if this is permanent, yet generative, does it suggest it is inevitable?

Result #1

Not necessarily. I like his work, but I also see it as a kind of consolation, a kind of intellectual love, an abstracted love that I hope doesnt end up looking like a formality.

Result #2

The notion of the birth of art, like the birth of the human race, is a matter of great importance, and the artist must, as a matter of course, acknowledge and embrace it.

Result #3

if this is permanent, yet generative, does it suggest it is inevitable? And why is it that the artist who has made these things is never aware that they are only temporary? It is a kind of art that is so secret, so tasteless, that its very existence is a secret. And the artist, who has made these things is not a person, is not a producer. The artist is not an artist.Art is a way to put the past into the present. We are all dead. We can all look at art. We are all dead. Its not a crime. But there are still artists—some of them are still working—who work with art. They are still alive. They are still thinking. They are still thinking. They are still making art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art. We can all look at art.

Result #4

if this is permanent, yet generative, does it suggest it is inevitable? Acknowledging that the stream of consciousness is a stream of consciousness, as all of the poems suggest, and that all of the works are in fact composed of fragments of other objects, including the artist himself, but not of the artists work, does not make it any less true that the artist is the one who is the subject and who, in so doing, appropriates the whole of the stream of consciousness.What of course, this is the stuff of art history, and there is no such thing as art history without the artist. But one wonders if this is not the crux of the matter: How can there be a tradition without the artist? In the case of this particular artist, however, there is a growing, if not overwhelming, tendency toward reification, the reification of the artist as subject. And thus, if we are to accept the artists claim that he is an artist, then the question is how much he is reified, and what is the extent to which his work is reified in itself. The question is not, of course, whether the work is good or bad, but whether it is an indication of a trend. And there is, in fact, an enormous debate to be had about this, and about whether the artists of the future will be good or bad. And, if the future is to be taken as a projection of the past, then the question is whether good and bad are mutually exclusive.In a sense, there is no question that the art of the present has been reified. But is this reification a positive or a negative condition? In any case, the artists who are reified in this sense are, in one sense or another, artists who have already been reified by others. This is not to say that they are not, in fact, reified by the very nature of their work, which is to say, of their having been reified by others.

Result #5

We are all in trouble, it seems, but one could also say that the fault is with us, not with the institution.