Never have I ever seen a painting so lusciously material in it’s presence.

Result #1

 Stretching from the armature of the gallerys balcony up to the gallery ceiling, the painting took on a life of its own.  The arms, the back, the back of the painting—all these parts were rendered in a delicately effusive, organic way.  As one looked at the work, the calligraphic, organic letters seemed to congeal and dissolve into the fraying, organic-looking paint. The canvas became a landscape with a language to it, and the paintings internal surface was a frame.By the end of the show, I was in awe of the abstractions: they were as astounding as they were subtle, and in a sense, they were as beautiful as they were abstract. And there were some works that made me wonder if this show might not have been an exercise in metaphysical abstraction. One such was the vast and shadowy Room 6, 2000, which seemed to radiate into space in a madly full spectrum of colors. The painterly imponderability of the colors was enhanced by the depthlessness of the room: the lights were too low to illuminate it clearly, and the room itself was underpainted with a faint, sallow gray. On the walls, there were a few drawings of the characters of the room, and one large, sparse drawing of the painting of the room. With these small works, Campbell added another level of abstraction to his abstract paintings, and for that matter, to his signature. The narrative that weve been reading about the artist as a visionary could not be further from him, as the paintings attest. This is one way to live, says Campbell, and I know how to live.

Result #2

—Susan Cianciolo

Result #3

Never have I ever seen a painting so lusciously material in it’s presence. The soft-edge line so elegantly laid out, with its own richness of surface, is, like the simple, large, crudely drawn forms in the paintings, relatively unconstrained by the calligraphic brushstrokes, which are certainly a thing of the past, and not only the models of the masterpieces. The brushstrokes in the paintings are all in the foreground, being used to highlight a few lines of the canvas, or to help it along as a means of drawing the background, which is a rather narrow, bare, and almost unadorned surface. The brushstrokes are well-worn and collected, the edges are rough, and there is no paint to alter the lines, but the canvas itself, which is quite simple in its structure, is shown to be relatively underdeveloped, as if with age, and a lost relic. Yet the painter is not a mere documentarian. He is aware that there is a present and there are pasts, and that his work is history as much as a record of the past. The brushstroke is one of the most precious signs of the painterly gesture, and the gestures and lines of brushstrokes are all that is left of it. The gestures are so abstract, so abstract, that they are far more numerous than the objects, and they are not related to the drawings at all. Perhaps this is the only way the painter can be free, he cannot be bound by them. If I remember correctly, he had said, Im not really interested in the relationship between the object and the brushstroke, that would be impossible. So, he was able to get a grip on the relationship between the object and the brushstroke, but, with a brushstroke, it is quite clear that it is the other way around, that it is only possible to get a grip on the other way around.

Result #4

Never have I ever seen a painting so lusciously material in it’s presence. Thats not to say that this was a flimsy materialism. On the contrary, in this exhibition, it is precisely the material that makes the paintings so lively and so arresting. At the same time, however, there are other surfaces on which Rands paintings have a vital, organic life. A red, for instance, has a lively, material aspect, a natural radiance that is not distracting. Red is a common, organic material that has been a part of nature for ages, and it has been used in ancient art and in the past for the creation of images. It has also been used as a color in many modern images. In the process of painting, it becomes a sort of skin, a surface of expression, and it is not an accident that in some places it is covered with a layer of tar, a substance that can be found in every art store.Rands works can be considered both organic and inorganic, and they can be divided into three groups. The first group comprises pieces made from found objects: a metal ladder, a bottle, a marble, a sprig of plants, a stick, and so on. These are painted, sometimes coarsely, sometimes finely, and they are related to the landscape. In this respect, they are related to the landscapes, as it were, of Robert Ryman, but they are not strictly abstract. They are more in the spirit of natural sculpture. They have a pictorial aspect, and their surfaces are formed by the same processes of erosion and inclusion as the terracotta. The other group consists of wooden pieces that are more or less spherical. They are made of pieces of wood, and they are related to the first group. The wooden pieces are made of strips of colored rope and they are similar to the wooden pieces. The rope can be found in wood and it is used as an almost decorative material. But the wooden pieces are not painted.

Result #5

Never have I ever seen a painting so lusciously material in it’s presence.  It looks like gold, and its velvet and its gold, and its a good painting. And so its a shame.  I like the paintings, but the medium is too clumsy and the surface too obvious and so uninspired, and I think I just need to be honest with myself and say, I just cant go with it.  I mean, how else can you go with that? It doesnt feel good. It doesnt work. And theres a reason why.  Its the most beautiful thing in the world, and all art is beautiful, but its the most destructive. I dont like the power of visual truth.  Theres a huge reason why.Theres a reason why I like the Power of Visual Truth paintings, but Ive never liked the power of visual truth paintings. Im not suggesting that the paintings are bad. I like the paintings, but the medium is too clumsy to be effective. The medium is too clumsy to be interesting, and the canvas too obvious to be moving. Its all too easy to be critical, and to be critical is the only way to make a painting any more significant. I cant go on. The medium is too clumsy to be interesting. The canvas too obvious to be moving is all too easy to be critical. The Power of Visual Truth paintings are too simple and too obvious. The paintings are too easy to be good, too trivial to be interesting. They look like a good painting, but its all too easy to be critical.  Its all too easy to be critical. I dont like the power of visual truth. It looks like a good painting, but its too clumsy to be interesting. I dont like the power of visual truth. Its too easy to be critical.  The power of visual truth is too easy to be important. What I like about Power of Visual Truth is that it has been a catalyst for a lot of people to reflect on the way art is done now.