關於風格
我意識到沒有風格也是一種風格，於是我追求這種風格。
- Martin Kippenberger
20 世紀的許多藝術發展，都試圖通過顛覆美學機制、以切斷藝術主觀性與藝術對象自主性之間的聯繫，例如畢加索和布拉克的立體主義，是試圖否定藝術對視覺現實的依賴，而杜尚用他的現成物徹底摒棄了 「視網膜藝術」，約翰斯和勞申伯格避免通過使用已有圖像來創造圖像，觀念主義則否定藝術品本身的存在地位－他們都試圖擺脫當時的審美傳統，並在這一過程中創造出歷久彌新的藝術。然而，基彭伯格的觀點又道出了這一策略的侷限性：規避傳統只會導致新的傳統，風格和主觀性即使在被否定的過程中也會持續存在。
因此，藝術家無法擺脫與其作品之間的連結，但上世紀的遺產也表明了，這種聯繫可以緊繃到何種程度而不會斷裂－畢加索經歷了數十個不同時期，卻從未違背過自己的感覺－上述所有藝術家都是如此，更不用說基彭伯格本人對自己作品的輕率態度了。這並不意味著藝術家們放棄了其創作實踐的連續性，藝術發展仍然是一項充滿風險的事業，歷史不難將這些複雜的作品納入自己的神殿，但觀眾和市場仍然頑固地抗拒這樣的驚喜－這導致藝術家們限制了自己的創作，擔心真正的探索變成通向默默無聞的道路。矛盾的是，公眾對藝術家身份的認同也展現多種衝突，如對重複的抵制卻又應該肯定藝術家主體性的統一連貫，但對明顯識別度的需求卻又表明了一種市場的焦慮願望。
這就是我的作品產生的背景。我不僅在每件新作品中尋求組合式的驚喜，而且我這樣做的時間已十分長久，以至於沒有人對我的期望會因而降低。從這個意義來說，我是始終如一的，且從這個方法論來說，我是自由的。我通常會在作品中探索新的技術和材料，但這樣做並不是要否定個人風格，相反地，我認為不可能因技術和材料的轉換，就彎曲、扭曲、切割和折疊了我的主觀性。這件作品中焦慮、繪畫性的瞬間可能在另一件作品成為卡通化的表現，有節奏的線條可能是斷裂或曲線的，生動、多彩的篇章在爾後又被黑暗、陰沉的段落所取代。這種極端多元化的繪畫方式可能會令所有人困惑，但它卻在當代繪畫的實踐上極具意義。
。
－ 伊根弗朗茨，康涅狄格州南港，1/5/24
On Style
I realized that not having a style is also a style, and then I pursued this style.
— Martin Kippenberger
Many of the artistic developments in the 20th century attempted to sever the connection between artistic subjectivity and the art object's autonomy by subverting the mechanisms of aesthetic expression. For example: Picasso and Braque's cubism sought to negate art's reliance on visual reality, Duchamp rejected “retinal” art altogether with his readymades, Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg avoided the need to invent images through the use of preexisting ones, and conceptualists dismissed the primacy of the artwork itself. Each tried to get away from the aesthetic conventions of their time and made enduring art in the process. Kippenberger's sentiment, however, notes the limits of this strategy; avoiding convention only leads to new aesthetic conventions, so style and subjectivity persist even in their negation.
Thus, artists cannot escape their ties to their work, but the legacy of the last century shows how far that bond can be bent without breaking. Picasso cycled through dozens of distinct periods without ever contradicting his own sensibility, as did all of the above artists, to say nothing of Kippenberger's own prodigious flippancy towards his oeuvre. This isn't to imply that artists have forsaken continuity in their practices. Artistic development remains a risky business. History has had little trouble integrating these complex oeuvres into its pantheon, but the general audience and the market remains stubbornly resistant to surprise. This leads artists to limit the scope of their practices, fearful that genuine exploration is a sure path to obscurity. Paradoxically, a resistance to repetition should affirm the unity of an artist's subjectivity where the need for obvious continuity speaks to an anxious desire to reaffirm the public’s sense of who an artist is.
This is the context from which my work emerges. Not only do I seek out combinatorial surprise with each new work I make, I’ve done so for long enough that no one expects any less of me. In that sense I am consistent and in that methodology I am free. As a rule I explore new techniques and materials in my work, but in doing so I do not seek to negate the notion of personal style. Rather deeming that an impossibility I investigate, bend, twist, cut, and fold the nature of my subjectivity by means of an expanded technical syntax. An anxious, painterly moment here could be a cartoonish representation there, a rhythmic line could be broken or curvilinear, and vividly colorful interludes are readily replaced with dark or somber moments. This pluralistic approach to painting may be confounding, if only because it works.
- Egan Frantz, Southport, CT 1/5/24
