Biomorphic, metaphysical art, red shift, red, black

Result #1

, and blue, and the same, over and over again. As one wandered through the exhibition, one was struck by the striking uniformity of the shows materials, from the chalky, out-of-focus, pale-blue wallpaper to the hard, white, beige cloth. In this way, the work of artists like Elaine Reichek, John Baldessari, and Michael Steiner—who are also among the shows organizers—seemed to register as a form of self-portraiture, a ritualistic, anthropological display.As the curator of the exhibition, the critic Thomas Hirschhorn, pointed out in his catalogue essay, the works in the show were made by artists in the studio. This, of course, is not to suggest that there isnt an aesthetic dimension to the studio, or that studio practice isnt intrinsically a part of the process of art production. But, as Hirschhorn points out, the term studio art implies that the studio is not a neutral space for the production of art. It is, rather, a space that is used for the production of the art object. The works in this exhibition seemed to suggest that studio art is a process of production, that it is an activity that must be performed. In this sense, they were like the finished products of that activity, or like the finished products of a labor that was completed by the studio, a labor that is also art. The work, then, was not produced by the studio but was produced by the studio.

Result #2

Biomorphic, metaphysical art, red shift, red, black, green, blue, and red, to name only three of the many colors in the artist's palette. The recent work seems like a part of an ongoing meditation on the relation between painting and language. The first painting, called Press of the Red Shift, 2000, is a drawing of a few red dots that are barely visible. They seem to be drawn in ink, or perhaps a kind of inked-up ink, but they are not, as they are not the red of the press of a red shift, and they are not red at all. The Red Shift, 2000, is a gray painting, and it is not a red. The painting is also a gray painting, but with a red background—a red background, that is, a red background that is not there, and the result is a gray painting. The latter, the still life, is a gray painting, but the red of the still life is not there; it is a gray painting. It is also a gray painting, a gray painting, a gray painting, a gray painting, a gray painting, and a gray painting, and so on, and so on, and so on. It is a gray painting, but also a red. The red of the still life is a red painting, but a red that is not there; it is not even there. The red of the still life is not a red.The red of the painting is, of course, there, in the paint. The red of the still life is there, in the paint. The red of the painting is a red painting, a red painting. It is a red painting, but one that is not there. The red of the painting is a red painting, a red painting, and a gray painting. The red of the still life is a red painting, but it is not there, and it is not red, and the painting is not red.

Result #3

Biomorphic, metaphysical art, red shift, red, black, white, and blue, respectively, and the presence of both the figure and the ground is also a source of fascination, as is the imagery of the subject. But it is the figures—specifically the head—that are the most interesting part of the work, and this is where the effect of the black-and-white and the red-shift comes in. The head appears in three of the four works, and this fact is made visible by the repetition of the motif, which again becomes visible as a pattern.

Result #4

, and white, and then there were the more conventional things—toy poodle, toy gun, toy boat, toy cricket, toy cat, toy lion, toy chicken, toy snake, and so on. I felt the whole show was a small, self-contained, and self-contained art-world joke. In the end, though, it wasnt a joke at all. What I mean is that the show was a laugh-out-of-the-neon joke, a wry, funny, and witty take on the art world. This is the sort of thing that comes across as art, and its a good sign.

Result #5

Biomorphic, metaphysical art, red shift, red, black, and white, and redshift, which is to say, a highly developed formalism. One might well wonder whether a number of the artists are not in fact his own heirs, and, more to the point, his own heirs. Yet theres something oddly attractive about the show: a feeling of one's own control over the work of others. The feeling is profound, and the gallery is full of it. The cumulative effect is that of a great gift, like the one given by a child to his mother, to the other person. It is a gift that is mutually dependent on the artist and the world, and a gift that is far too often overlooked or denied.The Redshift shows a number of pieces, among them a group of drawings of black women, which are beautiful and a bit grim. There is no indication that the drawings are meant as commentary on the black women; rather, the black women, as a group, are a tribute to the work of the other artists in the show. The drawings, like the sculptures, are suggestive, but the titles, like the sculptures, are not. A drawing of a black woman with a white face and a white body is called A Drawing of a Black Woman; it is an image of the black woman, as it were, and a bit too real to be taken seriously. The title, I think, is a comment on the work of the other artists in the show. It is a comment on the work of their contemporaries, who were all women. In this way, the work becomes a comment on the world around it. The drawings, then, are a critique of the world. The drawings are a critique of themselves.The work of the others is even more important. When I first saw the show, I thought it was a great coincidence.