5/14/2006

Sean Landers

42 comments:

Cross said...

Stunning. And not in a good way.

operation enduring artist said...

i beleive this is the 7th painting in a row that needs some sort of supplementary text to accompany it, they look like they were meant to 'help' something more significant...yes, that means i think these are all illustrations and not in the flattering sense. this looks like this may be well painted but...... someone enlighten me please.

i saw the lurie show at ps1 this weekend..you were all putting down lurie for not being serious and for not doing anything challenging...well shit, he can paint damnit, those were beautifully handled...AND he PROVIDES the text for us.

what is this work about...again, someone enlighten me please.

***************

"In brief, and with by briefs now on for that matter, I'm painting pictures that give small glimpses into my mind. Now if that just happens to be a space chimp on Mars, then so be it. Basically, I just think things up and then paint them. To me pictures are far more open to interpretation than words, therefore, I was hoping you could figure out what my new work means because I sure don't know what the hell I'm doing."
--sean landers at andrea rosen 1997

devinlevin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
closeuup said...

I dont get you naysayers. Do we even live in the same world?

This painting hits the nail on the head. It is right where we are right now. Apocolyptic yet it doesnt let the viewer deny responsibility. Or just another day trying to keep your head above water. Or maybe he's merely in love.

The what-have-I-done (OR NOT DONE)expression on the beast's face! Priceless.

A very compassionate painting.

exu said...

i imagine people are nay saying the lax and amateurish rendering of water and sky,among other things

Brangalina said...

This is great painting. Like Condo it just is cool.

devinlevin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
serena said...

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Devin. Cliche'd, illustrative, lame colors, generally weird and dorky, and not in a good way. This was made by a non-kinesthetic person who is not even particularly visual. Ridiculously literal.

no-where-man said...

hate to say it feel far more strongly about the diarist work, they 'fail' with far more flair, over all i am a fan however.

Cooky Blaha said...

OMG almost as good as a Goosebumps cover

no-where-man said...

look up some of the other work, think about this...

"My original idea was to make conceptual art entertaining, sloppy, emotional, human and funny. Over the years I got so far out on this conceptual limb that I went around full circle until I was a traditional artist again. I tried to be ironic about it but eventually became sincere. Now I�m a happy victim of my own charade. I figure that it's better to be a sucker who makes something than a wise guy who is too cautious to make anything at all." (Sean Landers, "The Booby", 1998)

Vlahos Boyiajees said...

Where on earth is this painting showing? I googled and couldn't find it.

Painter we need some captions please...

Vlahos Boyiajees said...

Something makes me root for this devil/pig to survive. An artist faced with a painting and he doesn't know what to do with it. Make something great or something attempting to become great? Sink or swim. This painting is frozen in it's struggle. Doesn't that lighting look like a possible hand of a higher humanoid power?

burrito brother said...

I'm one of Landers' biggest supporters. We need more iconic image making and less quibbling over how well a sky or water is painted. That being said, this is not one of his stronger works. Is this new? It's hard to believe. He has a similar painting to this but with a sad clown in a rowboat that is amazing. I like the idea of a drowning pig/satan, but he could have done it better...

Vlahos Boyiajees said...

What makes a bad painting too bad?

closeuup said...

"Bad" Painting
January 14 - February 28, 1978
Main Gallery

Organized by Marcia Tucker

Artists: James Albertson, Joan Brown, Eduardo Carrillo, James Chatelain, Cply, Charles Garabedian, Robert Chambless Hendon, Joseph Hilton, Neil Jenney, Judith Linhares, P. Walter Siler, Earl Staley, Shari Urquart, William Wegman

"The freedom with which these artists mix classical and popular art-historical sources, kitsch and traditional images, archetypal and personal fantasies, constitutes a rejection of the concept of progress per se. . . . It would seem that, without a specific idea of progress toward a goal, the traditional means of valuing and validating works of art are useless. Bypassing the idea of progress implies an extraordinary freedom to do and to be whatever you want. In part, this is one of the most appealing aspects of "bad" painting - that the ideas of good and bad are flexible and subject to both the immediate and the larger context in which the work is seen."
"Bad" Painting catalogue.

"This is a self-consciously controversial show. There are bound to be at least several works that even the most open-minded art-lover will hate with grim passion."
John Perreault, "'Bad' Is Good," The Soho Weekly News, January 26, 1978.

flesheater99 said...

T-Total Blowage.

dubz said...

i really, really like this painting. and i think it's perfectly fine to talk about how beautifully the water is painted. i want to rescue the animal... poor thing is obviously frightened. but he is keeping his hoof above the water without splashing too much...so maybe he'll be OK?

chicomacho said...

SWEET painting!!!! sean landers kicks schutz ass in weirdness

zipthwung said...

All you naysayers need to go back to art school. Or stay there. Because thats where you are.

devinlevin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
canada said...

sean landers is great, and anyone who doesn't see it, well i don't know.
hey serena, what an embarassing picture you've chosen for your profile. i mean, the fact that you've included some sincere head shot.......i'm blushing for you. on the plus side, the POV eradicates the need to ever think about fucking you. i'll pass. i'll like my women less manly, and my opinions more intelligent.

bada said...

Canada, that was a pointlessly, irrelevant, uncalled statement about another poster...just thought I'd let you know.

Seems like sean, himself, is the art...writing, art, comments, presence, songs, voice, character...one of those...not sure how I feel about that whole concept. it works, i think, but this is in due part as to the common result exemplified here... you see a single piece, and it's obviously just a part of the whole. yeah, can't stand by itself...

