Someone told Eliza Leopold they could see a figure in the foreground of her painting Bevor wir es sehen — a viewer, standing there, looking in. Leopold had not painted one. She had not planned one. But when the person described it, Leopold looked again and saw it too. The figure was there. It had always been there, or perhaps it arrived the moment someone named it. She found that more interesting than unsettling.
Leopold works from Stadtilm, in Thuringia, and has been building her practice since 2023. She is self-taught. Those two facts tend to get placed early in profiles like this, as if to explain something, but they explain less than the conversation about that painting does. What she is working out, picture by picture, is something more specific: how to construct an image that holds multiple readings without collapsing into illustration, and how to locate the exact element that triggers a viewer's own meaning-making without prescribing what that meaning should be.
Her primary medium is acrylic on canvas, with linocuts and mixed media running alongside. The titles of recent works — Was noch nicht da war (What Did Not Exist Yet), Als wäre es unsere Wahl (As If It Were Our Choice), Was das Meer trägt (What the Sea Carries) — suggest a practice organised around questions rather than statements. The guiding phrase she has attached to her work, "Every painting begins with a conversation," functions less as a slogan than as a description of her actual process: a philosophical question comes first, the image follows.
When asked in the interview, conducted in German, what question is currently driving her work, she said the concern, overall, was with how we see the world and how we perceive it. That is broad enough to mean almost anything, and she knew it. The conversation kept pressing for a specific work, a specific moment, and she eventually arrived at her newest piece, Was wir darin sehen (What We See in It). She described how a viewer first encounters it as landscape, then begins to notice the different ways that landscape can be read, and then — later, if they stay — recognises that the seeing itself is happening from memory, from the past. The layers are temporal as much as visual.
The mechanism she has been developing to produce this effect is, she said, primarily about how she lays out space and depth. That decision did not arrive fully formed. She described it as a gradual accumulation: each painting teaches her something the next one can use. When pressed to name the work where it first became clear, she hesitated — "that is hard to say" — but eventually settled on Bevor wir es sehen, the same painting where the unnamed figure appeared. In that work, the question is whether you see the bird first or the boat. The order matters because it changes what you bring to everything else in the image. She said that while making it, she understood that this tension — the sequence of perception, the competition between possible readings — was what she wanted to keep developing.
Bevor wir es sehen (Before We See It, 2026, acrylic on canvas) sits at the centre of what Leopold has described as the core problem of her practice: how to place a single legible element — a bird, a boat — without that element closing the image down. The two motifs compete for priority. Whichever one a viewer registers first reorganises everything around it: the horizon shifts in weight, the water reads differently, the light acquires a different source. It is also the painting that produced the figure no one painted — the viewer in the foreground, present only in someone else's perception, confirmed only when Leopold looked again through that person's description. The work became, in that moment, a demonstration of its own argument.
The method for managing that tension is partly intuitive, partly structural. She sketches first, then steps back and asks whether the image has become too illustrative. If it has, she reduces. What survives that reduction is not always predictable: she said it is the tension and space she needs, but also a single visual point that she deliberately moves from work to work, refusing to anchor it in the same position twice. The point is the trigger; its location determines where the viewer enters and what they find when they do.
"That is exactly the challenge in my work — to consider how abstract I want to make everything, and how to bring that one expressive point in," she said. There is no formula. She looks at the sketch, imagines the finished painting, and waits for a feeling. When something becomes too legible, she pulls back.
What she does not do is carry specific viewer responses back into the studio as instructions. The encounter with the figure in Bevor wir es sehen — the one she had not painted — did not cause her to start hiding figures deliberately. She described what it leaves behind as "mainly a quiet knowledge," because you cannot consciously paint what belongs to someone else's perception. The whole point, she said, is that each viewer arrives with a different life, different experiences, and sees accordingly. That is not a side effect of her method. It is the method.
This creates an obvious question about intention and control, one she does not resolve cleanly. She wants the painting to remain open, but she also places a specific element to trigger the opening. She wants the viewer to make their own meaning, but she is making decisions about space and depth that shape what meanings are available. She did not frame this as a contradiction, and the interview did not press her to. It may simply be the condition of the work: structured enough to function, open enough to be completed by whoever is in front of it. "I don't want to give answers," she said. "I want to raise questions."
Her exhibition record is recent and still building. A virtual projection was included in the Tunnel Project in Florence in 2026 — an international group project in which her work was presented as projected image rather than physical canvas, a format that raises its own questions about how space and depth function when the surface is light rather than paint. A group exhibition at HUGE Gallery in Paris is scheduled for early 2027, alongside a solo show at Museum Großbreitenbach in Thuringia and another at Breedehus on the island of Rügen. The Rügen venue sits on the Baltic coast, and the sea runs through her titles and stated sources of inspiration — Was das Meer trägt (What the Sea Carries) being the most direct example. Whether that geography is incidental to the Rügen booking or connected to it is not something the interview established.
Her work has appeared in Louvre Unbound: Beyond the Frame of Art, Volume 9, and in Arty Rat Magazine, Issue 6, both in 2026. She maintains a catalogue raisonné, which she calls the ELIZA Leopold Master Edition — a systematic record of each work's context and development, organised through thematic cycles. For a practice only a few years old, the documentation infrastructure is unusually deliberate. It suggests someone thinking about the work not as a series of individual objects but as an argument that accumulates over time, one that needs to be traceable.
In the artist statement she has published alongside her work, she writes that a painting is not the conclusion of a thought but the continuation of a conversation. That formulation does real work: it positions the finished object not as a resolved statement but as a prompt, something that opens rather than closes. It also places the viewer inside the process rather than at the end of it. Whether that framing holds up across the full range of her output — thirteen works documented so far — is not something a single interview can confirm. What the conversation did confirm is that the framing is not rhetorical. She applies it as a practical constraint: if the image illustrates, she reduces it until it no longer does.
When asked where the work is heading, she said a lot was running through her head. She wants to keep developing the same territory — perception, memory, the moment of recognition — and to experiment with how else it might be shown visually. But she stopped short of naming a specific project or a specific change of direction. She had no concrete project where she wanted to do things completely differently. The work is continuous, not episodic.
The figure in Bevor wir es sehen remains, by her account, unpainted. She saw it only after someone else did.
Discover more of Eliza Leopold's work and available pieces on their Studio profile.
View Eliza Leopold's Profile
