the artist beksinski is the best because oil paintings he does really well is creepy

Result #1

, quite unlike the show. First of all, his figures are cut out of bodies, which is to say they have no anatomy, no real places to go or to be. They are either bland and lifeless, or else there are human parts—no genitals, no skin, no bones, nothing. While some of the figures are static, most of them are in motion, running in circles around one another or across the canvas. They have very definite names (Aintit. Mascot and Hush. Brain and Cow), though the names themselves are in the pastels, so they take on a kind of free association. Most of them are very cheerful and cheerful sometimes, although I found Hush. Brain and Cow did the trick best, I think, because they were as disturbing as they were laugh-out-loud funny. So it is with these paintings. I can see that from one end of the spectrum they are good for political comment. On the other hand, they are like a lot of the tchotzkies, which is unfortunate because thats what its supposed to be. The show might have been better off without it. As I said in the first room, without it it is bad art. When it is good, its fine. The Eroticism of the San Francisco Art Association is enough. Go to hell, show yourself to me. After the tenor of the California Art Association meeting on Saturday, August 20, the 10th, at the Art Gallery of Greater San Diego in San Diego—which is actually rather nice for the area—he will have to wait until the summer to hear if the San Diego Art Association has even gotten a room for its own gallery.

Result #2

and beautiful. So with these beautiful paintings you look forward to more of them.

Result #3

. The seven pieces shown here are just this: a few patches of oil paint on canvas, painted black and white, about three feet wide and eight feet long. On the surface of each is a blur of forms, blank and jumbled like some hideous corpse. The paintings are all black, though a number of colors appear in their contrasting overlaps—a sombre red, like a wound, and a moody earth tone like a stele. No matter which one, the results look like an aborted fashion sketch. It wasnt until I saw that this was what was meant by the term face on the wall, and I became strangely aroused. I asked the painter if I could use his signature—he had rejected it—but the result is even more abstract. Any black on a canvas is just black, that is the black of the age. It is a backward look at the black art that developed in the 50s. It looks like a backwards look at black painting.Happily, there are two other artists here whose work shows the early results of his transformation from an abstract artist to a painter. He works with the sensibility of a photographer and he is also a painter. The three works that comprise These Remnants, 1981, are so self-conscious that they are a challenge to the viewer to apprehend. And they are the only ones in the show that really seem to have anything to do with black and white. However, when I try to talk about black and white, I end up using words like elegant and refined. What they show, then, is the extent to which the black figure has become part of the post-Modern painting. It is a fact that will probably never be seen except in so many banal discussions of contemporary art. But it is a fact, as far as I know, that exists even in art.

Result #4

. And, since he can work, they are more.but not too. He could, with the help of these paintings, have spent more time on them and not lost any of the powerful psychological element that many of these others lack.

Result #5

, like the guy who thinks he can use plastic balls to write text. These paintings are like some guy who used to think seriously about how one can become a painter by having a bag of paint instead of brushes. His work might have been better if it were about making an important, though perhaps accidental, connection between the ritual of painting and the emotional and intellectual implications of that ritual.