The paintings immediately create a feeling of connection
between the abstract canvas and the people in it. The rich color is combined with the gestures of the brush, the paint is layered, and it becomes a means of signaling emotional states. On the one hand, the colors make the abstract paintings seem intimate and personal; on the other, they seem ready to be passed between the wall and the gallery space. In a sense, they are very expressive.
The paintings immediately create a feeling of connection between the artist and his surroundings. From this direct link, they can grow, and through it create an atmosphere that is different from that of the mere domestic object. In this way they can be read as a direct, tangible, physical, and mental image of human existence. The artist is engaged in the creation of a natural, physical, and imaginary relationship between the viewer and the world. There is nothing mystical about this. Neither is there anything mystical about the artist, nor is there anything mystical about his surroundings. The point is that, through this mystical, psychological, and contemplative relationship, they become a part of the world of experience and experience, a world in which the artists own body, even his very identity, can exist. He is a person, just as we are.The painting contains a hierarchy of signs, one that produces a relation between the forms and the signs. In the middle of the canvas stands a human body, its head and shoulders. A pair of bare feet hang from a leg, this leg becomes a part of the body, one that links the two paintings. It is a human body in a museum, but in a museum it is a museum, and in the museum it is a body, and in this sense it is a metaphor of a society. The body is a symbol of human existence, a sign of the body that functions as a locator between what we perceive and what we know, and that functions as a link between the things we are in contact with. It is also a symbol of a sign that, for example, can be used to designate the place where the body meets the wall, and that serves as the site of a painting, a sign of the relation between painter and canvas. The painting itself is a figurative body, a sign of the body that is united with the canvas and the world that surround it.
The paintings immediately create a feeling of connection between the everyday and the otherworldly realm. The title of the exhibition, HOMO: A KEEPING IN CONNECTION WITH LIFE, implies that the myth of the artist is only temporary and that we can always meet each other in a cafe. The accompanying text, translated by Guggenheim curator Vikas Kundraj, provides a succinct guide to what might be understood as a philosophical term, suggesting that we can recognize our shared place in the world and find a way to interact with it. For this, we need to accept the possibility that we will be standing in the same line of existence with a multitude of others, one of them a human being. And then there is the question of the artist, who is the curator and who is the viewer, and who is also the role model for all those who do not find themselves in the same place. The artist, who chooses to become an artist, chooses to make a choice; the viewer, who is the artist, chooses to make a choice. And so on.To what extent can painting, too, be a choice? Guggenheims works embody a nuanced, almost ambivalent stance on the question of the artist. On the one hand, they are concerned with the prerequisites of painting: the need to be an artist, to be a part of the modern world, and to be able to make a mark. On the other hand, they are still young, with works that date back to the beginning of the century. They are fresher than the old masters, and they speak of a creative horizon, which will not be exhausted. But their quality remains somewhat grim. They are fragile. It is as if they had been sacrificed for the sake of the modern world. While painting has always been a necessary step in the artists development, it is no longer sufficient alone.
with the conceptual and historical background of the sculpture. As in the work of other artists working with low-tech materials (e.g. Heather Olly), the paintings become entrancing icons that evoke a feeling of connection with the site of the sculptures. A sense of nostalgia emerges, and the paintings become metaphors for the fragility of time. They do not suggest the possibility of permanence, but instead invite us to experience and contemplate the passage of time as a continuous process of passing, of passing from one state of consciousness to another. In the paintings, an ink drawing of a dark-blue tree is nearly swallowed up by the intense color of a charcoal drawing, and both images seem to be a fragment of a larger abstraction. For all its apparent permanence, the works communicate an almost mystical relation to their sites of origin. Their spatial relationship to their subjects of origin reveals the dualism that underlies their existence.Their most striking characteristic is that they both reference and resist the formal and political economy of the site. In a sense, they are antithetical to the art of the elite, which usually seeks to control and dominate the territory of the sites of their art. Because of the intensiveness of their metaphor, the paintings are the ultimate evocation of the empty spaces of art, which is something that every visitor to the site will experience. The paintings do not seek to become artworks. Rather, they serve as symbols of a passing time, symbolic of a moment in which the viewer can experience his or her own passing. By painting these empty spaces, these lonely, strange scenes, they remind us that they are also the same empty spaces that we occupy—the same places, the same history, the same problems, the same artists who have made paintings and sculptures here.
The paintings immediately create a feeling of connection between the two scenes. One of the most interesting of the works, in fact, was the almost momentous trajectory of an angelic silhouette of a young girl moving across the empty stage of the theater. This composite image of two figures formed a thread of perception, a literalizing of the space of the stage. The line of the idol, a line of the road, and the path of the male figure all spoke to the passage of time as well as to the passage of death. The artist was also careful to avoid any suggestion of sexual content, and for this reason the path of the young woman was often interrupted by a kind of symbolically erotic gesture. It was a clear sign that the artist was trying to eliminate any sense of time and to open up a space of absolute sensuous experience. The closing of time became the aim of the artist, who was trying to give the appearance of the total pictorial appearance of the action. The gesture of closing time was also a gesture of closing off the space of the art, of creating a distance between the paintings and the audience. The artist tried to hold these two aspects of experience together, to create a space of total pictorial appearance, a space of pure pictorial appearance.The woman, then, was the figure of the audience, and the painting of the figure of the audience was also the figure of the audience. In this sense, the relation between the two figures was also a relation between two states of consciousness, and a consciousness of the audience. In the paintings, as in the drawings, the artist was trying to expand the field of vision, to give to the audience a sense of depth and of the figures that moved through space, and of the distance that separates us from them. In the paintings, the figure of the audience was the canvas on which the painter painted the figure of the spectator. The figures of the two figures were similar only in their weight, in the fact that they were both thin and dark.