A red bird on a black background outlined by a white thin stripe
A red bird on a black background outlined by a white thin stripe in a series of 12 images on a white ground. It is a piece of image. It is an abstract image. It is not a literal image. It doesnt even have a body. It is a symbolic image. The heart of the work is a plate-glassed window, which has a reflective coating, so that the glass reflects the image onto the window. The piece is thus a window onto a body of water which has been dyed black. The submerged image is then exposed, the reflection is reflected back onto the glass. The work is called a fish, and in this case, a blue one. There are two images, a blue one and a red one, and the blue one represents a blue fish. The red one is the red fish. The two images are identical. The blue one is a reflection of the red one and reflects back onto the reflection and is therefore a reflection of the blue one. The red one is the reflection of the blue and the blue is reflected back onto the reflection and is therefore a reflection of the red one. They are both blue. The blue is an image of light, the reflection of the red of the reflection. The blue is an image of light and is reflected on by the reflection and is therefore reflected in the reflection and is therefore reflected. The red is a reflection of the blue and the reflection is reflected, and is therefore reflected and is therefore reflected. The red is the reflection of the blue and the reflected image is therefore reflected. The blue is the reflection of the reflected image and is therefore reflected and is therefore reflected. The red is the reflection of the reflected image and is thus reflected and is reflected. The blue is the reflection of the reflected image and the reflected image is thereby reflected and is thus reflected. The red is the reflected image and the reflected image is thereby reflected and is therefore reflected. The blue is the reflection of the reflected image and the reflected image is thereby reflected and is therefore reflected.
interrupted the color in a vaguely cartoonish way. The point was to evoke the possibility of a glimpse of the world as it exists in the absence of those people who actually inhabit it.In the end, though, its all about the paint, not the person. Is the world one paint? Or do the paintings evince a sense of longing for the world to be a part of us, and perhaps the only place where we can be? The best paint is the paint we choose, and its the most perfect of all.
A red bird on a black background outlined by a white thin stripe with a bird perched atop a branch. In fact, the form was a superimposition of two different bird forms, one is the wild creature, the other the prehistoric one. The title is the same as the one on the tree, so that it became the bird of the wild and the one of the prehistoric. The slatted panel shows the trees branches, while in a small panel two more branches are visible on the wall. This piece is an allusion to the primordial origin of the tree, as well as an allusion to the primordial origin of human forms. The twig is symbolic of the tree, while the thin branch also points to the branches of the tree. In the heart of the tree, a bird is perched on a twig. In fact, the twig is one of the roots, while the bird is the twig of the tree. The bird is the root, but the twig is the tree. The two are equal, but the root is the tree. The bird is the tree, the twig is the bird. The two figures are one, and they are identical, but identical in the sense that each figure is a composite of the other. The two are separate and opposite. The bird is also the root, but the bird is the tree. The twig is the tree. The two are united by the branches, and they have both branches. The branch in the upper panel is the twig in the lower panel. The branches are parallel to the floor, but are parallel to the two-dimensional figure. The branch in the lower panel is the twig in the upper panel. Thus, the branch in the upper panel is the twig in the lower panel. The two are one, but different. In fact, the two are one, but different. The two elements of the figure are the same, and the figure is the root of the tree.
A red bird on a black background outlined by a white thin stripe that was also an abstract element, the motifs, in red, black, and white, stood for the blue-green-and-white medium, for the gray-green-and-blue-green in the field. The work has a sharp, precise symmetry. The red-and-white image is at once ordered and fragmented. On the one hand, it implies a subjectivity of the world, a frame for our gaze, and a view from above, above the blue-green-and-white stripe, which bisects the circle. On the other, it serves as a frame for the red-and-white image, for the red-and-white landscape, and for the red-and-white boundary, a gap between the black-and-red-strewn ground and the red-and-white image. These two motifs intersect, and in the process of standing for the blue-green-and-white image of the plane, they become fragments of a figure that are rendered, as if by a mirror, simultaneously transparent and opaque.The black-and-red-strewn area was divided into three parts, which comprised the rest of the piece. The first part was a sphere that was, like the plane, a circle, and the sphere was divided into three sections: a rectangle, a rectangle, and a rectangle. The rectangle, made of concrete-colored concrete, was partially opaque, and the rectangle was also partially opaque, but the material was not. In the middle of the circle, the rectangle was split open to reveal the material. In the bottom part of the circle, the rectangle was nearly closed, so that the circle itself had been dissolved.
A red bird on a black background outlined by a white thin stripe, is almost too handsome, and too idiosyncratic for me to love. It is the only one I could find in the exhibition, and it is a mediocre one at that.It is a pity that I can only show this because it is to the artist a kind of foul taste. I see the Bird in Water as a kind of effacement of all the impurities, all the oppositions and all the pieties of the spirit that are the stuff of the work. It is a totalizing attack on all that is not pure, on all the things that are not intended for art. The essence of the artist has been made utterly banal, and in the end the artist is not the one who is important or even new, but merely a member of a group of friends. The bird is a pretty thing, but not a very beautiful one. And the salt, too, is pretty but not particularly pleasing. I could mention the bronze, but its glazed, and, I think, a little too much. It is good, but it is not particularly memorable. And I have seen several others in the show that are much better, but only because I know how valuable a material is, but they are, by far, the most expensive. The most expensive is a bronze in which the water has been glazed to a beautiful emerald glaze, and it is the most expensive. It is too large for the gallery, and the quality is not that high, and the cost is too high. The Salt is the most expensive, too, and it is the most authentic, too, but it is a perfect model for the gallery, and I am sure that the artist has not thought it through.I am not sure that I am not in the right place, because my opinion of Salt is mixed, but I do not think that it is the most important thing that the show does, although I am sure that the impression that it does is erroneous.