Review | A critical review ab...

Generated on 2022-11-18 01:54:41

A critical review about a solo exhibition by artist Josh Rowell focusing on the relationship between the physical and the digital through abstract painting.

Result #1

A critical review about a solo exhibition by artist Josh Rowell focusing on the relationship between the physical and the digital through abstract painting. The exhibition, which was curated by artist Michael Friedman, consisted of works that either (1) depicted a digital image or (2) were computer-generated. The exhibition was divided into three categories, which were organized around the fact that the body is a technological substrate, (A) images are only as good as their sources, (B) the body is always the first to be represented, and (C) art is the most immediate and immediate of all technologies. The first category, photographs, were displayed on the wall as a series of slides. A camera is a tool of the artist, and it can be used to create a picture that is almost photographic, since it is capable of taking a photograph. The second category, objects, consisted of photographs that were computer-generated. These were also displayed on the wall as a series of slides, but with the addition of a digital camera that had been modified to be able to create images that were at once computer-generated and photographic. The third category, drawings, consisted of computer-generated drawings that were also displayed on the wall. These images were created by various methods, including computer-generated computer drawings. The last category, digital objects, consisted of digital objects that were computer-generated. These included a CD-ROM, a digital clock, and a digital camera that was modified to take pictures of the body. The works in this section were collectively titled I, II, III, and IV, and numbered according to the number of the body represented in the exhibition. In this way, the body became a tangible and tangible representation of the body.This exhibition was structured according to the body, and body and body, in general, as an element of the body, a container of information, a site of communication. The body, like the computer, is a tool of communication. It can be used as a means of communication, or as a tool of surveillance.

Result #2

A critical review about a solo exhibition by artist Josh Rowell focusing on the relationship between the physical and the digital through abstract painting. The show was a monumental failure, with no work of any quality. However, the other works included in the show were equally disappointing. They included works that seem to have been made in response to the new technologies of photography, which Rowell has used to great effect in the past. The digital transformation of his drawings, for instance, has resulted in works that look as if they were created on a computer, yet they retain the look of originals. Similarly, Rowell has used the new technology of 3-D modeling to great effect, and his sculptures are made of the same materials as his paintings, yet they look more like toys than actual objects. The result is a sort of visual seduction, which is also apparent in the shows title, which is a pun on the artists name, a pun that suggests that the works are not only about the artists name but about the new technologies of photography.Rowell has used the new technologies of photography to great effect in the past. The digital transformation of his drawings, for instance, has resulted in works that look as if they were created on a computer, yet they retain the look of originals. Similarly, Rowell has used the new technologies of 3-D modeling to great effect, and his sculptures are made of the same materials as his paintings, yet they look more like toys than actual objects. The result is a sort of visual seduction, which is also apparent in the shows title, which is a pun on the artists name, a pun that suggests that the works are not only about the artists name but about the new technologies of photography. The digital transformation of his drawings, for instance, has resulted in works that look as if they were created on a computer, yet they retain the look of originals. Similarly, Rowell has used the new technologies of photography to great effect, and his sculptures are made of the same materials as his paintings, yet they look more like toys than actual objects.

Result #3

A critical review about a solo exhibition by artist Josh Rowell focusing on the relationship between the physical and the digital through abstract painting. These works are alternately abstract, representational, and computer-generated, all in the style of the artists youth. But it is Rowell who introduces the relationship between abstraction and representation, using computer technology to create paintings that are both abstract and representational. This is a parallel process between the painting and the technology, and it is here that Rowell finds his most obvious stylistic similarities with the artists of the 60s. Yet, Rowell is also influenced by the 70s, particularly the work of his colleague John Baldessari, and he uses computer-generated imagery to present paintings that are both abstract and representational. In this case, the computer-generated imagery is seen as an extension of the paintings, and the paintings are seen as a medium of abstraction. In this regard, Rowells work reflects a desire to build a bridge between the past and the present, and to understand how painting is both an extension and an interruption of technology.In the end, this show was a bit like a farewell party. There were a few surprises, such as the inclusion of a few paintings from the artists first series, which was made in the early 80s as a way to acknowledge that he was nearing the end of his career. These works are reminiscent of the earlier work, but now the paintings are represented by computer-generated images of paintings that Rowell made in the early 90s. The paintings are also digitally reproduced, but they are not the original works. In fact, the paintings were created via a process of printing that Rowell has used since 1997. The new paintings are, in fact, computer-generated images of computer-generated images of the paintings. The paintings have been taken from computer-generated images of computer-generated images of the paintings. The computer-generated imagery of the earlier paintings is also present, but here it is rendered as an abstract image. The paintings are also digitally reproduced, but digitally inserted into the computer-generated images of the paintings.

Result #4

A critical review about a solo exhibition by artist Josh Rowell focusing on the relationship between the physical and the digital through abstract painting. While this was undoubtedly an important and welcome development in the direction of queer theory and practice, it also left the show with the feeling of a group of academics examining a postmodernism that is not queer but simply anti-queer—the very conceit of which is a good deal more problematic than it is merely a matter of queer theory. The exhibition felt like a critique of the current status of queer theory, and its main strength was that it felt like a critique of the current status of queer theory. The exhibition, which also included a number of works by artists including Katherine Bernhardt, John Bock, and others, seemed to be an attempt to make the best of a bad situation, which is not to say that it was a critique of the current status of queer theory.But this is not to suggest that Rowell himself is not a good painter, or that he has not had a number of shows in his lifetime, and a number of the paintings in the exhibition are truly exceptional. One of the paintings in the show, The White Doll, 2002, is a masterpiece of the kind of painting that would be difficult to find in any gallery. Its color is rich, varied, and full of chromatic energy, and its subject is a body, a doll, a woman, and a man, all in various stages of undress. The work is a perfect example of Rowells ability to conjure up a diverse range of emotions without, however, turning his work into a nostalgic meditation on the past. That is, Rowells work is not nostalgic but critical; it is a search for the real, for what is really there, not just what we think we see.The shows centerpiece was the massive installation The White Doll, 2002. It was surrounded by a photograph of the artists friends, taken by Rowell, that was accompanied by a text and a video.

Result #5

A critical review about a solo exhibition by artist Josh Rowell focusing on the relationship between the physical and the digital through abstract painting. The show was shown in a small room at the gallery, with a screen placed directly on the floor and a small monitor placed in a corner. The monitors played a loop of paintings from the series of paintings displayed on the screen, which was also displayed on the wall, with the artists name and the date of the works existence on it. The paintings were a collection of fragments, a collection of works that had been made and then preserved, and which the artist had then incorporated into his own works. For the most part, this was the same paintings that had appeared in the artists last solo show, in 2009. But the works were more painterly, and the subjects were more abstract, and the paintings were more abstract. This show, then, was the artists last.And yet theres a peculiar quality to these paintings, an almost morbid sense of humor, as if the artists were trying to mock the notion of the final painting by making the paintings themselves seem less final. The works are often made in a similar fashion, but they are painted over in acrylic, and they are often encased in wax, and the wax is painted over with a brush and then removed. In other words, the paintings are not paintings, but still images, and they do not seem to be final. In the process of being made, the paintings are made.Rowell has been making abstract paintings since the mid-1990s, and they are not without their own history. This show was organized around a set of works made in 2012, which consisted of two pairs of works that each featured a framed photograph of a painting. The two works on display were in fact two separate works, but they were hung side by side, and the two paintings, which were painted over each other, were made in the same way. In the same way, the two works on display were made in 2012. In the first case, the paintings were made with the same brush and the same paint as the original works.