What Was I Thinking?
Well-known artists are regarded as torchbearers of the avant-garde, while their less-prominent counterparts are not — revealing that context is an essential element of aesthetic merit. We imagine ourselves beyond history, yet continue to mine the cultural, ethnic, and anthropological depths of tradition. This tension produces a hybrid of narrative and dialogue, feeding a meta-practice of validation. Both are aspects of looking, seeing, perceiving — and painting. In many instances, the transfer occurs in retrospect, like viewing a perspective in a mirror: one that raises more questions than it answers, yet where each reflection remains, essentially, the same as the last. Contingent on this relationship is the theory's constant evolution — a premonition of future collaboration, one in which development supersedes experience. The unconscionable timing and unrelenting momentum of historical revolution lends the process a monstrous appearance. Strange, to recall the traces of humanism — to remember vast walls of abstraction, propagandized through panoramas of style and grace, and the perpetual repositioning, rearranging, and continuous unfolding of multifarious confrontation, now and forever. Acts of art that subvert the limits of painting, and navigate the ambiguities of iconoclasm, transcend mere practice. A final definition of what is classified, what is historical, and what endures as the driving force of discourse must, by now, be considered an established fact.