - something slipping away, loss, self-sacrifice, failure?
AO: We can, but we needn't. The hands were a theme we competed about. I once mentioned to him that I had heard that one could see from painted hands whether someone could really paint. We were standing in front of one of my self-portraits where the hands were really bad. He wanted to go one better.
TG: In your opinion, how seriously do you think we can take Kippenberger's late paintings, where he can be seen as a wounded, half-dead figure? Here the ironic and the grotesque really seem to have taken a different turn, don't they? The only question is: where to?
AO: I don't know either. We both, but Martin particularly, often slipped into roles, always in unpleasant or embarrassing self-portraits-as-so-and-so - down with inflation. In these pictures there is no longer any sign of humor. There has been much speculation about whether he saw that he was soon to die. That may well be. Then these pictures would fit; but not only then. Martin could be a perfectly serious person. But that did not come across in the pictures until this moment. That doesn't mean though that it didn't have to come at sometime or other. After all, he wanted everything. So, sooner or later, he had to tackle being serious.
Page [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
Kippenberger
Hardcover, 29.7 x 42 cm (11.7 x 16.5 in.), 212 pages
$ 70.00
$ 70.00
A total of one hundred paintings, sculptures and drawings from two of the finest collections of the artist`s work in the world
