Andreas Sinopoulos

Painter | Greece

Andreas Sinopoulos is a painter. He was born in Athens in 1961, where he currently lives and works. He studied Painting at the School of Fine Arts – Department of Visual Arts of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, under the guidance of Makis Theofylaktopoulos. He also attended Engraving courses with Giorgos Milios and Art History with Niki Loizidi. He is a member of the Chamber of Fine Arts of Greece (EETE). Since 1999, he has been teaching at the Painting Workshop of the Municipality of Zografou in Athens. In 2007, he turned mainly to non-figurative painting, while remaining active in figurative art as well.

In January 2020, his body of work up to that point was presented at an event at IANOS bookstore by historian and architect Kostas Kazamiakis, with the participation of poet Giorgos Gotis and photographer Haris Kakarouchas. Between 1979 and 1982, he attended ASETEM-SELETE, studying Pedagogy. He has collaborated with painters and iconographers on church murals, with Kostas Georgakopoulos (1984), Chrysogonos Karahalios and Ioannis Christopoulos (1992–1994), and painter Kostas Papatriantafyllopoulos (2003–2004).

His special interest in East Asian art led him to study the Japanese language, in which he earned a degree in 1995. Since 2004, he has been researching the subject of the polychromy of ancient statues. He has presented his work in three solo and selected group exhibitions in Greece and Belgium from 1990 to the present. His works are held in private collections. In parallel with the visual arts, he has been involved in poetry since the 1980s, with several publications in well-regarded literary journals.

STATEMENT

Until 2007, I believed that (figurative) painting was ultimately justified by the result—that only the outcome held value. The result—whose finalization lasts only a few moments—gave me a vague sense of satisfaction, but not the process by which I arrived there. “Vague satisfaction,” because I was uncertainly and barely connected to what I was painting. No emotion arose from within me; I worked solely with knowledge.

In that state, I felt uneasy rather than fulfilled. That’s when I was led to completely ignore the artistic ideals I had held, through my participation (in 2007 and 2008) in a seminar led at the time by photographer Haris Kakarouchas. The core idea was to work with my entire being present—not just with my mind. And in order for that to happen, I first needed to connect with my “entire being”…

I limited myself to the most basic materials—paper and one or two colors. I did not predetermine any outcome during the act of painting; I didn’t judge or think about anything. I approached my unknown or unrecognizable subject with the sustained intensity that carried the painting process from beginning to end. Some emotion was fueling all of it—psychic pain, and very often, an abyssal rage.

By painting this way, I found myself in a harsh terrain where, nonetheless, I could exist almost entirely whole. Painting was no longer torment. Four years later, the majority of the work was completed, and I was able to take an overview. I destroyed about one fourth of the production, which had no reason to be kept. Among those I rejected were works that were aesthetically complete—but only aesthetically. Aesthetics should not be the highest criterion.

Almost a decade later, shortly after 2016, when I continued working in this instinctive, conscious, and gestural way, the intensity that surged from within became so overwhelming that I could hardly bear it, and I didn’t know how to use it. It was as if there was fuel, but no purpose. I also saw that I was replicating my own technique—that is, the medium itself. Today, we call that mannerism, and it is nothing more than aesthetic. Realizing this, I decided I had to stop, while knowing that a place exists there, where I have walked.

On the other hand, I did not abandon studies, or representation—that would be like abandoning (and distancing myself from) my art, that is, its foundation and measure. For now, only these works will be posted here—that is, not the representational ones.

AT A GLANCE

Type: Painting

Medium: Inks, Oil Pastels, Tempera, Pencils, Charcoal on paper, Acrylics & Oil on canvas

Style: Gestural Abstraction, Abstract and Figurative Expressionism, Line Drawing, Minimalism

Themes: Conceptual

Studio: Athens, Greece

Affiliations: EETE (Chamber of Fine Arts of Greece)

Price Range: €500 – 2500

International Standing:
EMERGING | HIGH-POTENTIAL | MID-CAREER | ESTABLISHED

RECENT WORKS

CAREER PATH

SOLO EXHIBITIONS

Ersi Gallery, Athens, 1999
Public Library of Chalkida, Chalkida, 1996
Chryssothemis Gallery, Halandri, Athens, 1996

INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATIONS (selected)

Gallerie Fontaine L’Eveque, Fontaine L’Eveque, Belgium, 2002

GROUP EXHIBITIONS (selected)

“Cities of Humans”, curated by Athina Schina, P. & M. Kydoineos Foundation, Andros, 2023

