5/10/2006

Jason Sleurs

31 comments:

Mark said...

Only take what you can eat, waste not!

Painter said...

Go See
Jennifer Coates at Feigen
535 West 20th Street.
Opens Thursday

Nicole Eisenman
Leo Koenig Inc.
545 West 23rd Street, New York
Opens Saturday

George Condo
Luhring Augustine
531 West 24th Street
Opened

dubz said...

i really like jason's paintings. i love the idea of animal piles as a means for repetition...and the brushwork is really accomplished. there's one with a walrus on top of a pile of fish that is totally contemplative - not just in a food-chain sort of way, but more like the animals are questioning their own instincts or mindlessly gathering like they're in a dream.

pedro said...

i saw jason's work in a group show a few weeks ago - i was really impressed, he's great painter...what gallery does he show with?

exu said...

Really nice-a relief to see animals and trees that look fresh-not easy,in a sea of paintings of animals and trees

no-where-man said...

the condo is fab! and this has a nice flavor.

James Wolanin said...

Very nice work. A cold winter sky gets me every time - Phthalo green and alizarin crimson really do the trick

closeuup said...

I see dead things (Catherine Kerri Jason)

Who's going to live? Cmon. I dare you.

PinkandlacePony said...

Remember when someone said no likey and everybody got up in arms?

Me likey.

burrito brother said...

Reminds me a little of Sean Landers.
That's a compliment.

zipthwung said...

I like shishkebobs.

honey

I'd like to see the red in the feet pulled into the eyes a bit-but the bear isn't crazy, is he?

Funereal.

Oblomov.

Watership Down.

Grizly Adams.

Noble Savages!

kid said...

It looks almost post-coital. A little nod to the connection between sex and violence and animal nature.

wod zar xam said...

You had to know I would have a mouthful about this one.

I like the way that JS paints. His animals straddle an interesting space between hallmark cartoons and real creatures. They cute and cuddly, yet not quite ready to depart from naturalism. His landscapes are spare and embody a shallow sense of space. They and remind me of a Warner Brothers cartoon, flat and produced with keyed up colors.

He sometimes (as in the jpeg we have here) tends to stack his animals up in odd piles. The beasts become building blocks for sculptural shapes and structures. I get the feeling that the animals are doing this as a way to try to communicate with us, like whales beaching themselves (if you believe that theory). There is a harkening back to Giuseppe Arcimboldo at times, but the structure seems to be held together by the relationships of the animals rather than the structure that they are mimicking. Walrus and fishes talking about "Manifest Destiny", bears and rabbits. He is using animals as language to create narratives and moral judgments about the world and humanity, not unlike Rockman.

In a way, this is also akin to the work that Magid is doing, utilizing animals as icons to illuminate a world perspective. For Magid, conjuring those creatures seemed to be spiritual moment, with her inspiration coming from an ethereal world of animal spirits. For JS, he is more interested in the language of creatures, more upfront and anchored in conscious symbols. In the litany of contemporary "nature" paintings, I think we are seeing more evidence of the downfall of the natural and rise of plastic animal.

devinlevin said...

Looks like a kid's book illustration. :|

no-where-man said...

bears eat rabbits who knew i like to think of them as dead Barry Flanagan's

T.I. said...

" It looks almost post-coital. A little NOD to the connection between sex and violence and animal nature. "
---Kid

Please can we have a moratorium on the word "nod"?
Saying something is "a nod to" something else is so vague and wussy. And besides, if someone is "nodding" to something instead of wholeheartedly embracing it, who cares.
"Nod" is almost as bad as the word "reference" As in: This painter is referencing brutality in this piece.
Ugh!

closeuup said...

My cat kills squirrels all the time. He eats their heads. It is gross and bloody and doesnt look anything like this.

kid said...

F.U.T.I.

sloth said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sloth said...

So. We can't say "nod," we can't say "reference," we can't say "chops," ...anything else that will bring ridicule raining down on our heads? I think it would be great if we could just say what we think without fearing the wrath of the language police.

Love: the posture of the bear, the indifferent expression (brings to mind the Herzog grizzly movie), the beautifully empty howling and spare quality of the landscape & sky, the cold light; and the contrast of the bountiful pile-o-rabbits against this backdrop.

Don't love: the rabbit's feet sticking up at the bottom. Like x's for eyes. They're just too goofy and cartoony, IMO, and undermine the rest of the painting.

operation enduring artist said...

Love: the posture of the bear, the indifferent expression (brings to mind the Herzog grizzly movie)

what?

zipthwung said...

Nature is sublime. Notice that this painting and the last painting both have a central figure that is offset a little to the left.

In portraiture you are supposed to tilt the subjects head a littel - it looks more natural, and also maybe more dynamic.

I read somewhere that if you put an image on the left or right and text on the left or right, that there will be a greater or lesser difference in viewer interest. I think it was image on the right. I dont know if thats universal or what.

acid trip drop down menu

Watch the wave.

ec said...

Sloth, I disagree about the feet. Seen another way, the feet are like confetti (or snow) drifting from the top. The toggle betwen image and flatness belies given the ferocious nature of devouring, becoming painting, abstraction, organization...

rainbowandskull said...

Sloth,
I thought I liked the feet. So cute but maybe not such a good thing as I rethink it.

albino radio1 said...

w.w. - i like very much what yo usaid about the animals as repetitious, or 'replaceable.' also, i wonder if the painting is rendered with repetitious brushwork? it's interesting to think about what the animals are thinking, and how their survival instincts function. in that respect, the stacking of the bunnies is strange, is the bear stacking up for the winter? maybe the strangest thing for me is the way everythng is rendered? why the cutsie style? i guess if the painting was painted thickly and grotesquely, it might be way creepier.

serena said...

Funny, I have no agreement or disagreement about the feet--this painting is sufficiently cohesive unto itself, with adequate internal tension, that I'm inclined to take it as a whole and accept it on its own terms. Whether those terms be children's book, allegory or sculptural abstraction. :-)

sarag said...

cool, bunnies kinda remind me of a craig kucia painting i saw last year

flesheater99 said...

Ha! kinda reminds me of a blowjob I got from 4 bunnies last year.

CIA Hollaaaaaaaa!

chicomacho said...

blowjob, 4 bunnys, isn't that animal cruelty

flesheater99 said...

Cruelty?

Naw. I bought'em all tennis bracelets. We're cool.

kid said...

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.