This latest show by the collective named Sublimina is confusing, but still interesting.
This latest show by the collective named Sublimina is confusing, but still interesting. The door is red. The door is green. The green door is made of strips of synthetic rubber that look like rolled-up newspaper. The rubber strips have been cut into various shapes. The most impressive of these shapes is a shape that looks like a flattened pyramid. Another piece consists of several unglazed ceramic bricks that look like molten lead, and a black one is a similarly flattened object. A third piece is made of Styrofoam with a few pieces of painted Styrofoam sticking out of it. This sculpture looks like a combination of an old wooden ball and a Styrofoam doll house. The four work-stations that make up the show are painted in a flat color scheme that looks like a beach. The four workstations are all painted the same blue, and there are also four large photos of the beach taken from an old TV set. One of these is an image of the beach taken from a small photo album, and the other two are what looks like the top and bottom halves of a bowling ball, as if it were a miniature version of the real thing. The paintings are made of a color scheme of horizontal stripes, the colors of a paper mask, and the colors of plastic bags; the bottles, cans, and other objects are painted in a range of grays. In a few of the pieces, the Styrofoam sculptures seem to have been left to hang, or hang from the ceiling, as if they had been cut up and made to appear different. The colors are actually made of Styrofoam that has been treated with a kind of rubber cement. The Styrofoam has been cut up and placed in front of a mirror; the reflection of the Styrofoam mirrors the mirrors, which are covered with Styrofoam and other materials, and it reflects the piece. It is the Styrofoam that is in front of the mirror, and the Styrofoam that is reflected in it. It is the reflection of the Styrofoam that gives the other workstations a sense of time and space. This feeling is heightened by the fact that the objects are presented in such a way that one cannot help but think of Minimal art. In the middle of the gallery stands a painting that is a small model of a door. It is a simple door that is covered with Styrofoam and a Styrofoam ball. The Styrofoam ball is framed by Styrofoam; in front of the door is a Styrofoam painting that looks like a reproduction of a door. In the back of the door is a Styrofoam painting that looks like the front door of an old painting, which is a painting of a door. On top of the door is a Styrofoam sculpture that looks like a pyramid, and on top of that is a pyramid of Styrofoam.
car is crisis. infection of mind. banana. triangle.
child. crayon. Et al. With these down-to-earth black-and-white drawings, they relate, if anything, more to a newspaper as a quasi-masterpiece than to a painting. What at first seems the very opposite from what Dont feel obliged to believe gets a lot closer to being in awe.The works are rendered in acrylic on plywood, and the images are drawn on using both fingers and a pen, along with a layer of white powder. The process is certainly choreographed, yet it is always "made in the round. The paint is applied generously, clotted and dabbed with determination, but the images are not. For the most part, Dont worry about the idea of drawing. The process, at times, is a little too clean. The images are clearly modeled, and the artist might have added some reference points, a name, or a key to the area. Withdrawing any direct address to the viewer is meant to be. Dont be too literal. The cumulative effect isnt as much a polemical statement as a nonverbal, careful consideration of the way the image has changed and that it has to be changed. It is a conscious, self-conscious statement, a sort of just-out-of-art indulgence. A real commitment to art. to life. to the world. The sensuous potential of an abstract thing is not necessarily a question of transformation. It just depends on the meaning it is to be transformed.
If a woman artist and a male artist produce the same intensity of surface, then what is the real difference?
If a woman artist and a male artist produce the same intensity of surface, then what is the real difference? Is it that the men are more determined to find a means to achieve a certain intensity of surface and the women less so? Is it that the men are more objective and the women less? I wonder if they havent all been in the same field. Is it that the men are more objective and the woman less? In any case, they both share the same field. Its no different from a professional sports team to whom the male athlete must strive, to whom the team must all aspire. They both work in the same field. But the women are also working in a field of themselves. Its no different from the same field, and that is what the men do. And in the same way, the men are also working in a field of themselves. They must also strive to find an equilibrium between the self and the world, to find a balance between the art and the life they make. The men must also find a balance between the self and the world. But it is not an equilibrium they can achieve by themselves. They must find a balance between art and life, a balance between art and the world. But the world is a complex and complex world. There is no one to whom they can turn to who can give them the means to achieve it. That is what the men do.They have found a balance between art and life. They are not trying to achieve a balance between art and life. They are not trying to find a balance between art and life. But they are trying to find a balance between art and themselves. They are trying to find a balance between the self and the world. They have found it. But they are not balanced. They are not the kind of men who can be easily led by art into a balance. They must remain self-contained and self-contained. And they must remain self-sufficient. They must never let anyone else know about their art. They must not let anyone else get the idea that they are self-contained. They must never let anyone else know about their art. They must always remain themselves. And they must never allow anyone to think that they are not. They must never allow themselves to be seduced by art.
