GMM mainly paints portraits. Serial portraits, like those that are recorded when it is necessary to have it drawn to fulfill the obligations of national identification, that is to say all similar, same neutralized point of view, background extinct or dull as a flat apathetic, inert face and a stupid air but nevertheless different from that of our congeners, since the aim of the operation is to record our peculiarities, our peculiarities, even our oddities. Obviously, GMM complicates the matter a little, the portraits which it aligns do not have "proper" names; it is in fact a theory of bizarre homunculi, closer to the unnameable than to the identifiable, species of species that are not very sweet, ersatz humanity, close to an equivocal itching. [...] To better consider it, some clues come to be added to the result: it floats knowingly between the quotation of portraits as classic as venerable which one arranges in our rays of history of art rather baroque, decked out of a delirious comic strip look like those committed by the dilapidated Californians who willingly drew on the vaguely prohibited substances of Peace and Love of the 70s. Between Velazquez and Crumb, what? But to push the Gordian knot of the origins further, we agree to recognize that we are close to a very "bad painting" aesthetic, this destructive flowering which decorated in voyeuristic superlatives the punk drones of the proven beginnings of post-modern. . Phew! GMM claims all this when it specifies that its priority intentions remain to "show the anguish that people feel, more and more apathetic in the face of an environment saturated by the media and images which eliminate all critical thinking" and that it tries to fight by "deconstructing the tangles of the current cultural world by the bias of winding up data largely contaminated but whose toxicity can act as therapy". In other words, the more you mix up the appearance of the trivial, the more you put your finger on the worst that should be done away with. He is not wrong in this, it has long been the ba ba of any anti-conformist inclination, that is to say, to remain in the field of art the opposition of "good" and "bad". The paradox remains that we often confuse the “bad” and the “ugly”, that is to say that it is “bad” when the result is “ugly” and that it can be doomed to complaints as diverse as they are damaged. . Without too many surprises, GMM admits its appetite for the last dripping paintings of De Chirico and for the "cow period" of Magritte, - although one would have to wonder if the latter, in doing so, did not confirm a love of the same nature. for the painting that he seemed to mistreat -, when it is not a few nasty canvases of an andropaused Dali where we Show her soft ... Because at the end of the day, and looking closely, it is not "ugly" that if it is very well done, mastered, technically breathtaking, comparable or challenging the codes and criteria of what a priori confirms the authoritarian beauty of the "good", the "bad" walking around in other appreciations where morality often points its nose.