Images link to 4200x px resolution images, free for personal use.
What does the colored version make you think of / feel / postmodern / angst / ruminate / ritualize? If you do not know, the COMPUTER-GENERATED POSTMODERN "ARTIST STATEMENT" DRAWING HAT can tell you what you should think of (and were an uninformed, unwashed fool for not thinking of). My thoughts hidden at the end of the post with a "show" link. The drawing hat just now produced:
During the days in the exhibition in which this work is featured, visitors walk over and occupy territory usually reserved for videos. The ambiguous signification of deep space is, upon close inspection, confounded by the next generation of Greek immigrant experience in various stages of the world of Frederic Kunath.
Whooooooa. That's totally deep.
Here also is the original vector art which may have unexpected fill patterns–I didn't check; I just ran my color fill randomization script against it. The vector source and these images are free for personal use. Click the below image to open the original .svg file.
I think it's a very happy coincidence that my first run of the random color fill script produced grass-like color below and sky-like color above. (It actually produced rather dark blues, which burdened the image. I lightened them up to be more sky-like.) Earth and sky . . . with some wierdness or fun in-between.
And since you're indulging me, I googled Frederic Kunath (and got the corrected spelling), and found this tripe under his name; my responses are interspersed.
Inextricably entwining the experience of the ordinary with the sublime, Friedrich Kunath's work explores interior sensation, recontextualization and abstraction, and oppositional relationships that propel emotional experience.
First, please don't noun verbs gratuitously. You could have just written "opposed." Second, no, it doesn't. That sentence only makes sense in a way that cannot communicate anything of direct value. That statement is in outer space, or an inner space that no one can (or should) comprehend. In trying to restate it in clearer terms, this is what I got:
His artwork totally mixes ordinary with awesome, and makes us think of the thinky things inside us that change and oppose and are, like, abstract–and things that oppose each other that make us feel the things. The awesome things.
DUDE. USE THAT INSTEAD. So much better. So much more honest.
Within his painting, installation, and sculpture, images and objects build upon themselves in a layered stream of consciousness driven by the autobiographical, the conceptual, and the emotional.
No, they don't do that. I see some layered things in his art. But they don't make me think of his or mine or anyone's autobiography–much more strike me as some representation of consciousness. There is absolutely nothing here other than this dumb statement that would ever make me think of anything even remotely near that concept–and I'm not seeing or feeling anything specially conceptual or emotional. I am affected by the works. There's something cool and emotional about them, and I say that sincerely. But try for your statement instead:
He makes different kinds of art, and that's cool. If you could make your brain fart loudly enough to make you believe his art touches a totally deep, personal story, that would be awesome! Especially if it was like, conceptual, like, "high concept," you know?! Like an elevator pitch that made people cry! Booyeah!
The act is an embrace of existence –
What act? You refer to no action at all as if there was some act going on. Wow! Your inflated series of nouns–and an invented verby noun–! are so, like, actionous!
I'm not getting your vibe here. Actually, I am, and I hate it: self-important.
both vibrant and mundane – where irony and melancholy coalesce with his version of "sad optimism," and nostalgia wanders between past and future. Together, disparate yet individually familiar elements propose a kaleidoscopic view of somewhere between dreamscape and reality.
I can't. I just can't.
That! That is what my artist statement drawing hat mocks!
The last sentence is the only one I could maybe stretch my disbelief to see in the paintings, but I'm not into this poetic tone over art. I'd rather you just say . . . I don't know. Probably nothing. We don't have to write blasted thesis statements about art, and it's usually pointless to try. Leave the rest to professors who can make statements about art whose creators are dead, so they aren't around to say "What?!" Or about art whose creators are alive and wearing the Emperor's new clothes.
I make exceptions where there's actually substance or poetry to the statements. I don't see enough of that to generally recommend that any artist or curator so write. Not that I'm in a place to recommend. This is my blog. I'm ranting.