Lilliestierna
Gustaf Lilliestierna (b.1992)
I view painting as a deciphering of different values within images, and I see images as enigmatic objects that conceal their true nature, either partially or entirely, behind themselves. My work is a kind of practical meta-study of this deciphering, as well as of the emergence and disappearance of the image, and therefore of thought itself: a playful wrestling match in which the image seems intent on assuming an unambiguous form, while I am driven by the desire to expose it for what it is: a superposition that, in the absence of our projections, refers only to the epistemologically unknown.
I could attempt to break down this description into a series of philosophical arguments, but this would probably result in a prolonged theoretical crossfire between claims of an objective nature on the one hand and more idealistic ones on the other—and that is not something I wish to subject you to. Moreover, I would most likely end up arriving somewhere in-between with the same question. A question that inspires regardless of whether it can be answered, because it has already achieved equilibrium through its own immanent reflection:
Is it not strange, after all, that a conflict over who has the right to define reality is taking place within reality itself, as it exists, entirely independent of the conflict in question?
That being said, one could assume that my theoretical and practical focus aims towards the in-between as a state where our concepts of reality collapse. I would not disagree, although I’m not entirely conceived by that description either. It is true that I regularly use the term ‘in-between’ in attempts to describe my practice, it is important however to mention that when doing so, I refer to the in-between solely as a spatial preposition, occupied by a much cooler concept (object, entity, ghost?), namely the void: being more than the relational space itself, and less than a traditional object. It is the void, not the in-between that fascinates me. Furthermore, I do not believe this void to be some desolate and depressing place devoid of all meaning, but rather a psychological space of the mind - in which the epistemologically unknown becomes apparent; and the emergence and disappearance of thought is stimulated.
Imagine for instance that you enter a room and react to a smell that evokes an immediate sense of familiarity, as self-evident as it is difficult to place. You remain there for a moment before suddenly realising that, of course, it is the smell of your old school that you recognise! The void is the moment in-between recognition and understanding, understanding and confusion, or conviction and uncertainty. Essentially, it is the overall surrounding void and not the (more or less) local ‘in-between’ that distorts the framework by which we navigate reality.
With risk of sounding pretty pretentious, I could summarize this by proposing that 'I explore the mental architecture of the void through imagery by painting'.
At this point, an imaginary critic will inevitably raise some questions, such as “Doesn’t this apply to all painters?” or perhaps “...all artists?”, or even “What is the point?” To which I would like to respond with an answer I find deeply satisfying, namely: “yes, probably!” As for the question of utility, I believe it resembles the usefulness of calling your partner out of concern that the food might get cold before they make it home, only to ask “Where are you?”, since your partner is unlikely to get home any faster as a result to this wonder. But surely it still feels good to know though? An answer such as “I’m just about to park the car outside!” might even feel wonderful! And surely something that feels wonderful must possess considerable value in its own right? In my view, it is a similar kind of value that constitutes the artistic experience, and it is precisely this experience, along with all its complex mechanisms—psychological, emotional, cultural, and psychotic—that serves as the primary thematic driving force behind my artistic practice.