Modern Abstract Sensitive

In my pain­tings, coin­ci­dence acts within the limits I have set and takes over a com­po­si­tio­nal work until, at a cer­tain point, I deci­de to fix it. Coin­ci­den­tal moments are sub­ject to chan­ges I help to shape. Thus, the unfo­re­seeable and unpre­dic­ta­ble beco­mes a co-crea­tor in the artis­tic process.

Coin­ci­dence crea­tes the grea­test pos­si­ble authen­ti­ci­ty, and I just need to incor­po­ra­te it into my art. Thus, coin­ci­dence is a con­scious choice in my pain­tings, a choice that opens the door to a uni­que experience.

To achie­ve this, I deve­lo­ped my very own tech­ni­que by pro­ces­sing acrylic pig­ments in a par­ti­cu­lar way after app­ly­ing them on paper or canvas.


Ulrich Wedel, born 1955, was always enthu­si­a­stic about art, but deci­ded to stu­dy and prac­ti­ce archi­tec­tu­re ins­tead. None­thel­ess, his pas­si­on for art remain­ed con­stant over the years.

He expe­ri­men­ted with a varie­ty of tech­ni­ques in his quest to fin­ding his artis­tic voice, and this ulti­m­ate­ly led him to deve­lo­ping his very own pain­ting style. In 2012 he moved from a figu­ra­ti­ve to a more and more abs­tract form of expres­si­on. He has exhi­bi­ted in solo and group exhi­bi­ti­ons in Ger­ma­ny and abroad.


About Ulrich Wedel

Prof. Dr. Die­ter Ron­te, art his­to­rian/-cura­tor

Against the Grain

Except for the busy deca­des in his care­er as an archi­tec­tu­ral engi­neer, Ulrich Wedel has pain­ted enthu­si­a­sti­cal­ly and pro­li­fi­cal­ly sin­ce his youth. He retur­ned to pain­ting later in life.

Very cheerful by natu­re, he pon­de­red in his fif­ties life’s ques­ti­ons for hims­elf. He read a gre­at deal of phi­lo­so­phy, which play­ed an incre­asing­ly grea­ter role in his con­ver­sa­ti­on with art. Pain­ting beca­me again his con­stant com­pa­n­ion. Each of his crea­ti­ons is a sort of visu­al sym­bol of new truths, other sphe­res of expe­ri­ence, other jour­neys and exis­ten­ti­al ques­ti­ons. Pain­ting beca­me his colorful phi­lo­so­phy, one that depar­ted from all nar­ra­ti­ve forms, and that era­sed pre­di­ca­ti­ve and indi­ca­ti­ve ico­no­gra­phic bonds. In them­sel­ves, his pain­tings are free. 

At first glan­ce, con­s­truc­ti­ve ele­ments pro­vi­de the images with order, an order that dis­sol­ves its­elf through the color struc­tures that spread across the enti­re can­vas like an invi­si­ble web. The struc­tu­ral ali­gnments sug­gest a com­po­si­ti­on while avo­i­ding a Pol­lo­ckes­que “all over.” The pain­tings have an ori­en­ta­ti­on, yet it is impos­si­ble to make a direct and irre­fu­ta­ble state­ment about them. 

At each vie­w­ing, the pain­tings speak in a new way. In spi­te of let­ter-like forms, nowhe­re is the­re rea­da­bili­ty. The small shapes that seem to repeat them­sel­ves as in wri­ting are never con­gru­ent, but rather always mark­ed by indi­vi­dua­li­ty. In the arran­ge­ment of mul­ti­ple sym­bols, the­re is a ple­tho­ra of legi­bi­li­ty that view­ers must make their own. They beco­me col­la­bo­ra­tors in the spi­rit of Umber­to Eco’s ope­ra aper­ta. The pain­tings invi­te us to take part in a leng­thy dia­lo­gue that beg­ins when we try to ascer­tain mea­ning, which, howe­ver, the pain­ting denies us. We can read things into them and reco­gni­ze shapes of figu­res that then rapidly dissolve.

The pro­cess of pain­ting in various tech­ni­ques allows the pain­tings to chan­ge non fini­to, to refres­hing incom­ple­ten­ess due to the fact that the pain­ter works with more paint than the view­er can see in the finis­hed image. The thick appli­ca­ti­on of paint is fol­lo­wed by a reduc­tion of the color mass and the brea­king up of sur­faces to reve­al a lar­ge, whir­ling wealth of colors simi­lar to a kalei­do­scope. The pain­tings do not stand proud­ly by them­sel­ves. They repea­ted­ly self-crea­te them­sel­ves, demons­t­ra­ting that the pro­cess of beco­ming is never actual­ly com­ple­te, that even a pain­ting is always sear­ching and inven­ting its­elf. This cha­rac­te­ristic ensu­res every image on paper or on can­vas fresh­ness, dia­lo­gue, trans­pa­ren­cy as well as depar­tu­re from the didac­tic wag­ging fin­ger that so stron­gly domi­na­tes today’s inter­na­tio­nal art sce­ne. Wedel eva­des that, and his art rests more on the older, post-war abs­tract gene­ra­ti­on of artists with whom he grew up.

Sin­ce he sees pain­ting as an enhance­ment of life’s expe­ri­en­ces, he needs no theo­ries, no pri­or desi­gna­ti­ons neither to crea­te a work of art nor to explain it. Like so many other pain­ters who were trai­ned in ano­ther pro­fes­si­on, Wedel has not suf­fe­r­ed from aca­de­mic influence (simi­lar, for exam­p­le, to the Brü­cke pain­ters in Dres­den who stu­di­ed archi­tec­tu­re, but not pain­ting). Each pain­ting is its own cos­mos, each pain­ting is dif­fe­ren­tia­ted by a title, which, howe­ver, is not added until the pain­ting is finis­hed. It is just as effec­ti­ve for iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on as it is as a point of access for the view­er. But it never says any­thing about the con­tent, as Wedel is not illus­t­ra­ting any visu­al ide­as. He crea­tes them in the pro­cess of pain­ting. The final form is often dic­ta­ted by chan­ce, just like life itself.