Aceptemos pues que Minera acierta al cuestionar la “nostalgia” de los jóvenes, pero no al hablar del no querer ver al “futuro” pues lo que ella llama ver al “futuro” es una opción de herramientas que el artista puede o no aceptar en la búsqueda de un arte que hable de su propia actualidad. Igual de obsoletos son cientos de performance que cuestionables los intentos hiperrealistas de llevar la técnica al extremo sin valores conceptuales, pero como se puede negar los avances de artistas que se entienden a sí mismos como integrales, usando herramientas del conceptualismo y poniéndolas al servicio de la pintura y viceversa, ahí se tiene a Bill Viola bebiendo no solo de una tradición religiosa sino de una estética pictórica, pero quién niega que Gottfried Helnwein ha alcanzado, en la pintura realista un espacio donde lo conceptual y la técnica hacen un equilibrio en obras de múltiples lecturas, que funcionan además como una crónica de nuestro tiempo. Bacon y Freud nunca fueron descalificados, prueban ambos que la búsqueda plástica no ha terminado y corresponde a la complejidad del pintor la complejidad de la obra, y a un equilibrio con su técnica la elaboración de poderosas respuestas plásticas a cuestionamientos contemporáneos. ¿Daría lo mismo que fueran una fotografía? ...

Although the majority of Gottfried Helnwein’s paintings from the past two decades take the solitary faces of young girls as their subjects, many others are groupings of multiple figures that use the conventions of Baroque and Mannerist pictorial composition to suggest or outrightly posit a dramatic confrontation between innocence and evil. Never is it made clear which will survive, and this ambiguity is exactly what makes Helnwein’s figure groupings disturbing, fascinating and compelling, simply because they give the viewer little choice but to complete the outcome of that confrontation in his or her own imagination. Moreover, they also remind the viewer that such a confrontation always exists, regardless of whatever ideological mask its participants may chose to wear. In these paintings, no state of blamelessness goes unmolested, even when the molesters claim to have nothing but the best of intentions. ...

The obvious vulnerability of the subject makes this unusually unsettling imagery. That the scene is playacted is obvious. Based on a photograph staged by the artist, the subject of this watercolor and its details are theatrical inventions. The wrapping is ad hoc, the medical tubing ersatz, and the twine superfluous. Helnwein has successfully tapped into our deep aversion to damage to the flesh, made more acute by the subject’s youth. In one sense the bandaged head is an artifact of twentieth-century warfare, one that gained visual resonance through newsprint photography, which made the casualties of war graphic and real for the masses. In another sense, the bandaged, although not often bloodied invalid, is a visual trope, robbed of its graphic nature by having been reduced to a commonplace in cinema and television. What Helnwein succeeds in doing with Beautiful Victim I is to make us see afresh and react before we can safely square away the image. ...

Two years after Beuy's death the Viennese artist Gottfried Helnwein created a striking and odd image bringing Breker and Beuys together. Helnwein posed the eighty-eight-year old Breker unconfortably holding Helnwein's portrait of Beuys in front of his chest. The older man with furrowed brow directs the glossy, skeletal image of Beuys-like an icon painting-away from his own gaze and toward that of the viewer. ...

Both Helnwein and Jeff Koons work in a wide variety of media—frequently on a large scale—and incorporate elements of pop culture and sexuality. But whereas Koons rejects hidden meaning and embraces the superficial “kitsch” element, Helnwein reappropriates these symbols as a means of enhancing his message. Symbols of innocence take on a decidedly sinister air—in Helnwein’s “Los Caprichos” painting installation, a maniacally grinning plastic Mickey Mouse looms over a series of canvases depicting maimed and vulnerable children. Yet Helnwein’s work comes across as more a statement about general victimization of the young and loss of innocence rather than purely a jab at pop culture. Both Koons and Helnwein have produced multiple self-portraits, but they are also drastically different in tone. Koons’ self-portraits glorify the artist in an excessively heroic manner that verges on the ironic, flawlessly groomed and surrounded by attractive women and/or the trappings of success. Helnwein’s self-portraits, on the other hand, depict the artist as a bandaged, disfigured, sub-human figure, often splattered with pigment and displaying all manner of expressions of pain and worry. Both artists indulge in a certain narcissism, but the effect is utterly different. This contrast highlights the basic difference between the two artists: Koons is content to revel in the decadent and superficial, while Helnwein is obsessed with physical and psychological anxieties. ...