the waste of human existence

Result #1

the waste of human existence instead of that of the beasts. The horrific crimes committed by the Hollywood monsters are yet another punishment: the final perverse tribute to American modernity. Like the wild animals, the paintings are metamorphosed into anti-human beings; our bodies become bone or bone into flesh, our bodies become social constructs and our social structures become emotional.In the early 60s, the horror of modernity was one of the primary subjects of Sculpture of the Masses, particularly of the works of Frank Stella, who developed an amazingly detailed sense of the human body through his handling of both the human and the natural. In this new work, Steinsteins sculptures reveal their inner, organic vitality and their fierce, murderous rage against the modern world. With this work, the images of man as savage animal are presented in a certain stark seriousness, in an exhibition of clarity and determination that makes us feel that the human beings have not been sacrificed to the world. In this way, the man has become the beast, and the world his sire. These images are taken from reports of horrifying, often tragic, and sometimes even lethal scenes of cruelty and violence in the human world. This work is full of symbolic references that move us to recall the history of human and animal suffering, and make us wonder how much human suffering we have in common with beasts, or even with ourselves. Of course, the world is far from being a pure state.The human figure is simultaneously represented by two pieces, one from each decade, and one from each country, with the same level of clarity. First is that human beings have a creative ability, which is almost the opposite of the destructive, twisted instinct of the animals. Second is that humanity is plagued with all kinds of problems, which are continually and actively created by the animals. The human figure is also portrayed as a victim, an exploitative and antagonistic beast who turns the natural world into a playground where he can revel in his own brutality.

Result #2

the waste of human existence .") In the second panel, the heads were more abstract, less expressive, less highly developed than the rest, although the difference was significant: In the first panel, the head was a very dark red and the body was a deep blue; in the second panel, the head was yellow and the body was gray. The work recalls the work of the 1970s, when artists began to draw on the images they were making in an effort to incorporate them into their works. Stidsteins drawings, by contrast, serve to illustrate what is not an image but an ineffable, symbolic, subconscious force that pulls and forces the body to remain active and to operate in a strange world. Partially filling in the details of the drawings, the heads appear to be experiencing a powerful subconscious command. The heads are often like the heads of ghosts, or like a blank piece of paper that has been imprinted with variously colored ink and drawn in. The heads are often spatially distant, and in some cases seem to have been drawn more accurately than they have been photographed—their shape and surface remain distinctly open. For instance, in M32, 2009, one of the more unsettling works in the show, the head has been obscured, with several dark circles of ink printed on its top and a bright red blur at its bottom. And yet, at the center of the work, the bloodred ink is hardly visible. This is where the real power of the works lies: The abstract works are the products of a human subconscious, as the heads are clearly avatars of the artist, and they are in no way passive objects. They remain alive, vital, animated.The shows title, Hohler Wohnung, 2003, points to a paradox in Stidsteins work. While it alludes to a human, restless unconscious, the title is not meant to refer to the images of the supernatural.

Result #3

the waste of human existence  (Dorothea Rockburne), she preferred to describe the universe as they see it, in her words. But in this universe, how can we see a human being if we cant be sure of what we see? My question is, where is the light?[1]There is light, perhaps, in the form of the stars—i.e. of the light of the sun. One might put that to the side in favor of the hypothesis of an inchoate world, one that is not a product of the creation of our own personal but the result of the laws of physics. In this sense, light is a trick of the mind, which is, like the world, an optical illusion. The invention of the microscope has not changed that. The difference is that we now have to work harder than ever to get hold of the invisible. The source of light, once it becomes visible, then, must be the observer. And that is precisely where Bohl comes in.She has insisted for some time that the work of art is nothing more than the result of mathematics; and the work of art is but the result of these equations, or rather, of the art of the mind. If this is the case, then Bohl is the same as an inchoate cosmologist. But she is saying that the mind of man is an inchoate cosmos, and so is the universe. The question, then, is, Who is Bohl? Which is Bohl?Which is Bohl? Her answers have to be elegant, articulate, and accurate. Bohl is not only Bohl, but Bohl as an inchoate cosmologist. In Bohl, Bohl is a brain dead brain, an inchoate universe; in Bohl, Bohl is everything—and the universe itself—a full-blown psychodramatic world of delusions and imaginations.

Result #4

the waste of human existence <|startoftext|>Eve Finke, Untitled (fjord), 2005, oil on canvas, 26 3/8 x 23 3/8". From the series Ti vivri (Landscape), 2005. © Estate of Eve Finke. When we think of Eve Finke, we usually think of an architectural model: a small, suspended, and tilted house on the spindly, semiabstract female form. In a very different way, the shapes, colors, and materials used in the works shown here, which were also on view in the recent exhibition House and the Panoramic Glass, marked the opposite: an attempt to re-create the material properties of a house. The objects were rooted in contemporary notions of ornamentation, and because of their chronological, and by implication, lifelike, approach, they should also seem to be related to the buildings of the past, and to what the German architect and writer Herbert Kurtz calls the amorous architecture of the past, which may be one reason why the works, which together with the current exhibition, are so striking.Their forms are crafted of wood, canvas, or aluminum, which has been completely washed away in a hot-water bath. This rusting effect gives the works their trademarked form. The works below, made from plaster and painted brown, are analogous to the houses Finke so vividly constructed, and not only in their darkened textures but also in the way the objects are completely and literally removed from their original contexts. In all the works, Finkes painted color schemes are not only more traditional in taste than the ornamentation she is used to creating but also all more iconic than those of her predecessors. The paintings, which form part of a larger installation, reflect on the relationship between nature and artifice, the linear and the angular, the dynamic and static. And they are neither permanent nor effaced.

Result #5

 by taking up the interests of birds and flowers, the magical and sacrosanct. The installation, I think, emphasizes the essential fact that painting, and not photography, is a method of rendering nature. There is no painters oil painting, no fine arts painting; all pictures are made by wiping oil paint over metal and then shooting it. It is as though painting were a kind of photo-imaging of nature, and a kind of photographic transfer of nature. Even the pictures themselves appear to be made from the same materials as nature—the same fibers as the trees, the same paint as the leaves, the same metal as the flowers. The pictures in the exhibit are painted in oils, and in this show are paired with those in the catalog of the exhibition. The paintings are larger than life, but the objects in the show are smaller than life.I think the paintings are small because the objects in the show are so large, like miniature paintings. I think the objects in the show are big because the objects in the show are small, like photographs. After looking at the paintings, you realize that they are works of art, and you feel that these are the best pictures of the time. The paintings are pictures, but the objects in the show are objects. All the objects in the show are signs of the same world. That world is a time of infinite growth. I think, then, that we are living in a world of endless development. The only real progress in the time of development is the kind of image, the simple image, that is the sole reality of nature. In this world there is no progress without culture. As a result of culture there is no progress, there is only growth. If nature is the only reality, then the growth is always artificial, the image, only an illusion.