Although it is a solo show, the paintings steal so much content from better painters that it should be called a group show.
Not that the artist is somehow a bad artist, but that art is often good art when it is a couple of bucks and a couple of dozen canvases. The reality is that the real problems with this piece, though, are its weak fundamentals, its low level of production, and the lack of a particularly theatrical, or elegantly theatrical, use of color. Two chalky areas, broken down and repainted, are paltry sketches, vague ideas, but neither really necessary. Although the last is important, there is little to do in these paintings except situate and rotate the scattered chunks of yellow-green, brown-green, blue-green, and grayed-blue-green that were scattered around the gallery. Chalky areas are a necessary, relatively speaking, off-hand gesture to achieve a pleasant, rather unshakably, dull stasis; in a monochrome, what they signify is both difficult to imagine and impossible to execute. The broken-down area is most physically suggestive. The ruined, cracked, uneven ground itself seems to have been there from the beginning. One doesn't know whether to like it or not.The main problem with these paintings is their weak materiality, which is rather weak because, in most cases, its too overwhelming for the slightest observation. The soft, undulating surfaces, often laced with streaks of white or magenta-blue, are gone. The weak points are a sense of surface that doesnt look concrete enough, a sense of going up against the wall, which, in one case, seems to suggest painting a little too much like a sculpture. All the paintings have the basic materiality of panel painting, a feeling that most ordinary paintings dont have. The walls arent bare, but the wall surface is. The paintings are thin, delicate, brittle, and falling apart. They suggest that the best of our old masters has fallen into art historys trap. They look like wooden scraps that fell apart because the surfaces were too poor to hold the weight of their greatness.
The newly launched Art Review Generator by artist Lucidbeaming is a flawed but fascinating exploration of the vocabulary and language used in describing fine art.
The newly launched Art Review Generator by artist Lucidbeaming is a flawed but fascinating exploration of the vocabulary and language used in describing fine art. In each case, the logic of the art is either mistaken or seems more determinedly arbitrary than the facts, given the climate of post-Modernism. It is enough to say that with certain artists, art is no longer just about how it looks, it is also a way of addressing and critiquing the senses, of articulating its limits and potential for the contemplation of art itself. As such, Art Review Generator seems a promising, promising attempt to clarify and shed some light on art as an expression of the reevaluation of the world. The occasioned, cross-cultural analysis of art as the eye of the storm does not lead to a complete rupture with the world; rather, it is a refreshingly hopeful encounter, in which the real questions of art and life are transformed into questions of the mode of being. It is a bridge to be constructed and to be crossed, as the said classical notion of the philosopher of stones would have it.This exhibition consisted of six installations by Pascal Elouof, three by Bernd and Hilla Becher, and three by Markus Melzer. All of the works were kept at a certain temperature, as was the usual practice, and were not permitted to air, as is usual for installations, during the performance. The work was installed in a classical space of the gallery (with a large wall and windows). In this way, the work was precisely situated, while the gallery space and the space of the installation were blended together. The question of the state of art is now a productive and revealing one, and can only be raised once more in a society that has pursued a return to the idealism of the 60s. In this respect, this exhibition offers a path to artistic activity, as well as to the possibility of knowledge: the aesthetic and the logical systems become compatible. Its not only the artists who can trace the paths of their art, but also the cultural structure and the individual actions through which the individual and the social may take shape. In this sense, art is merely a tool, a means of investigation and explanation; yet the interrogation of the object itself becomes a theoretical and moral problem. This inquiry is indispensable, because the relationship between art and the realm of politics is so far removed from the real. The political is, of course, the activity of the gallery, but it has not yet been recognized as art. The questions raised by this exhibition seem to be: What is art? Why is it so different from other artistic production? What is the relation between political action and art? What is the relation between art and the discourse on art? These questions are of fundamental importance to contemporary art, and we should take them seriously.