Cat and Hornbill with Dragon Tree, part of "Lost Garden" (c) Cyril Helnwein
Last time we were talking I asked you, if male and female bodies are working differently in front of the camera, which you approved. Whilst the woman – when it comes to the human object – is always pictured more prominently in your work, why did you use females only this time? Has it something to do with aesthetics, with the symbol of the female body being a “birthmachine”, to quote Giger, or with the misconception of the female being the “weaker” one when it comes to man versus woman?
Yes, women are of course the ones who bear and raise children (strictly physiologically speaking). But I also think there is truth to “women are from Venus and men are from Mars” statement
– usually it’s men that are the uncompassionate idiots who destroy, have to beat their chest and go to war. Women are about new life and growth, the exact opposite. And aesthetically they are far superior.
In “L’Ève future”, a novel by French Symbolist Auguste Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, the fictionalized Thomas Edison hands out a machine-woman to his friend Lord Ewald, an android he created in an effort to overcome the flaws and artificiality of real women, and create a perfect and natural woman who could bring a man true happiness. I am not talking to the man Cyril Helnwein right now, but to the artist: What are you looking at in women, what are you searching in them – what makes them “perfect” for you?
I find the idea of a robot woman, like “Stepford Wives”, abhorrent. As a photographer I like to work with models that are creative and spontaneous, something a robot surely isn’t.
When it comes to humans, “beauty” lies in the eye of the beholder but often asks for symmetry. Where lies the beauty, the uniqueness and the peculiarities in nature?
As far as I know nothing is perfectly symmetrical or static, even in nature. A harmony actually consists of a minus and a plus, a negative and positive, a push and a pull. An interesting experiment one can do: take a frontal photo of your face, then on the computer select only one side, copy and flip it horizontally. You will look very different!
Where would you place the notion of “beauty” in your art? Or asked differently: When it comes to aesthetics of the living world and the other world, the fine arts, are there adjectives, values that work in one, but not in the other – or maybe even get a totally different meaning?
Artists have the freedom to play with and define beauty or aesthetics in whatever way they choose, there are really no rules. Of course there are technical things like composition, balance, etc. But an artist can turn this around and use imbalance too. In the end it just depends what the artist wants to convey or affect; and if it can’t affect the viewer in some way, then it’s not art.
In your pictures, flaws play a prominent if not important role, and since flaws also do make people interesting and natural, I had to think of Philip Roths’ novel “The Human Stain”. Stains are the original sin, stains are strongly and inseparable connected with simple existence, our human stains are the marks, the imprint we leave in our natural environment. Is this the reason why your pictures tend to be unpolished, rough – with flaws, exactly – as well?
If there’s a flaw in one of my pictures, I was either too lazy to fix or notice it,
or I did it on purpose. I’ll leave that for the viewer to decide.
For “Lost Garden” you constructed a series of handmade plaster-of-paris skulls, some based on extinct and endangered species, sized to fit a human body. Is there a reason you worked with the skulls only and did not use various body part replica?
The skull is the most interesting part of a skeleton; it’s also where we believe the soul is housed.
How did you select the animals you wanted to use? Which ones did you use actually?
Mainly on appearance but also due to their extinct or endangered status. There are rhinos, triceratops, great auks, walruses, cats, piranhas, elephants, crocodiles, gila monsters, deer, rats and more.
Normally, the skull is hidden beneath muscles, flesh and hair and lives through your voice and the look in your eyes – we all know the saying, “the eyes are the windows to the soul”. Is there anything in particular you noticed when you had all these empty sockets before you, from cat to crocodile?
The most beautiful animals can look really monstrous if you only see the skull.
Does the women’s position in the pictures somehow refer to the animals’ skulls they are wearing?
Too a small degree but not to the extent of trying to be that animal directly. The model’s poses are collaboration between the model and myself, mostly their origination with a little directing from me.
In some species, males or females may have some growth or feature in their skulls that is absent in the other sex, for example, male moose and deer grow antlers, but females do not. Did this play a role in your choice of selection?
None of the animals I used have antlers, so I don’t think there were any defining male or female features. I did one of a Chinese Water Deer, but as far as I know neither the male or female carry antlers. Instead they have these long tusks, making them look like vampires.
What happens with all the stuff you happen to use for your pictures, not only the skulls, but also various objects from your earlier series?
Some of the skulls will be on exhibition and are available for sale. The other stuff from previous work is mainly costumes or props that I keep in storage.