STORY ELLEN DE SCHEPPER

PROFILE Michal Borremans

Michal Borremans
FOR BELGIAN ARTIST MICHAL BORREMANS, THE
HISTORY BEHIND PAINTING BRINGS WITH IT A LOT
OF BAGGAGE THAT HE EAGERLY EXPLOITS TO
EXPRESS HIS IDEAS.

NE OF EUROPES smallest and greyest countries,

Belgium is mostly famous for chocolate and beer.
What many may find surprising is that its one of
the busiest countries in Europe when it comes to
contemporary art, with probably one of the highest
demographic densities of collectors in the world, many notable
galleries, a large number of internationally recognised artists and a
couple of flourishing art fairs.

Artist Profile speaks to one of the main ambassadors of contemporary

art in Belgium, painter Michal Borremans, whose career as a
full-time artist started only about 15 years ago. In that brief time he
has managed to become a represented artist of important galleries in
Belgium, New York and Japan; have his work shown in renowned
museums in New York, Japan, Europe and Jerusalem; make his
paintings part of important private collections all over the world; and
be the subject of numerous solo exhibitions nationwide and globally.
It appears as if the whole history of art has shaped your oeuvre.
What and who have greatly influenced your work?
It is true that certain works or artists have marked my work more
than others. I am very conscious about the influence of some artists;
Johannes Vermeers genre painting, for instance. But above anyone,
Jean-Baptiste-Simon Chardin, in all sorts of ways. In the beginning
of my career I looked at Jean-Honor Fragonard as well, but that
had more to do with his technique and less with his themes. I am a
New Romantic, partially.

01

Also of great importance to what I do is what happened in the

beginning of the 20th century, with Dadaism and Marcel Duchamps
conceptual art. My paintings could not have existed without the
work of Duchamp and his contemporaries. Even if their influence
is not that explicit in my oeuvre, it has determined my mindset.
I find Duchamp a very inspiring artist who I think has been
misunderstood too many times and has been repeated too many times
by too many artists which resulted in very uninteresting works. But
let us not be too negative.
In the past, film and photography works inspired me as well, but later
on I moved away from those media. I wanted to make autonomous
paintings again. I also thought a lot about Man Rays works. He did

not stick to one medium, he just wanted to work out his ideas in the
most suitable way possible, the best way he could think of.
These are only a couple of examples. There are more, of course like
Manet or Velasquez.
Your photography schooling is clearly reflected in the way your
works come about. Photos and, more recently, sculptures are often
the starting point of your paintings. How does that work exactly?
And where does the influence of other media begin and end?
These last years photography has played a very significant role in the
development of my paintings, but merely as a tool during the process
of creation. I put situations in scene by means of photos. From the
moment I am doing that I am actually already making the painting,
because I take those photographs only in function of the work I am
about to make. However, a painting is an interpretation, otherwise I
would not bother to make paintings, I would stick to photography.
But, indeed, it has become an essential part of the process. If there
is any system behind the way I work it is that I make photos before
I start painting. That does not mean I do not put a lot of effort into
coming up with original images. These are always based on a selection
from our rich cultural history. First, I pick some iconographic elements,
chosen for their specific connotations, but without applying them too
explicitly. So the building of an image first forms in my mind, then on
paper, then by means of photos. And these photos look already very
similar to the paintings they are about to become very bizarre. So,
while shooting, I also look at colours, light trying out in photos how
all these factors would work on the painting. This kind of photography
is specific because I use the medium for a very unusual purpose. It
could be interesting to do something with these photos later on.
Despite the fact that your works are set in an undefined time and
space, we often get the impression were looking at a mid 50s
Eastern Bloc scene. Would you agree?
Indeed, in my early works I referred to the middle of the 20th century
because I wanted to create a kind of universal image of the 20th
century man. But later on I realised that that was not so interesting
after all, because people would often specifically think of the 1940s
or 1950s and that was not my intention, that was too limited. So I

