then she hangs her pieces, apparently a commentary on art protesting splashes and politically bloody turmoil, the environment moves between gated horror and over-bright pastiche without any apology, other than maybe the intricate art which loomingly sits in its own background rather than on top of a background.

the inside of the tavern is wooden and feels homey and overfilled, with diamond-shaped stained glass window panes, overdecorated only in some places and unfortunately underdecorated where the guests are to sit.

meanwhile, humphries storms into the tavern and takes photos of their wings and beer, after which she writes a review precisely for e-flux, rating their dining a moderate four. after that, she takes their golden logo, and travels to a permanently closed tesla store on e cooper's ave street.

tommy newnes notes that he "was bummed to hear about the tesla store in aspen closing" that he "thought it was an awesome location and the staff was always super helpful" and that he "absolutely loves his model s" that it is "the best car he's ever owned".

the tavern's marketing logic is now suddenly taking over elon musk's psychosomatic mental space, corrupting him with the logic of under-pretentious colorado huts instead of over-pretentious car designs.

however, this time, humphries red-stained paintings aren't exhibited inside the tesla-located gallery, but outside, as a violent riot emerges between musk-hired mercenaries and the residents of colorado, newly inspired by humphries exhibition, where the awful bright red and painful streaks reminiscent of cafo-adjacent bloodbaths take part in the very street across from which her original exhibition took place.

according to griffin, you cant tell which of the paintings are invisible and roll into the background given her use of color corresponds between painting and wall, but also, you can exactly tell that none of them are invisible at all, and in fact, for griffin, they stand out too much, the bright green tesla logs are called "duds", the tesla logo remains entirely ambiguous, griffin even struggles to understand it despite claiming that its strength relies in its agnosticism.

is griffin lying to himself or us? either humphries is displaying a strength with her showcasing of the logo or isnt.

apparently its not the first time shes done this, griffin notes that she portentously showcases neiman marcus as either an example of galleries being taken over by commodity logic, or sadness over her favorite store being shut down.

if she was nostalgically lamenting the loss of the store, why did humphries not re-open it herself, the way she re-opens the tesla store in my imagination? how come she doesnt display tesla pieces directly embedded into her artworks, given she's already performing the art of the gimmick with the resin logs?

griffin's narrative would be true, except for the emerging realization that the lithium sex factory is absolutely still a story, and re-emerging narratives are equally as squashed as your stratified existence in a church space as they are inside the exhibition space, where if you were to actually recreate the sex factory's conditions, the visitors would quickly begin to rebel, disagreeing with the idea that politically it makes sense to symbolize what the artwork environment actually feels the need to symbolize.

the only difference is, the death of abstract painting appears to be so dead that just the very implementation of a tesla logo in humphries works is able to entirely trump the entirety of abstract art's current state, whereas the implementation of the physical installation in liu's work at the very least stands in correspondence rather than opposition to her work.

this indicates that humphries fault isnt just an installation failure, but that she has no idea how to speak about tesla without speaking about tesla yet still speaking about tesla, partially because of the way her artform works, whereas liu knows exactly how to do this very same thing, creating the conditions for roleplay rather than any type of novel narrative emergence, which is impossible to state as pretentious only if we put into consideration how all of contemporary art can neatly be placed in the same apolitical space.

tesla is a commodity-driver, part economic driver of commodities, yet also creator of drivable commodities, since its cars arent exactly a piece of clean tech considering their markup and the way they excuse incompetence through aesthetic overcompensation, the exact opposite of humphries, who excuses competence with aesthetic undercompensation.

griffin reconsiders humphries inclusion of the tesla logo as a stylistic choice only when it corresponds to the paintings complexity and not to a gimmicks' non complexity, but what part of the giant tesla display isnt a gimmick, precisely when her otherwise fully abstract art has supposedly sustained its effort for over forty years?

griffin argues that between critique and complicity sits this middle ground of genuine politics, where the tesla logo isn't sending any message, unable to land on reddit feeds in the form of ragebait, but also, the art refuses to not talk about tesla in some way, refusing supposed complicity.

humphries isnt solanas, she isnt going to travel to musk's "factory" tomorrow and find him there, not that he would be there anyways, he isnt chromatically highlighted.

but there is still something great about what humphries is doing, and that sits in the realm of recognition. what is the realer form of recognition, between tommy newnes' healthy google maps review of tesla's model s, and humphries confusing portrayal of tesla? well, naturally, in her phenomenologically clean-slated state, humphries is simply reacting to the world with ultimate clarity.

not only is she so complicit that its apolitical, but its anti-political, its a pure recognition of tesla's existence, it grinds tesla into its own abstract symbol.