the subaqueous qualities of the facture spatially undermines the distinctive formal juxtapositions.

Result #1

the subaqueous qualities of the facture spatially undermines the distinctive formal juxtapositions. In some works, the framing edge seems to have been swept off the edges of the canvas, leaving only the top, and the viewers awareness of the facture as a physical support, in the foreground. The visible, and therefore tangible, surface of the paintings seems to be an abstracted, and therefore abstracted, presence. A similar ambiguity is present in the works themselves. Although the paintings are clean, unashamedly and without a trace of effort, they lack the resonance of the painterly figures of the earlier work. Instead, they seem to be the product of an obsessive activity, and appear to be the evolutions of a single and solitary artist. The most obvious differences are the color choices, which are dominated by the black and white of the earlier paintings. The most subtle, and certainly the most superficial, is the way the paintings are hung: on the wall, on the wall, or on the wall on the wall. The size and placement of the works, and their display in a relatively low, rectangular, and highly functional frame, seem to be in direct proportion to this difference. This difference becomes crucial to the paintings. The paintings are hung on the wall, and the space in front of them is determined by the paintings edges, which, in some cases, are completely covered by the canvas. This makes the paintings seem to be spatial and sculptural rather than the other way around. The paintings are hung on the wall, and the paintings are shown from a certain distance, as if the paintings were only half-hidden behind the wall, which gives the paintings a sense of depth that is completely opposite from the sense of depth that the viewer would have in front of them. It seems that the paintings are now made of the same material as the paintings, and are treated as the two complementary aspects of a single work.This is not a new idea.

Result #2

the subaqueous qualities of the facture spatially undermines the distinctive formal juxtapositions. This is the case with The Mask, for example, which looks like a three-dimensional version of an old-master painting. The facture is topographically and chromatically dominated by a white ground, but the result is a thoroughly photographic image. This is not necessarily a bad thing, for it suggests that photography is a particularly precise and mechanical way of photographing, and that the photographer is at his best when he can avoid the dependence on the facture of his subject. In this case, the same photographic technique that produces the great photograph is used to produce a photographic image of a mask. The mask is a white cardboard box, which the photographer has covered with a mask, then covered again, and then covered again, and so on, until the mask is completely covered. The mask, however, is a painting, and so the mask has been completely covered. The mask is a photographic image, but the painting is a painting, and so the painting has been completely covered. The mask has been completely removed. The mask is a painting. The painting is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting. The mask is a painting.

Result #3

the subaqueous qualities of the facture spatially undermines the distinctive formal juxtapositions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Result #4

the subaqueous qualities of the facture spatially undermines the distinctive formal juxtapositions.

Result #5

The show is really about the feeling of being in the world, and about the fact that it isnt always easy to tell the difference between the facture of real objects and that of the virtual. And yet, in fact, the difference is sometimes striking, as with the airbrushing in which the skin of a closed lid is covered in the color of a flower, and with the paper of a drawing in which the human figure, in a landscape of abstracted planes and lines, is blurred by the lines of the sky, and in which the perspective is obstructed by a funnel. In all these cases, the sense of space is incomplete, and the subject of the image is a transient one. The artist is not trying to reconstruct the world; he is trying to demonstrate that it isnt always possible to do so.