085

PROFILE Michal Borremans

02

086

03

You will never find me painting a portrait it is a function painting

does not have to fulfil any more. Other media are much more
successful in doing that.
decided to avoid all references to a certain time or place to be able to
create a framework in which we can only focus on the scene. All other
associations are useless to me and I do not use them anymore, so my
paintings are now even more universal and focus more on what I
think matters. I want my works to be indeterminate.
You say your portraits are not actual portraits, the characters do
not have personalities and they are not individuals. Why do you
refuse to give the public what they expect?
Yes, I use the format and composition of a portrait, because it is
recognisable, it feels familiar, but at the same time, by not using it as
a portrait, as such, it feels very alienating. So, on the one hand the
viewer feels comfortable and on the other hand he does not.
Not very long ago, painting was used for documentary purposes
besides for art: a portrait, a landscape, to document things. But
photography has redeemed painting of that purpose. When that
happened, the art became autonomic and everything that is made
through means of painting became part of the realm of imagination.
Personally, I find that much more interesting.
That is why you will never find me painting a portrait it is a
function painting does not have to fulfil any more. Other media
are much more successful in doing that, such as photography and
documentaries.
And, in fact, I do not expect anything from the public. I just want
to provide some sort of platform. What the viewer does with my
platform is up to him. When a writer writes a book it is also up to the

reader what he takes in from the text. My work, in the same way, is
merely an instigator that wants to activate the publics imagination. If
I have to expect something from the viewer, it is wanting to put his
imagination to work. I want to make the spectator an accomplice to
my painting. A naive viewer will think about the meaning of my work,
he will search for a meaning behind the things he sees, and that is
normal. We are, as humans, conditioned to think that an image needs
to clarify something while, in fact, that is not necessary. The opposite
can be true, and that is what I do. My images are divergent, while we
are used to experiencing images as convergent. And I refuse to make
convergent images. So, really, my work is only a starting point.
Your reflection on your own work there is nothing there
resembles Ren Magrittes thought when naming his work of art
Ceci nest pas une pipe [This is not a pipe]. How do you feel about
this comparison with the Surrealist master?
Well, that is another aspect of my work. My works are often about
the art of painting an sich [an object as it is, independent of the mind];
about the fact that it is only a canvas with paint on it. I try hard to
visualise the thought that it is all merely an illusion that can only be
read by the mind. Of course, Surrealism has had a huge influence
on my work. I am Belgian after all. And I do not believe it would
have had the same great importance if I were not Belgian. It is very
typical, the kind of absurd humour we use. And I find it important to
incorporate humour in my paintings. Sometimes it is well hidden, but
it is there alright. I distrust art that is a hundred percent serious. And
above that, I find art without humour quite uninteresting.

04

05

087

In fact, Magritte was very much a conceptual painter and his

technique was rather flat, pure, like billboard painting. But exactly
that technique fitted his themes so well it was the perfect way to
execute his ideas. With that specific technique he put focus on the
conceptual side of his oeuvre.

and I am very serious about that. It even occurs that I restart a work
three or four times, only because I feel the dimensions do not work,
because I think the work requires a smaller or a bigger canvas. The
differences are very subtle but I have a good intuition for sensing if
dimensions work or not.

You started your art career quite late with some local, small-scale
exhibitions, and you were picked up by big galleries and collectors
very quickly. How has that influenced your work?
Indeed, it all went very quickly from a certain point and that fast
evolution has had a positive influence on my work. I used to be a
full-time teacher, which left me drawing and painting only during
my free time. Then I decided to stop teaching to see if I could build
a career as an artist and that worked quite well. It was inspiring, and
it still is, to receive constructive feedback and appreciation from the
right people and being able to work on an international platform.

And, indeed, these last years I have been working on themes that
required larger canvases. To be completely honest, I adore creating
large works, it makes me feel like a real man, with big brushes and
big canvases. I find it all very vigorous [laughs]. The thrill I get from
painting a good work is huge; the thrill I get from painting a good,
large work is enormous because it is very difficult to make a good
painting of substantial dimensions. The effort is a lot greater as well.
And if it fails, the disappointment is likewise. But if I feel it is a good
work, I am ecstatic for weeks. Nothing can beat that feeling, nothing.

In the beginning that really gave me the self-confidence I needed.

From then on I could exclusively focus on painting. And regarding
the associated evolution in the quality of my work, I did have a
certain maturity as a draftsman, but as a painter I was just a beginner.
Fortunately my style and technique evolved rather rapidly, for the
better I think. For instance, I always consider my last work my best
work. I have made some strong images in the beginning as well, but
technically I was not there yet. Of course, you keep on setting your
sights higher as an artist, because you want to make better works over
and over again. I am not taking the easiest way by doing that, but to
me it is the only way.
Another evolution is noticeable in the dimensions of your works.
They tend to get larger by the years. Is there a reason for that?
That has to do with different things. First of all, I draw less because
my close vision has deteriorated, annoyingly. So working in large
dimensions is easier for me. That is one reason. Another reason is that
in the past, I did want to paint on large canvases but my themes were
not suited to do so, they were too intimate. I believe that each theme,
each subject matter, each composition requires specific dimensions

