J. Parker Valentine at Misako & Rosen

(link)

Lines, they delineate. So, failing to produce the object, the quasi is given to viewer, an inkblot, a form they construct.  "difficult to articulate" the PR says, becomes painting of a mirage, handing the goo to a viewer left to sort spaghetti formed lines like tea leaves in you all along. Pareidolia.

J. Parker Valentine at Juan and Patricia Vergez Collection

link

The artifact provides imaginative potential. It's why we love them. Fragments implying a world we can only imagine, possibility outshines concrete reality, it never relinquishes its breadth of eventualities to actually becoming-something, thus delimit potential, of which both Stephen King and Ben Lerner describing power of the fragmentary always far outshining its limiting through description, poems or monsters. Art functions this way too, as artworks exists as fragments inferring the world of their subject, the artist, and these in their glyphic schematics like all the Surrealist automatism that dredged slides of their subconscious we see here too pieces of an artist, works "only partially provided in terms of sight occludes or interrupts any complete understanding."

J. Parker Valentine at Park View

(link)

Valentine's drawings entail expectations of legibility depictive of some tip-of-the-tongue subject within a library of means detailing the amorphous thing it circles but fails to produce. There is the lure of subject object, the thing that will at any moment manifest itself in the definitive lines of drawing schematizing, hypothesizing, its existence alongside the slide show's equal directness that again begins circling its subject over the course of its ribs. Parker is good at this, at making the object appear as though right around the corner, in the next slide, on the next page, in the next sentence.