“An Imprint Is Never Something Passive”

A conversation with artist Cathrin Hoffmann about chance, resonance, and the potential of an imprint.

In her exhibition at FRIDAY BIRD, Cathrin Hoffmann explores the imprint. She sees it not just as a trace of something past, but as a starting point for something new. In this conversation, she talks about how random blots become a three-dimensional sculpture, the role our own associations play in the process, and why she deliberately gives up some degree of control in her artistic practice.

The central sculpture in the exhibition, Blot Looking Back, began with an imprint that resembles a Rorschach test. You digitally reworked this imprint and translated it into a three-dimensional form. What did you find interesting about it? And why did you want to move beyond the image itself and bring it into physical space?

What I find fascinating about an imprint is that it originally preserves something past as a sign. It makes something absent present. But in the digital realm, an imprint can also become a template for something new. That’s why I wanted to take the imprint, which had emerged by chance on paper, into virtual space, reinterpret it, and then bring it back into the physical world as an object. It creates a kind of loop that continues to unfold throughout the process of making.

Installation view of Cathrin Hoffmann's exhibition 'Blot Looking Back' at FRIDAY BIRD. On view until November 7, 2026. 

What happens to the original imprint during this digital transformation? What remains, and what changes?

The process was particularly interesting with the Rorschach test. At first, there were just blots in which I recognized a reclining figure. Folding the paper created the classic mirrored image. Then, when I turned the paper, I suddenly saw a mask staring back at me. That surprised me.

I experimented with many variations. It was only through the digital process that I was able to bring out the mask more clearly. I wanted to make more visible in the form what I had projected onto the blot. To do that, I had to alter the original imprint so that others might also make the same association.

When we suddenly recognize a face in an accidental imprint, are we discovering something that was already there and that others can see, too? Or are we primarily projecting something of ourselves onto it?

It has a lot to do with us. And that is actually one of the central themes of the exhibition. I believe an imprint is always a form of resonance: we carry something within us that we give back to the world. Perhaps we can recognize what we see only because previous experiences have already left traces within us.

It’s a constant interaction. We leave something behind and send something new back. These ongoing exchanges create imprints. And that’s exactly where the possibility of something new emerging again and again lies. Nothing is ever truly finished.

 "I believe an imprint is always a form of resonance."

I also find that hopeful. Even when something within us triggers negative associations, new experiences can evoke something different in us and change us. It’s a constant process of becoming.

I also find the word “to impress,” interesting in this context. When something impresses us, or when we impress someone else, we really do leave a trace.

In two other works, one figure is created directly as an imprint of another. How does this process work? And how does it differ from the longer journey the imprint takes in the central sculpture?

With these two works, it was initially about playing with the material. I applied the paint very thickly and tried to model a body using the layers of paint. The form changed again when it came into contact with the paper, and many details were lost.

At the same time, the material itself produced new forms—these veins—that I hadn’t anticipated. That’s what I find exciting: the material creates something unpredictable.

Matter of Marks / Marks of Matter, 2026. Acrylic and softpastel on paper, 100 x 50 cm.  

The titles, Marks of Matter and Matter of Marks, also play with this idea. They connect traces and meaning, raising the question of what meaning a trace leaves behind, and what traces meaning, in turn, leaves behind. It always comes back to this interplay and the idea of resonance.

Chance plays an important role in all these works. How much control do you give up? And what happens when an imprint reveals something different from what you expected?

The loss of control is quite deliberate. It’s an important way into my work. My pieces usually begin with very intuitive drawings, where the hand leads rather than the mind. This principle becomes even more apparent in techniques such as inkblot printing or direct imprinting.

That’s when I stopped, because the form had triggered an immediate emotional response.

Especially at a time when almost everything can be controlled and manipulated digitally, I’m interested in the things that remain unpredictable.

Of course, I tried many variations of the Rorschach test. But eventually, there was a moment when I was startled myself: when I turned the paper and suddenly saw this grimacing face looking back at me. That’s when I stopped, because the form had triggered an immediate emotional response.

Two other works don’t involve a direct imprint but nevertheless refer to one another. How does this connection emerge? What can be reflected between two works even when one has not directly developed from the other?

My thinking about imprints also evolved through the woodcut I made for the exhibition. It led me to consider how something can remain the same while also changing.

A woodcut isn’t a reproduction in the same sense as a digital print, where every copy is identical. Each print is unique in its own way. You can’t fully predict how the paper will behave under the press or how the ink will appear on its surface.

The other works also explore this tension. An imprint initially seems to repeat something identical, like a stamp that produces the same shape every time. And yet each imprint can leave something new behind. Its effect changes depending on the context.

Spatial Unfold / Simulateness, 2026. Charcoal on paper. 100 x 70 cm. 

The same is true of encounters between people. We aren’t simply the ones who leave an imprint on others. Something only emerges through the encounter itself. When a foot presses into the sand, it isn’t just the foot that creates the imprint—the sand also presses into the foot.

I’m interested in this mutual process. Something only comes into being through the interaction of both sides. And that also involves responsibility: we need to be aware that what we leave behind affects us in return, and that we are partly responsible for what comes back.

You mentioned the woodcut you made for the exhibition. What appealed to you about working with this technique?

Above all, I was interested in playing with the material. You intervene in the wood almost violently, altering and distorting its grain, even though the grain itself could already produce a beautiful print.

I also wanted to engage more deeply with the physical and manual aspects of the process. Making a woodcut involves real physical labor. There’s also the smell of the wood and the direct engagement with the material.

I find it fascinating that you can reproduce something while each print remains individual. And, of course, there’s the uncertainty: Have I carved the motif deeply enough? Do I need to change something? Or have I cut too deeply?

Woocut 'The Shape Left Behind', 2026. 71.5 x 57.5 cm. Edition of 10. 

There’s also a sense of finality. Once the wood has been cut away, it’s gone. As a painter, I can keep moving the paint around or add another layer. With a woodcut, at some point I have to stand by my decisions. Even when something turns out differently than planned, I have to respond to it and keep working with it. This interplay with the material is what fascinates me.

Has your understanding of what an imprint can be changed as you worked on these images and sculptures?

Yes, very much. As I worked, I increasingly realized that an imprint is not something passive, but something active. It isn’t just about the past; it points toward the future. This realization emerged through the process of making. The thoughts we’ve been discussing also developed along the way.

For me, an imprint is therefore not simply a trace left behind. It’s something that continues to have an effect and can keep giving rise to something new.