Messy wall 2016 Painting

The subject of Susa Reichold's art are events at the international financial markets. In Reichold's opinion, financial capitalism has already dominated art for too long. But can this, conversely, be subjected to art? The artist poses this question with surprising stylistic means, because her works are - at least outwardly - in the tradition of abstract expressionism. The current series “Capitalism Painting” shows large-format, abstract acrylic works on canvas. The “Stock Paintings” group of works refers to the share prices of well-known companies, which become the symbol and starting point for her works. After intensive preparatory work with the raw stock price data, Reichold creates digital graphs with which the artist then continues to work physically on the canvas. The colors of the pictures are also used deliberately. The color scheme is based on the corporate color of the company whose share price it is, i.e. the color that was chosen for the design and advertising of a company in order to make it recognizable. The resulting gradient is transferred to the canvas. Reichold then processes the applied paint in several layers, whereby the last layers are often performed very quickly. While the surfaces of the “Stock Paintings” seem to become larger and calmer over time, the individual color points of the “Liquidity Paintings” appear almost explosive. The dots are layered in up to 70 individual layers until a lively swarm of individual, small areas of color results. This series deals with liquidity as a physical state as well as a metaphor. Liquidity, as it is understood in the financial world, is indispensable here, since without it the markets would collapse. In art, especially in painting, it has a different status. While the capital market is damaged without liquidity, paint only needs liquidity at the beginning. Later, when the colors dry and the liquidity disappears, the color often gains in luminosity and intensity. In this way, Reichold transfers a virtual system into the world of art with her distinctive paintings. Ultimately, what counts for the artist is what her works do with the viewer. Can the paining itself seduce? Is it arting?