It may seem humorous or even "hip" to make light of the tragedies of the human condition. In fact,

Result #1

It may seem humorous or even "hip" to make light of the tragedies of the human condition. In fact, It is a wonderful irony that when it comes to the challenge of suffering, human existence is a comparatively barren place. It is true that some people can survive—their courage, their dignity, and their joy are above all. But for others, the suffering is unbearable, and the world can hardly take any more of it. Even in times when we still consider that suffering can be endured, however, we cannot help but be reminded of the great Dickensian tragedy of the orphan who cannot be separated from his environment, and who dies a lonely death. And Dickens was no mean achievement, for the orphan was to be raised by his relatives in an environment of isolation from the world. In Dickens world, that isolation was a living hell, and for the adult, it was a most beautiful and true place. The trauma of that world was the great tragedy of all. The world of art, in which art and life can be seen as inseparable, is surely the greatest tragedy of all.It is thus not altogether unexpected that the two great masters of this century—painting and sculpture—would seem to have had their minds set on the same sort of metaphor, of suffering and death. The distinction between pain and art, the distinction between a gift and an expression of suffering, the distinction between the art of art and the world of suffering, is what it means to give up. We feel that we have given up the world, and that art can be an act of submission to suffering. The great painter of our century—notwithstanding the fact that his paintings seem to have come out of a profound search for the original and essential truth—was Sartre. Sartre came to art from reality. He saw suffering and death as parts of a single, eternal whole, and he sought to paint them in all their fullness. There is no question that Sartres paintings are beautiful, and I have no doubt that they will continue to be so.

Result #2

Butters often times effective handling of the heroic/heroic/maladroit/epic/mythical subject matter is more than a mere stylistic gimmick. He is an intensely personal painter whose paintings are imbued with the presence of a genuine visionary. The immediacy of his vision has a visceral quality that is most apparent when the canvas is framed by a central image of a male figure, with its legs and arms bound, as in Anvil, 1988. Butters image is a veritable de-formalization of the human body, and it is this immediacy that is central to his art. The central figure in Anvil is bound, but the paint has been removed to reveal the expression of pain. The sensuous image of pain is the image of human suffering, and the figure in Anvil is bound, but only his toes are visible, and only his body is visible, as in the work of Jackson Pollock. The figure in Anvil is unable to touch his bound partner, and the two can only be exhibited as both bound and not. The absence of touch in Anvils figure, which is the most striking element in the work, speaks powerfully of human suffering. Yet the figures enervated, lifeless, body is itself a symbol of eternal redemption. Anvil is a humanistic work, but it is also an artwork that is thoroughly contemporary. The paintings reveal the depth of human feeling, and their emotional content. However, the experience of pain is also a pain, and it is this pain that the viewer must acknowledge and accept, for it is the pain of our world. This is a world that acknowledges the reality of suffering, but it is also an art that deals with art as a way of expressing human suffering. We need to understand the world in art, for art can be the vehicle of this truth.

Result #3

Ishmael has put together a beautiful exhibition, but he is not content with the happy world of his ideal world. He wants to turn it into something more serious and longer.This is a pretty radical idea. It is as if Ishmael wants to change the world as it is, but is afraid of upsetting the delicate balance. He wants to break through it completely. He wants to begin a new human relationship, to change the relationship between the individual and the society at large. This is an idea that challenges, as if the very concept were a form of blasphemy. Ishmael is no longer posing as a prophet or as a maker of history. He is a painter, not a scholar, and he doesnt need to pretend otherwise. His works are fine, but they are also provocative and interesting. They are an invitation to make new relationships and to find new expressions.

Result #4

The Dilemma of the New Man, 1991, one of the greatest collages of all time, is a profound message of compassion. This collage of photographs and texts, in which the human condition is revealed through the most mundane of objects, is a powerful and almost unlookable testimony to the human condition. A large, unsmiling man is being photographed from above; he is wearing a turtleneck sweater and white shorts. The photograph is being hung on the wall in such a way that the silhouette of the figure is below the image, and the turtleneck sweater and white shorts are within the image. The man stands straight up, facing the camera. His body is covered with a large shirt; he is not bending over; he is in a pose of complete self-discipline. He holds the camera between his legs. His shirt is pulled up above his crotch. He is now looking down at the camera. This is a self-portrait. He is, in a sense, at his own portrait.He also has a self-portrait as a copy of himself, as a mirror of his own image. A collage of collages, The Man Who Laughs, 1991, shows a naked man standing, with his head tilted. The collage, like the collage of collages, is a mise-en-scène. It is an ambiguous portrait of a naked man. It is a mirror of the self, a reflection of who we are, and a response to the fears that are our own. It is a time capsule of the past, a time that we may look back on and recognize as the past we left behind.

Result #5

he is very much an insider. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is not as naive as most of his art is. He is not in the least naive about his own place in the world. But it is not necessary for him to become so, for he is an artist who knows exactly what he is doing. He is aware of his role in society, and he takes it seriously. He knows exactly who is doing what in society. In his attitude toward art he is a direct and articulate interpreter of it. He has a full awareness of the art context in which he is working. He uses it in his own way, appropriating it and combining it with other objects and materials. In the end, he is not interested in getting into the social issue, but he is a socially conscious artist. He doesnt use his art as a vehicle of critique.