regular artist versus pro artist

Result #1

. . . a critical artist versus a pro artist . . . a critical artist versus a critic . . . a critical artist versus a theorist of art. In the end, however, only the critical artist becomes a critic. To be a critical artist is to recognize the power of the individual, of the individual subject, to change the world and to alter the world. It is to understand that the individual is always already a social being, and that a political action is necessary to change the social. For the critical artist, then, it is not enough to criticize the social. One must recognize and criticize the individual. For the critic, it is too much. The critical work is a function of the individual. The critical artist is always already an individual, and he/she must make the individual an active and part of the social. The critical artist is a critical critic. It is not enough to criticize the individual, for the individual is already a social being. The critical critic, then, must be a critical artist. Criticism is not only a form of individual expression. It is also a political statement.

Result #2

has been a constant in recent art. The dynamic is fascinating, but it is also predictable, and it is no longer surprising. The story of the artist as subject and the artist as subject matter are the same. The question is, What does it mean to be both? In the end, the most interesting aspect of the work is that it is part of an ongoing dialogue that extends from the artists own existence to our own. There is a certain immediacy to the work and the work is not a monologue. The dialogue between the artist and his subject, or the subject and artist, is given form in the artist-subject relationship. The work is a statement of a conversation, a reflection of the artists own position as a subject. It is also a statement of a dialogue between two people, two places, two times, and two cultures. It is the kind of dialogue that is currently more likely to be found in a museum than in a gallery.

Result #3

regular artist versus pro artist vernacular. It is also the case that the artists in this show are all female, and they all have at least one child (and, one assumes, two parents). If there is any correlation between the mother of the artists and the mother of the gallery (the only gallery with a family of its own), it is the maternal, which, in this case, is an unusual and oddly affecting condition. The mother of the artist is not only the mother of the gallery, but also the mother of the women who make up the other half of the exhibition, whose participation in this show is as important as that of the mother. (One imagines the artists to be fairly familiar with this fact.) The other women in the show, in fact, have a lot more in common with the mothers in the show. They also have children—more than one child. And they are all equally involved in making a life of the show, which is an important part of the equation.Some of the works in the show are really good. Some are beautiful, some are not. There is something rather elegant about the way the mothers and the children in the show are represented. They are all at once involved in the same activities and are all equally involved in the same activities. The fact that they are all mothers and all equally involved in making a life of the show, however, doesnt necessarily mean that the mothers arent doing the work. The same is true of the other artists, but it is important to note that they are not all women. Some are women who make art, and some are not. One of the mothers in the show is a woman, and the others are women who make art. Some of the mothers are also mothers, and the other mothers are also mothers. This is important. The mothers in the show are the mothers who have the most children, and it is important to note that the mothers are all mothers, and the children are all the same.

Result #4

regular artist versus pro artist vernacular. But this is only a small part of the story. The exhibition is also full of references to the history of art in the USSR, from the rubric of the Third International (1956–65) to the internationalism of the avant-garde in the 1960s. This is art that is as real as anything on the market today. Indeed, in the late 60s and 70s the work of artists like Olga Rozanova and Aleksandr Rodchenkos came under the rubric of internationalism, but it was precisely this type of art that was disrupted in the Soviet Union, where art and culture were regarded by the state as a threat to the stability of the nation and its institutions. Thus, the exhibition is a compendium of international art that has been smuggled into the Soviet Union and sold in the West as art. The aim is to understand the ways in which this art, which, however, is not officially sanctioned by the state, can be seen as part of the globalized art market. The exhibition is thus a world exhibition in the sense that it places the art of the West at the center of its internationalism.The works on display are shown in two parts, the first of which is comprised of reproductions of works from the Soviet period and the second of which is a catalogue raisonné. The first part presents historical documentation of the countrys art production over the years. Among the works are examples of the major artists, such as Aleksandr Rodchenkos The Dream of the Spirit (1962), which was exhibited in the National Gallery of Art in Moscow, and Olga Rozanova and Vadim Zakharovs poems, which were written during the period of the artists collective collaboration, La n°-en-valise (The Place), in 1969.

Result #5

regular artist versus pro artist . . . The loss of the two-dimensional painting is thus felt in the space of the gallery, as an absence, a kind of absence, which the art is made to fill. This is an absence of representation, a virtual absence of representation. The artist is left to act, to take responsibility for the absence of the real. In this sense, the relationship between the artist and the real is not entirely negative: the artists control over the image of the real may be a positive one. The space of the gallery becomes the space of the artist. And so the artist becomes a participant in the work and the real becomes an active, active, active subject of the work. The work is the work of the artist, and the artist becomes a subject in himself. The relationship between the artist and the real is thus transformed into a relationship between the artist and the real. The image of the real is thus made into an image of the artist, and the image of the real becomes an image of the artist. The real becomes a representation of the artist. The artist is in turn made into an artist, and the image of the artist becomes a representation of the real. In this way the artist becomes a subject, a subject and an image. The artist is made into a subject, a subject and an image, and the subject becomes an image. The artist becomes an image of himself. The image of the real becomes a representation of the image of the artist, and the image of the artist becomes an image of himself. The artist becomes a subject, and the subject becomes a subject. The subject becomes an image, a representation of himself. The artist becomes a figure, and the figure becomes an image of himself. The figure becomes a subject, a representation of himself, and the subject becomes a representation of himself. The figures head becomes a head, and the head becomes a figure, and the figures body becomes a body.