...but his book, anybody read it? been meaning to, keep forgetting...oops.

as for this painting, eh... symbols of symbols of symbols...well, maybe not this one. little too surrealisticness or what have you.

animal farm. with pigs, can't escape it...may just be me. or the farm.

drowning...yes, I feel like I'm drowning most days...

When someone says "I don't know what I'm doing with painting, can you tell me"...I think that's a smart answer, but leaves the veiwer feeling a bit dumb. What will we do without programmatic text?

I am always late with my responses, painter keeps churning the jpgs out...

lesson to be learned: to get a gallery gig and overwhelming accolades...go to yale.

SurvivorNYC said...

Serena I think you are pretty. It is nice to put a name with a face. Someone else put a photo up and got railed too.

zipthwung said...

I think serena's picture is digitally altered. That or LOTS of vaseline on the lense. ANyhoo, yeah, If YOU ARE NOT IN SCHOOL GO BACK, there, (I would, if I could). God. What if I was 22 but knew as much as that little shit in Dune? GET OUT OF MY MIND.
And I used to think the WHitney program was good. Holy fuck.

zipthwung said...

I think the mythical beast in the painting is a ki-Rin, in case you're asking.

subscriber said...

It's funny how Sean Landers still incurs the purists wrath. How 2Oth Century!
His role is the lovable looser, a trap he sets for himself and the dogmatists who
would judge him. And yet, the Devil-Pig is somehow rescued by it's own sophisticated
rendering. Beautiful. It helps to have a sense of humor too. Good for Landers confounding
expectation for so many years, a much greater achievement than conventional wisdom would
ever grant. Like it or not, his status is well-earned.

no-where-man said...

i think it is hard to understand this, or any artist work with out putting it in context of there full body of work. this is quality and i am first to player hate a yaliey.

bada said...

I think that is what makes this blog so interesting...painter posts these singular works, which most times on their own looks a little, uh, apart from themselves...

...so when we see, let's say, a toe, and the comments seem to be on, perhaps, the left arm, or (impossibly) the head, I can't help but feel a bit discombobulated...

...capitalist ways at work, you can't just buy one, you have to buy the whole thing...

...if that's a KiRin, than I must be evil, it looks like a pig, I swear... the problems with symbols (animals)...

"What would we do without the programmatic text?"

ugh. the irony.

I may not like this painting, or his other paintings, but I think I like him. I wonder if he's a hot?...

prettylady said...

You little goofballs. Serena's picture is a persona, like all others. Very odd how all these creative people are so loathe to create viable personas for themselves.

fairy butler said...

Sean Landers is great. I've been a fan for years. He is a master of the ridiculous good.

ham paw said...

this reminds me of Goya's drowning dog painting. I have empathy for this devil dog. I can't understand the harsh criticism for this painting.

devinlevin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
subscriber said...

sour grapes

devinlevin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
primetime said...

Isn't this painting an allegory for it's own struggle? It presumes failure and isn't that the point? If there's an in-joke it is that this painting ultimately succeeds.

closeuup said...

I like that reading.

devinlevin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
primetime said...

Oh, I'm an idiot because I don't agree with you? Name calling, by the way, is the last resort of a failing argument. It appears from what you've written so far that you just have a bug up a** for this artist. What did he steal your girlfriend or something? You sound bitter my friend.

I did not write that he made a "failure painting" on purpose. I wrote that the image is an allegory for the struggle of it's own making. That's different, it's an idea and a big one. Maybe you should think more before you write.

devinlevin said...

bring it.

primetime said...

I just got home devinlevin, [2:25 AM] I checked this blog (I don't know why) and I see that you have deleted your comment above. Gee, why would you go and do that? You have invited me to "bring it" (gosh what an original phrase) so I will "bring it" tomorrow, once my hangover evaporates and my hope is that if I put in a thoughtful response that you would kindly engage me with at the very least some thoughtful response of your own instead of your name calling and 'creative' use of haggard terms like "bring it."

primetime said...

The picture suggests defeat or failure, this pig/devil thing is in an ‘un-winnable’ situation, like you perhaps DL, or anyone who paints. Take a walk through the Prado and see how you feel about your paintings and you’ll begin to get the idea. Even the highly touted “Neo-Con” painters, no matter how skilled, come up far short when compared to the old masters. In this way, painting could be viewed almost as a lost language of sorts or at best a language under considerable and constant transition. No one speaks the same dialect anymore and there is no hierarchy. Failure to stack up to the old and modern masters is the omnipresent and irritating background music for any living painter, ‘what to do to make it new?’ (Landers alluded to this in his Picasso show I believe) Every painter therefore, whether they acknowledge it or not, has to come up with a failure management strategy. That makes everyone painting today into something akin to this drowning pig/devil. Offense being the best defense, Landers chooses to not ignore this obvious reality nor beat his head against the wall by futilely attempting to compete against this ‘lost language(s),’ Instead, he makes this failure dilemma his subject. The pig/devil thing is going down, he’s trying to swim but not too hard because he knows that no matter what he does, he’s going down. By contrast other painters thrash about desperately and still go down. By portraying the ‘dilemma’ or ‘failure’ head-on he portrays not only himself but the artistic era in which he operates in. Perhaps it seems like a small step for man but he may well be making a giant leap for... Well, lets just say that he makes it interesting. In this day and age of product stamping in Chelsea, Landers keeps mixing it up, and if you follow what he does you’ll see that it’s anything but arbitrary. Ironic sure but what intelligent person faced with the prospect of being covered over by the sands of time isn’t?

Aside from all of that, if I didn’t understand anything about this artist I would still find this picture to be strange and nicely done. I do know about him however, as most people do who visit galleries regularly and having a well known history as an artist is a hell of an advantage to make art from, but he earned it did he not?

Bring it on back DevinLevin if you like, I have more, I assure you.