something something something something something something

Result #1

something something something something something something . . . , which also included a few paintings, one of which had a cursive inscription in white chalk on it. The inscriptions were in the form of a pair of, or perhaps two, high-tech shoes and an identical pair of shoes, with the same inscription on one of the shoes, and, in one case, a single, wide, black, and white inscription on a pair of sneakers. In one of the paintings, a pair of black, diamond-shaped sneakers, worn by a pair of black-cloaked figures, was accompanied by a pair of shoes, the sneakers of a man and a woman. The shoes and the figures had been created with a paintbrush, and were painted with a brush that was placed horizontally on the canvas. The painting, which was also a sculpture, was an extremely formal, minimalist, minimalist painting. The sole figure in the painting was a man who stood with his back to the viewer, his arms crossed over his chest, his right hand placed flat on the ground. The painting, which was also a sculpture, was made of glass and mirrors, and consisted of two glass pedestals, one with a pair of shoes, the other with a pair of shoes. The pedestals were covered with black, and the shoes were attached to the glass so that they appeared to be walking. The shoes were made of glass that had been modified to become both flat and heavy. The mirrors, which were mirrored in the glass, made the shoes appear to be moving, and the mirrors reflected off the glass, creating a sort of motionless and warped illusion. The shoes were also made of glass and mirrored in the glass, and the mirroring of the glass on the shoes created a kind of motionless illusion. The mirroring was also a reflection of the glass, and the mirroring was also a reflection of the glass on the shoes, which, in turn, was reflected on the shoes.

Result #2

something something something something something something  (all works 2006). The paintings are made from paper, and the paper is painted over with a thin layer of acrylic, sometimes even left raw. The paint, which is applied in a thin, raglike line, is applied in a carefully determined, and rather volumetric, manner. The pattern of the drips, which are also painted over, makes the surface look rough and flaccid, and the paintings seem to be made of plastic.The others are made from paper, too, but the paper is made of oil and wax, and the paint is applied to the surface with a brush. The works are made of various materials: wax, silk, silk, silk, paper, metal, and silk, and the paintings are then assembled. The paper is often left to dry on the gallery floor before the final touches are applied. The paintings are then hung in rows, each row stacked two to a stack. The works are painted over with wax, and the wax is often left to dry on the paper before the final touches are applied. The works are then hung from the top of a single-headed crane. The crane is used to stack the paintings.The works are painted over with wax, and the paint is applied to the surface with a brush. The paper is often left to dry on the gallery floor before the final touches are applied. The paintings are then hung from the top of a single-headed crane. The crane is used to stack the paintings.The works are made of various materials: wax, silk, silk, paper, metal, and silk, and the paintings are then assembled. The paper is often left to dry on the gallery floor before the final touches are applied. The paintings are then hung from the top of a single-headed crane. The crane is used to stack the paintings.The works are made of various materials: wax, silk, paper, metal, and silk, and the paintings are then assembled.

Result #3

something something something something something something  (all works, 1990) is a yellow foam sock covered in fake fur, the tip of which sticks out like a phallus, while a little pink-toy penis is suspended from the bottom of the piece, like a tooth. The works title also references the sexual fantasies of the artist, who is known for her erotic use of the female body. In the video Untitled (Pussy House), a woman sits at a desk in a bedroom, covered in pink pajama bottoms, with her hands pressed against her vagina and her feet bound with a metal corset. The sound of a female voice speaking can be heard over the screams of a woman who has been beaten and who cries all the while. The violence of the scene is evoked by the screams of the woman who is being tortured, but the artist is not only speaking about the violence that is inflicted on women, but also about the violence that is inflicted on men.In the video Untitled (Cuckoos), a woman is seen in the act of cuckooing. She cocks her head and caresses her pussy, while a voice says, I want you to fuck me. The woman looks at the camera and says, Oh, Im so sorry. Im afraid I cant do that. The voice continues, Its just that I cant get away with it. The woman continues to cuckoo as the camera continues to film her with a slightly embarrassed expression. The voice then turns to the viewer, who looks at the woman in a rather horrified way, as if she is being cuckolded by an intruder. The video ends with a sultry voice telling the woman shes a bad cuckoo and shes a bad cuckoo. The woman says, Well, Im just kidding. I love you, and then shes cucked again.The video is accompanied by a sound track of voices and a sound track of cuckoos.

Result #4

something something something something something something —the naked bodies of men and women, all glazed over with the light of a candle. I was struck by the intimate nature of this room: no other space seemed so intimate, so intimate as the one in which these figures were placed. As the camera pans out, the figures disappear, leaving only the silhouettes of the candles and the table on the floor. And the table itself, which is the table, turns into a ghostly, ghostly table. The table turns into a table, too, but here the table is already a table. In the next shot, the table has disappeared, and the candle is standing right in the middle of the table. The table and the candle have disappeared into the table, and the table is now a table. In the next shot the table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table has turned into a table, too, but here the table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table has turned into a table, too, but here the table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table and the candle have disappeared again, and the table has turned into a table. The table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table and the candle have disappeared again, and the table has turned into a table. The table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table. The table has disappeared again, and the candle has turned into a table.

Result #5

something something something something something something ). In the same way, the human form is a veritable landscape of possibilities, and the painted landscape of possibilities is an endless process of transformation, of refinement, of abstraction. What is important about these paintings is that they are not only about painting, but about the process of painting, about the process of painting itself. The paintings are not about the abstract painting of the past, but about the abstract painting of the present and future. What these paintings represent is a process of abstracting, a process of painting and not about abstraction.The same painting can be seen in terms of the Humanist tradition of the world as a whole. This is a tradition which has been rejected by many contemporary artists because it is too conservative. It is the traditionalist tradition of the artist who has not been able to come to terms with the world, who has not been able to accept its materiality, its infinite possibilities. Modernist painting has not been able to cope with the complexity of the world, and as a result has become simply a series of isolated abstract signs. In the paintings of Olitski and Noland, the complexity of the world is not reduced to a formal abstractness but is expressed as a series of signs which are rendered in the most simple of terms. The paintings are not abstract in the usual sense of the term; they are about signs. In the words of Olitski: Sign language . . . is not a sign of abstract signs but a language of signs. These signs are not signs, but signs which, in a sense, have no value. In this sense, they are signs, or abstract signs, but in a sense which is radically different from that of language. The paintings are about sign language, about signs, and the signs which they convey. These signs are not abstracted but are expressed as signs. The signs are not abstracted because they are signs, but abstracted because they are signs.