Jorg Immendorff presents a canvas divided in three parts: labour, knowledge and possibility. His central figure, a goddess-like woman embodying an owl of wisdom, is the icon nurture and virtue, radiant against the bleak background of storm clouds and darkness. Through her flows a stream of fertility and rebirth in the form of labia-like fruits, proffered from the toil of the rural worker.Immendorff's style lies somewhere between painterly expressionism and political cartoon; equally revered and populist. Exaggerating each element to its graphic extreme, Immendorff uses paint as a means to negotiate his own position through documenting a 20th century zeitgeist. Operating like medieval religious painting, Immendorff not only presents the story of our time, but questions the morality and ethic of an increasingly frivolous society.Immendorff, the act of painting extends beyond creative function: it becomes the most relevant means by which an individual can make an impact in history: measuring oneself against the world, taking a personal viewpoint, and creating real meaning from contemporary existence.

Born in 1945, Immendorff was of the generation that experienced post-war disillusionment that politicized every waking moment. As a student in the 1960s, he faced the task of examining Germany's tragic history and its fraught relationship with modernity. This forced him to devise a balancing act between eras.Immendorff subsequently takes on the multiple roles of jester, storyteller and historian. He actively participates in a self-conscious continuum of twentieth-century German art while simultaneously throwing stones at the powers that be. After running the full gamut of conceptual work ? la fluxus, his adoption of painting appears as a sort of purposeful and elaborate bluff. Although this suits his needs, it makes the connection to Ludwig Kirchner and the original German expressionist group die Br?cke seem almost superfluous. What comes to the fore instead is a weaving together of political, social and personal myth making. It is the content that matters most, putting him more in line with the social, satirical and metaphorical intents of George Grosz and Max Beckmann respectively.