“Modern Greek Painting”, Port Art Gallery, Patras, 2008

Trigono Art Hall, Kifisia, 2002

Rarity Gallery, Mykonos, 2002

Atrion Gallery, Thessaloniki, 2002, 1999, 1996

“The Horse”, Ersi Gallery, Athens, 1998–99

“Holy Paintings”, Ersi Gallery, Athens, 1998

“Route ’97”, Ersi Gallery, Athens, 1997

“In Memory of Fotis Kontoglou”, Goulandris-Horn Foundation, Athens, 1996

Hyacinth Art Hall, Kifisia, 1996

“Festival of Literature & Art”, Cultural Center of the Municipality of Lefkada, Lefkada, 1994

“14 Students from the Studio of Makis Theofylaktopoulos at the School of Fine Arts of Thessaloniki”, Ileana Tounta Center for Contemporary Art, Athens, 1993

“For the Children of Yugoslavia”, Kostis Palamas Building, Athens, 1990–91

BOOK COVERS & ILLUSTRATIONS (selected)

TO KOINON magazine, issue 17, March – illustration, 2023

Rainer Maria Rilke, The Golden Box, translated by Panagiotis Yfantis, Armos Editions, Athens – frontispiece illustration, 2021 & 1999

Stylianos G. Vios, The Little Rooster & Other Tales from Chios, edited by Agni Stroumbouli, Chios – illustration, 2003

“Diavazo” magazine, biweekly book review, no. 310, 28.4.93, Athens – cover art, 1993

PUBLISHED POETRY

  • Neo Planodion, online edition, February 2024
  • Ek Paradromis, issue 9, Spring 1990
  • International Social Science Review, 1982, Vol. 57, No. I, USA
  • Ydria, pages 35–40, April 1982
  • Dialogos, issue 15, 1981

REVIEWS – FEATURES

  • G. M., 2000, *Lexicon of Greek Artists*, Vol. D, p. 167, ed. Evgenios D. Matthaiopoulos, Melissa Publications, Athens.
  • Vasos A. Kountouridis, 1997, *Philological New Year* (Annual literary and artistic edition), Vol. 54, p. 472.

ARTWORKS

Blue & Red Series

View the works of the series

White Series

View the works of the series

Variable Series

View the works of the series

CRITICAL APPROACH

Blue and Red: Observations on the Linear Gesture of Andreas Sinopoulos

Since the 1980s, Andreas Sinopoulos has been developing a personal visual idiom based on the systematic use of gestural mark-making, primarily with ink on paper. Depending on the series, other materials occasionally find their way into his work, such as pastels, colored pencils, tempera, and charcoal. I find his “Blue and Red” series, which the artist began developing after 2007, particularly compelling. The works from this period form a self-contained unit where painting is stripped of recognizable figuration and evolves into an intense, almost ritualistic process of inventing and constructing morphoplastic fields. This is a painting of rhythm, repetition, and persistence—where the line is not outline or symbol, but energy, pulse, and the echo of internal movement.

His compositions are marked by continuous, stratified repetitions of drawing gestures. Sometimes they thicken into solid color fields, at other times they thin out to reveal the whiteness of the paper. The ink’s hue—mostly red or blue—plays a structural role in the composition, acting also as a carrier of emotional and psychological tension. The process appears to rely on the repeated tracing of the same gesture, generating forms through accumulation and displacement. The work is born not from the depiction of an external motif, but from the excavation of an internal flow.

Sinopoulos’ work can be situated within the broader domain of non-figurative or abstract art, though it does not belong to any rigid style or school. His morphoplastic approach connects him to tendencies such as gestural abstraction. Meanwhile, his dedication to linear gesture, the structural significance of repetition, and the experiential intensity of chromatic action associate his practice with artists like Hans Hartung, Henri Michaux, and even Mark Tobey—not as influences per se, but as kindred spirits, pursuing the transformation of writing into a conduit of psychic energy. His insistence on writing as both form and content, and the absence of conventional iconography, point not to abstraction as a stylistic choice, but to an introspective process of recording—akin to art informel and tachisme in postwar France. Yet unlike the gesture as pure freedom in American abstract expressionism, Sinopoulos’ work is more disciplined, compositionally balanced, and simultaneously obsessive in its line—forming a kind of writing-as-painting with conceptual undertones.

His relationship with paper is essential: it is not a passive support but an active field of dialogue. The work unfolds through a sense of temporality, allowing the viewer to perceive the time of the gesture and the rhythm of its making. The gradual densification of lines and their shift from surface to depth construct a spatiotemporal web that evokes inner landscapes, psychic geographies, and unseen personal worlds. Sinopoulos’ painting does not aim for representation but instead activates the gaze and silently invites the viewer into the act of creation. It is an embodied and simultaneously spiritual art, forged between the materiality of ink and the transparency of emptiness. Through a cohesive and dedicated path, he has shaped a singular space where writing meets silence and image is born from the absence of the predetermined.

