an image with funny face that suit for profile pic.

Result #1

What is the difference? Why shouldnt a single expression be enough? I am a grotesque alien who seems to be here to make a few friends, but hes turned into an entire unit. A little further on, there is a black-and-white photograph of the same scene with a blank face, which is less intelligent and more petty. One is forced to wonder how these photos came to be. Theres something wrong with their context. These are rare, out-of-context photographs. A simple drawing of the same scene without changing its tone or proportions would be a different matter. Yet, in this case, theres a real look. I am talking about looking like a fish out of water. These pictures give a great deal of strength, so how can one be anything other than fish? It is very difficult to find a photograph that is not fake. Once again, theres nothing left to go on in the world. I dont want to believe anything. Theres just no way out of feeling like a fish.To make a photograph that you can present in a gallery or store is another matter. Why shouldnt one try to make the photograph of one day? I try to understand what the photographs of the time look like now. I know its important to show pictures that are nearly forgotten. I have read interviews with many artists who used to love their moment in time, but I dont care if it is more than just a new moment in time, I only want to see the same pictures again.

Result #2

an image with funny face that suit for profile pic. Like all the tchotchkes, its apparent theres someplace down there. The implication is that these people are people of strong character; that theyre just as full of promise as the rest of the world, that their ambitions, their ambitions, are precisely what makes them their insecurities and their fears.So what is life beyond a scaffold? Is it the scaffold, the rope, the crown? Is it the rope, the crown? What do you have to lose? Is there any point at which a facade can't be forged, or can't be accepted as a mask? Martin's line, my personal favorite in the show, is: You cant always be beautiful, but you always have to be sad. So what happens if you take your love for painting seriously? Martin points out that it is easy to learn the works of men who are content to have their photo-and-text paintings made, while the women he chooses to portray in those pictures are most likely to have no idea what theyve just painted—or are about to be painted. He states that hes chosen some pretty pathetic men who seem to be merely being witty, and he suggests that they might have been all the better for it if they were really men. He calls the people he has chosen pathetic because they dont seem to be the ones who are really pathetic.These works move along like a comic strip, each painting having a specific meaning. The paintings are repeatedly drawn out of the same basic image (a women with her head shaved) and transformed by repeated manipulation of paint. These paintings display almost like comics, with an overweening glee, some of the humor as in the art-school cards and their multiple-value-type titles, but also in the art-world jargon, the word morse.

Result #3

an image with funny face that suit for profile pic.  In the foreground, a wooden tree: the keystone of the creation myth. This inversion of reality is what the exhibits title, The Place, stands for: a symbolic representation of the same mythical place, which, as Immanuel Velard points out in the catalogue, is the equivalent of man in the form of a tree. Thus, to consider the works in this exhibition as mere props for the creation myth is to ignore both their material and symbolic qualities.Just as Adam and Eve in the Fall, in the most literal sense, are regarded as men and women who lost their heads in the sin of transgression, so likewise are the figures who are executed in the form of animals or are decapitated by animals. Likewise, the animals that are the subjects of natural history drawings are those that are the most natural of life—as in the case of the snowbirds in a distant Icelandic valley that are made of beech trees. Like vegetation, the animals in this show are animals in the world of nature, at once being familiar and mysterious. The animals in this show are, in the same way, not humans at all, but rather the animals that are the subject of nature. The animals in this exhibition, just like natural history drawings, are almost exclusively painted in dark, flat colors, and are never represented in close-up detail. (The exception, of course, is the famous reindeer, who, despite its nature, is frequently depicted in more detail.) The resulting lack of a human, as in the case of the animals in nature drawings, is often the result of the artists choice of the less luminous black and white ranges of the pictures.Since the start of his career, Velard has made a point of refusing to accept the limitations of photographic practice. In his work, every picture is an investigation of the nature of the world, and his choice of works is a systematic search for the ultimate nature of everything in the universe.

Result #4

Today, there is a more serious mood and more subtlety.  Para, 2004, is a green-eyed copper-blue body with a zig-zagging tail, a three-part, organic face. The characteristic eye-like structure, a study in cellular organization, is repeated in all three pieces. The hair, dark gray, is highlighted by bright white streaks that look like rainbow streaks. There is no mention of hair color, as though all the pigment would form a rainbow. What is included in this drama is not hair but tissue, and its presence is startling. It reflects the energy of nature and the persistence of life. The constructions are expressions of knowledge and of intellectual vision.Rocha shows his daring with a more romantic touch, but still with a soft-spoken, slightly sentimental aura. His sculptural imagination is quite spacious and full of ideas. The colors he selects are bold, but careful, highly trained, and in many ways simple, yet somehow they play out with delicacy. The choice of human forms is brilliant, yet not extreme. He is a poet who draws on what he has and uses it to express his own meaning. Nothing can be taken for granted, yet nothing can be completely trusted. In this way, Rocha is a kind of subversive—a truly original—poet.

Result #5

 He may be typical of Western art, but it is the product of a peculiarly developed sense of humor. The figure—the self—is so absurd that he is all the more delightful and intriguing. The art is humorous in that it is no commentary on society, and not one that is directed toward the demands of the moment, but instead, toward its painters. It doesnt pretend to comment on the physical attributes of the objects it ridicules; it doesnt present the image as a representation of the world, but, rather, as a particular, absurdly beautiful, and funny being. It is an image whose physicality is as much about the strangeness of being as the physicality of the object. The absurdity of the abstract image in Pop art is the result of the feeling that anything that has an image has an image, and that the world has an image, but that the world has an image that is more or less real, and that being is just an image. In an attempt to present a meaningful way of seeing, the artist creates an image that is just as real and as ridiculous as the image that is to be seen. In the early 70s, this work was so absurd that it was a novelty of the time, but in recent years it has become, paradoxically, the most popular kind of art. Its scope is broader, as its ubiquity is more appealing. It is the most wide-ranging, the most interesting, and the most important kind of art.