Your works demonstrate the importance of craftsmanship to

your oeuvre. Do you think there is an artistic tendency towards
the pure art of painting after years of concepts prevailing over
technical effectuation?
That does not interest me. A work of art does not always require a
great deal of craftsmanship or technique. I like art that has many
qualities a good work does. In the case of a painting, for instance,
I believe it is interesting if the work allows us to look at the content
from many angles, if the work provokes different kinds of analyses,
which is the case with my oeuvre. When it then is also well painted,
you get a good, complete work. But I am not going to promote
craftsmanship, because I think there are a lot of artists making
magnificent art who are not the best painters. It is not about how
good one can paint, but how good the paintings are made.
I am not convinced that going back to craftsmanship is a good
evolution, because it may result in paintings becoming too technical.
The importance of the technical skills may then outweigh other
valuable aspects of the art making process. It happens a lot with
contemporary artists and I find their very skilfully painted works
very bad. The technical aspect became more important than the

06

088

idea behind the work. So the recent focus on craftsmanship has not
necessarily resulted in better art. It sometimes makes me think of
19th century genre painting. I have not seen much interesting from
that time either.
In fact, I am an exception [laughs]. I do not want to sound arrogant
if I find the work of another artist better I will say so. For instance, I
admire the oeuvre of Gerhard Richter. As all good painters, his work
gets better and better over the years. There are also artists who keep
on doing the same stuff, they work very disciplined. I would love to
be able to work disciplined.
Is there a red line through your oeuvre?
There is for sure, but it is difficult to determine it. I feel it intuitively.
An artist is good when he finds himself in his work. Only then he
becomes interesting.
Belgian artists are quite popular on the international art scene
(Wim Delvoye, Jan Fabre, Luc Tuymans, Francis Als). Most of
them are artistic multitaskers, they paint, draw, sculpt, make films
and theatre. Looking at other contemporary artists abroad, you
see much less of that interdisciplinarity. Why is that?
Indeed, most painters stick to painting. Me, to be honest, I am not
a real painter. I invented myself as a painter. I might be an artist by
nature, but I am not a painter by nature. And I made the switch from
drawing to painting quite late. At a certain point I understood that
I had to paint to get my ideas across because a painting has a totally
different impact than a drawing, a different weight. You much more
make a statement by hanging a painting on your wall compared to
hanging a drawing on your wall.
And there is also the tradition of painting, the icon of the painting,
that familiar iconic medium that gathered an immense substance
throughout the course of history. And I wanted to use that weight.
The magnificence of the painting, the institute of the painting
unconsciously we experience it when we look at a work. It is not
a neutral medium, there is a lot of baggage to it. It is that baggage
that I wish to use. As a judoka uses his weight for force, I want to
use the painting.
And the things I made in film are actual paintings to me. I wanted to
make paintings in which one could see movements, but sadly that is
not possible with oil paint. So I made films with very little movements.

I distrust art that is a

hundred percent serious.
And above that, I find
art without humour quite
uninteresting.

To me they are dynamic paintings. I was looking for a medium that

would make that possible and it turned out to be film, not video. With
film you can also generate painterly effects and atmospheres, for
instance with the grain, the way in which the pellicles [top layer of the
emulsion on the film] contain light. All that can be very beautiful, very
poetic. I experimented a lot with film without obtaining many good
results. But first come the ideas, then I think about how to execute
them, in film, painting, sculpture
You have a large exhibition of your work next year in the Centre
for Fine Arts in Brussels.
It is not a retrospective. There are not enough works gathered, but
it is a nice anthology from my oeuvre. And it will be a travelling
exhibition. Jefferey Grove, senior curator of the Museum of Dallas,
is curator of the show and takes it to Belgium, Tel-Aviv and the US.
And there might be a fourth exhibition place, but that is still up in
the air. There will be many works on show which are in American
collections and which have not been exhibited in Europe before. So
that should be interesting.
What can we expect from you and your work in coming times?
I will not tell you. I do not know yet. I do not wish to shock or surprise,
I just want to make the best work possible. That is hard enough.
Borremans is represented by David Zwirner Gallery, New York and London,
and Zeno X Gallery, Antwerp
www.davidzwirner.com

01
02
03
04
05
06

The Angel, 2013, oil on linen, 83 x 71cm

Eating the Beard, 2010, oil on linen, 50 x 42cm
The Tape, 2010, oil on linen, 200 x 160cm
The German, 2002, oil on linen, 50 x 42cm
Man Looking Down at his Hand, 2007, oil on linen, 36 x 30cm
The Ear, 2011, oil on linen, 42 x 53cm