These works, framed by self-awareness and mystical abstraction, establish Sinopoulos as a significant link between postmodern European concerns and the introspective, poetic expression of the Greek artistic experience. He represents a generation that never abandoned the pursuit of the essence of form, nor succumbed to the rhetoric of spectacle. On the contrary, through his persistent ink-on-paper work, he consolidates a solitary yet consistent artistic course—firmly inscribed within the broader discourse on the role of gesture, writing, and the psychic landscape in contemporary art.

Paris Kapralos
Art Curator
Athens 2025

The "harsh terrain" of painting and how the artist experiences it

Presentation of Andreas Sinopoulos’ painting work by historian and architect Kostis Kazamiakis (IANOS Bookstore, January 22, 2020), under the theme: “The ‘harsh terrain’ of painting and how the artist experiences it,” as part of the discussion series titled “On Beauty: Conversations about Art, Literature, Philosophy, and Classical Studies,” with the participation of poet Giorgos Gotis and photographer Haris Kakarouchas. The following text was read:

“My works are divided into those that belong to a form of painting that primarily presents emotional states or conditions of existence, and those that belong to representational painting.

The former approach was mainly my focus from 2007 to 2014. During that time, inner emotional or psychological states of mine took shape. It stemmed from the need to become more essential in what I call regular painting. It began in 2007, with my participation (and again in 2008) in a seminar that photographer Haris Kakarouchas happened to be leading at the time. Four years later, the bulk of the work had been completed, and I was able to gain a clear overview. I destroyed about one-fourth of the output, as there was no reason for it to be preserved. Among the works I rejected were some that were aesthetically complete—but only aesthetically. Aesthetics should not be the highest criterion.

Almost a decade later, shortly after 2016, when I continued working in this way, the intensity that arose from within me became so overwhelming that I could hardly bear it, and I didn’t know how to use it. It was as if fuel existed, but not purpose. I also noticed that I was replicating my own technique—that is, the medium. Today, we call that mannerism, and it is purely aesthetic. Realizing this, I decided I had to stop, although I knew that a place exists there, where I have walked.

In representational painting, I want what I do to relate to and belong to regular, simple painting, even though the term may not be easy to define. It is, however, the eternal tradition of painting, which can leave no one unrefined when one seeks its assistance.”

Over the past decade, among other things, I have been painting portraits. Every Friday morning, I create a portrait, usually over the course of about three hours. Sometimes a second session is needed, which is not always to the benefit of the work and makes me hesitant. The balance between knowledge and instinct is not a given. At times, I seek something predetermined and restful—knowledge—to lean on. This is when instinct falls silent. Then, dry knowledge brings me a kind of despair, because I cannot move forward with painting using only that; I feel the path almost blocked.

I am inevitably concerned with the notion of beauty that the model desires for themselves, but at the same time, I try not to let that expectation impose itself on me. Because then the goal becomes prettification, not the truth of the form, which is offered to be perceived and, to some extent, rendered. Even a small portion of truth can be convincing and nourishing, whereas prettification cannot.

Picasso’s remark is often quoted: “Everyone wants to understand painting. \[…] Why should people want to understand painting?”
I would comment that “understanding painting” means that, in the work I see, I recognize and simultaneously feel that a notable meaning is present—usually one that is not verbal. It is legitimate to seek meaning. It would be to the shame of an artist as a craftsman to work on pieces devoid of meaning. Meaning is not merely intellectual, but a combined emotional and intellectual value. So yes, we must understand painting, we must communicate (first we painters, and then the viewer) with the world through it. Whether the cultivation of the artist meets the cultivation of the recipient is another matter.

Interview of Andreas Sinopoulos by Nikos Dimitriou

(the interview is in Greek; the text above titled “The ‘harsh terrain’ of painting and how the artist experiences it” is an abstract of the answers of Andreas Sinopoulos given in this interview)

Interview of Andreas Sinopoulos by Nikos Dimitriou, on Polis View Web Radio and the show PolisArtView (Zografou, April 1, 2022). A discussion on the history of modern Greek painting and iconography, on Fotis Kontoglou and contemporary iconographers, on talent and apprenticeship, as well as on the lessons taking place at the Painting Workshop of the Municipality of Zografou.

DIGITAL TRACES

Email: a.sinopoulos@gmail.com
Facebook: Andreas Sinopoulos Artist