Antigone 2004–2007
Antigone publication
Anne Sunila’s studies in artistic research inspired her to write a publication called Antigone (2013). In the publication, she retrospectively examines a painting project entitled Antigone that took place between 2004 and 2007. Under the theme Antigone, she sought to explore the nature of artistic perception. The paintings were based on two milieus, the study of a character in her studio and the other being the urban view from Helsinki. She wrote about the different aspects of the work process at the end of the project in 2007. Using this material, she wrote the essay Antigone – work process, series of paintings and metaphoric references (2013) for publication.
Text extract from Antigone (2013):
Antigone – work process, series of paintings and metaphoric references (2013)
The Antigone series of paintings advanced in stages from 2004 to 2007. The work process was long and persistent and it kept the painter firmly in its hold. It proceeded for an intuitive foundation and at the same time it was artistically consistent. As the years went by the various stages intertwined generating new characteristics. It is impossible to describe in a precise way how the working process started and how the artistic aspiration begun to develop. In 2007 I made written notes about the work process.
As the painter, I here assemble a perspective on the work process, relying in part on things I wrote in 2007. The text does not so much present, analyse or ponder about the artworks, instead it strives to bring to the fore what kind of a doing and thinking process that this series of paintings generated.
During previous years focus in my paintings had been on counter light in an urban setting. From a visual point of view a counter lit setting leads to a growing contrast between colour and light whereas the impression of space leads to a compressed deepness. At the new work phase a human figure was added, originating in the painter herself. The painter is her own model, but not in the sense of a self-portrait. Artistic projects often have limited resources in terms of space, time or finance. To be my own model freed me from these restraints. There was a certain problem associated with this point of departure, which was alive and changing throughout the different work phases.
Writing and visual work
It was some kind of “initial experience” that kindled the artistic process. The initial experience does not in this context mean some singular occurrence or happening but some kind of perception that grew out of questions triggered by different situations and occurrences. The initial experience did not present itself as a plain conceptual suggestion but rather as some vague series of visions loaded with feelings, visual perceptions and trains of thought. The mind had developed a response or demand that wanted to be explored in a visual form. The reflection took primarily place within a pictorial frame, which means that it is not possible to distinguish, in any precise sense, the reasons for the choices made, the presentation created and the trains of thought that came to mind. The pondering reflected in the paintings occurred at an emotional as well as an imaginative level, and also at the level of physical action. The work process opened up as some kind of a visual working path.
For the artist the tool acts as a space for and form of its own expression, where the painter’s “talk” emerges precisely in it and through it. I wish to recall that this possibility is a skill that the artist has acquired and it is an ability that she has created for herself. The expression that an artistic tool harbours is unique while representing, at the same time, general principles but in a way that is typical of itself. In relation to it, the text as an explication acts as a strange intruder in a world represented by another kind of tool. A text cannot be sovereign in relation to a visual artwork and a work cannot be a direct example of the thoughts presented in the text. I consider that an artwork is basically always a separate phenomenon. A text written about an artwork relates to it, but it occurs in the realm of writing andit is primarily a question of putting it into words. It is interesting to reflect on the extent to which an artist writing about her artwork is able to act as some kind of translator among different languages of expression.
In 2007 I afterwards wrote about the work process trying to describe the experiences I had had when painting and also the thought patterns that occurred and developed along with it. As to the work process, writing about it was recollecting and remembering anew – some kind of retroactive “enlightened” flashback. In a literary sense, a painter is often silent even to herself, as the lived in the form of the work is as such sufficient for her. She does not talk or write about her works. When the work process is finished the works are turned away from the artist to arts’ own general platform. Then they are there for anybody interested to assess and analyse. The artist has no longer the exclusive right to explain and interpret them. However, the artist may throw light on that closer realm in which the works were created. The artistic field where the artist and the art works are displayed is, however, a sphere for the exercise of political and social power. There the artist is in an ambivalent position and she cannot control the speeches and texts, which are expressed about her and her works. By bringing to the fore the artist’s own perspective she may “do justice” to herself in the midst of the many cruising perceptions of reality and appreciations.
When writing about my artistic work, I also went through the literature I had read, which in a literary sense may involuntarily lead to too strict a conceptualisation of the artistic process. A visual artwork can be read in many different ways, both as a direct experience and as a conceptual framework. Still none of these many possibilities can equal the identity of the work. One reason for bringing the literary framework to the fore is that, in contemporary art practices, understanding has become a central shared aspiration among different actors.
The setting of the work process
The painter observes her own figure in a mirror. The object, oneself, is available and time-wise there are no external interruptions in the painting process. The point of departure is in many respects filled with tension. A distance is formed to the figure of the self in the mirror. Psychologically we assume the role of observers, and compared to a general glance in the mirror, we are observers and commentators in more wide-ranging ways. We also look at and recognise ourselves through our external social relations and situations, as well as through social spaces and also through changes in nature. Our selves live in a constant reflective dialogue. The mirror offers us a picture of ourselves always from a certain angle that corresponds to our physical selves. The own picture may easily be perceived of as stagnant and not as something moving and space-related that is viewed from many angles. Even if we meet a familiar face in the mirror, we are partly strangers to ourselves, even peculiar, as we are not able to grasp the totality of our being. By necessity, the picture in the mirror is in part an approximation. We are all a spring for countless newly formed narratives. In this respect, the mirror is however not a tool for scrutinising them, but it rather assists in observing the situation where the figure is the self contemplated from several perspectives.
A painter works with her model in a temporal dimension that is exceptional and differs from the daily lapse of time. The temporal duration does not only present itself as a concrete lapse of time but it continues from one situation to another as an imagined time that ties together and maintains the process. It is in this setting that observations and conclusions occur that are typical for the painting process. What is aimed at is precisely this state of observation that only the “slow” artistic tool can offer. Slowness is not only catered for by the characteristics of the tool but also by the slowness in the physical process.
The mirror shows my face, but for the painter the face that is displayed does not offer a route that is accessible enough. The faces urge recognition and display a continuously changing performance for each other. There is a multiplicity of displays and none of them appear artistically meaningful. For this reason it felt natural to let go of the faces and observe one’s self from behind. This exceptional angle, displayed in real time, is only possible through special arrangements. However, a photo has not been used. The border is blurred between the two selves; the one who experiences and the distant object – the point of departure is outlined like a story about a story. The painting process aims at creating a space that allows a so called free gaze. It was important to allow ample time to look, observe and paint. The gaze was not focussed on any particular feature or aspect. The person’s head looks like a dark spot. This opened a path to somewhere that was not so evident or easy to define. It was not the question of a picture of a person seen from behind, but a setting with somebody observing and what that brings along.
I was working on the paintings in different surroundings, whereby the place provided the source for the paintings. Most of them were in Helsinki whereas one series was made in Paris. The changes in location followed from my travel. In my view this gave the process a particular tension, as the change of location brought along natural alterations to the process. I was looking for new milieus that would feel meaningful for my figure. Thereby the visual work was not only carried out in an imaginary dimension, but it also meant a physical presence in different surroundings that were actively observed and processed. The aim was to establish a link of significance between the figure and the place in question.
The work process came to encompass works under four headings: Range of Vision, Point of Disappearance, Reverse Perspective and Point of Appearance. I gave the project the general name Antigone at the first solo exhibition of this series of works, which was held in Galleria G in Helsinki in 2006. The process came to a close in 2007 when I was working at Cité Internationale des Arts in Paris, where the last part of the series was made. (p. 4–14)