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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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. :-)
20 comments:
Only take what you can eat, waste not!
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
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.
the condo is fab! and this has a nice flavor.
Very nice work. A cold winter sky gets me every time - Phthalo green and alizarin crimson really do the trick
I see dead things (Catherine Kerri Jason)
Who's going to live? Cmon. I dare you.
Remember when someone said no likey and everybody got up in arms?
Me likey.
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!
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.
bears eat rabbits who knew i like to think of them as dead Barry Flanagan's
My cat kills squirrels all the time. He eats their heads. It is gross and bloody and doesnt look anything like this.
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.
Love: the posture of the bear, the indifferent expression (brings to mind the Herzog grizzly movie)
what?
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.
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...
Sloth,
I thought I liked the feet. So cute but maybe not such a good thing as I rethink it.
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. :-)
Ha! kinda reminds me of a blowjob I got from 4 bunnies last year.
CIA Hollaaaaaaaa!
Cruelty?
Naw. I bought'em all tennis bracelets. We're cool.
Post a Comment