Is it an egg? Seponga. Or nuclear? Energy? The motility of energy? A form that comes to mind at a random moment, if not this or that? However, there is a difference in degree, and all of them will have the right to assert themselves as the basis for explaining the artist's painting. To tell the truth, the artist is said to have conceived this painting by chance. The writer is neither genetic engineering nor a biologist. What do you mean? To tell you the truth, I said. Despite the emphasis on this fact, the artist does not paint cells. It is just an opportunity for the artist to start painting. In reality, there are many opportunities for the artist to start painting. Perhaps by that time, the artist was in a vague and intense thought about the form, the form of the form, the source of the form, the form of the form, the circular form that could no longer be divided, and therefore, perhaps the form as the least basis for forming the painting. Then, as a chance, the body suddenly entered the eye and the cells would have been stepped on the eye. So it's a cell, not a cell at the same time. Reality always acts as an opportunity to start painting, but the principle that painting works is different. The logic of reality and the logic of the picture are different. It can be said that the logic of the picture is parasitic on reality and captures the logic of reality using reality as a host. In any case, painting must begin, and the logic of reality here serves as an excuse to start painting. How can I say otherwise. Even in reproductive (or participatory) paintings, it is impossible to reproduce as it is. So the artist was drawing eggs, cells, nuclei, energy, and energy. I was painting life, I was painting the universe, I was painting existence. According to Jill Deleuze, she was drawing an object that could not be specified as 00, an object like 00, an object that only looked like 00, and an object that pretended to be 00. And here, it depicted an accidental form that seemed to reaffirm the reductionist rule of the modernist paradigm. Then, how does the writer draw it? Let's go into the picture. Before that, let's assume that the shape in the painting is a cell for convenience (anyway, the cell is acting as a real-life opportunity that allowed the artist to start painting). The artist introduces tape to draw cells (or forms that look like cells). After putting the film on the edge with a thin tape like a thread, fill in the color by painting the inside of the shape with a brush. At this time, the brush strokes are repeated by drawing a circle along the cell shape, and although it is not visible with certain physical properties, a kind of direction is detected. You can see the texture like a thin unevenness on the record board (where the artist's painting extends beyond the visual object to the tactile object), a three-dimensional feeling that the center part is convex, and a self-illuminating self-emission like graphite. It can be seen as an expression of one's objectivity, such as an attitude to be faithful to the shape of a circular cell, and a rule imposed by oneself to do so. In any case, setting rules can reduce accidental variables. This shows that the artist's work has a performance aspect through repetition (repeat, rules, and patterns are closely linked to each other). In addition, by introducing a gradation technique, transparency, three-dimensional feeling, space, and earthquake resistance are added. It is treated differently from the inside of the shape by brightening or darkening the edges of the shape (fictional introduction of light and dark?), and each cell obtains a distinct substance as if it could be held in its hands. Such a prominent collection of cells creates layers, creates a network of infinite repetitive chains of cells, and forms spatial depth (fictional introduction of space? directing?). Here, the screen sometimes looks like a microscopic movement (which implies opart), like a wiggly circular cell or microorganism seen through a microscope. If each cell is premised as the seed of life, it can also be seen as a representation of microscopic life that communicates with the universe, which is a macroscopic life. When it comes to color, it usually shows an understated color emotion, limited to blue and red and sometimes gray shades. The monochromatic color sentiment gives an ascetic and ideological impression, and the fluffy form reminiscent of the out-focus technique in photography gives a three-dimensional feeling, giving it an unrealistic and dreamy feeling as if a grain of light was fluttering in front of you. That's how the artist paints the cells. Largely, it is divided into cases where large and small cells coexist, cases where cells of uniform size are repeatedly reproduced at first glance, and cases where they expand their self by repeatedly reproducing repeatedly. Although relative, active motility (or directionality?) is detected in the former, and suppressed motility and potential motility (static?) in the latter. Although cells may collectively suggest some known shape, they usually seem to represent the inertia of existence that repeats motility and transition, and thus generation and extinction, rather than the fixed moment of the definitive shape. Sometimes there are cells that are exposed on a white background, and the distinction and boundaries become ambiguous as to whether the cell is the cell that is revealed based on the cell or the shape that is overlaid with the overlaid color. In some cases, the edge screen is empty, while the entire screen is filled with cells. Although the cell, and the direction and mobility between the cells, the picture as a whole looks abstract, and that makes it meaningless where it is up and down (lost gravity?). The art historian Heinrich Wölflin holds the stylistic features of Baroque art in terms of motility and infinite expansion outside the painting, which can be seen as an abstract version of such stylistic features. It can be seen as a presentation of a new meaning-generating structure that starts and ends anywhere, and that time and end point are arbitrary. And the open semantic generation structure reminds us of the principle of the creation of the rhizome (Jill Deleuze), and reminds us of hypertext and hyperlinks exposed to interaction and interaction. In that way, the artist depicted the motility of existence, such as energy, life, which has no parent body and no powder, that the distinction becomes strictly meaningless. Earlier, the reality was that it only stayed at the minimum opportunity for the artist to start painting. He also said that the logic of reality and the logic of conversation are different. It is also said that the logic of painting is parasitic on reality and takes away the logic of reality. Thus, although the artist started from reality, he escapes from reality in the process of painting. Although it started by drawing cells, drawing life, and drawing energy, the painting turns into something else in the process of painting. The boundary between consciousness and unconsciousness is broken, and the repetition of the transition from consciousness to unconsciousness and from unconsciousness to consciousness is repeated. While drawing with the consciousness of the cell, it suddenly falls into the painting. The perception of what is being painted is erased, and only repetitive actions and the attributes of the painting itself (inertia of the painting?) remain. The recognition is erased? I'm being erased. I'm lost in the painting, I'm taken away by the painting, and to put it a little grander, it leads to the point where the painting and I are united. The fact that I'm lost in the painting, that I'm taken away by the painting, is also the moment when I'm paradoxically pure. In that way, the artist was drawing the cell, life, energy, and existence, drawing the event that I unconsciously became pure. I am none other than a cell, life, energy, being. So the fact that I'm lost in a painting is actually that I'm lost in a painting as a medium. In that way, the artist's painting has self-reflection, ontological, and performance aspects. In the previous work, the artist drew drops of water on the table and on the paper. The fun of following the accidental shape created by a single drop of water falling and bursting or smudging and spreading into the paper led to painting. Here, droplets cause all accidental shapes to originate. And in recent works, the artist paints cells. Here, cells are the source from which all beings originate. Thus, the author's recent work was connected to the previous work. As it worked like that, other semantic generation structures were open.