TateShots NYC: Jeff Koons

[MauroMoriconi]

youtube.com/watch?v=Gx1O9YNI24­E

[ritter89]

Ever seen this bozo's "drawings" for his pieces? They're all crude and dimensionless, like the stuff you see hanging in a kindergarten classroom. He should have become a critic or art historian and remained far away from the studio. His success is the result of hype, self promotion and clueless collectors who think Warhol was being serious. Take a look at the art collected and purchased by the artists themselves. Warhol's apt was filled with paintings and drawings by Renaissance artists.

[spd13062]

BULLSHIT ARTIST.

[baretul]

what a pretentious piece of shit this guy is!

[helloterrible]

Artists have had assistants complete their work for thousands of years. The main artist creates the concept and does the main/critical parts of the painting, then has assistants do the smaller sections. Having interesting ideas is the most admirable part.

[CatZula]

@helloterrible THOUSANDS of years? Really? And even for the brief period where you are correct, you're confusing the apprentice system for an assembly line. The latter is a twentieth century invention. Also, you seem to be under the delusion that Koons has ideas. He appropriates pool toy designs (wholesale) and images from advertisements. Or hey, topiary as sculpture (that's new and interesting...not). He's bankrupt on all counts. Vapid ideas...doesn't make his own work...

[helloterrible]

@CatZula Koons isn't my favorite artist, but I do like his ideas. He isn't just using pool toy designs, he's making giant metal sculptures of them that end up in art museums and the palace at Versailles (in one case). Just seeing the pieces in places like that makes them look hilarious, absurd, and ironic. And I just don't blame him for being unable to make those massive sculptures. We don't blame architects for not being able to lay every brick themselves.

[CatZula]

@helloterrible Two Responses. First, the museums (and Versailles) make the choice to show the work, not Koons. A clever curator (who actually thought outside the box) would have put the pool toys into a contemporary design show long ago. Otherwise, calling something art and putting in in a gallery is clever, but was first done by Duchamp back in 1917. And really, the pool toys seem like a step backward from the (as far as audacity). It's been done and done better.

[CatZula]

@helloterrible Second. Architects design the original models for their buildings. Yes, their associates/employees then assemble the actual building. But Koons isn't assembling the building...and he's not making the models either. He's more like some landowner who commissions an architect to build something and then claims the entire project is his...

[ritter89]

@helloterrible Agreed, but this guy has no actual art making skills. He simply has ideas (often derivative) that are realized by skilled laborers. The contemporary art world seems to be the only arena in which a person with absolutely no skill can be heralded as a genius. I don't know any professional musicians who can't recognize simple notes in a scale or chord progressions. However, I know dozens of professional artists who can't even execute their own ideas on paper in the form of a diagram

[MrNomorenames1000]

Steven Spielberg doesn't 'make' his movies.... he directs people. I've come to like Jeff Koons, makes you say "shit I can do whatever I want"

[CatZula]

@MrNomorenames1000 Spielberg didn't get rich directing. He produces movies. And yes, Koons is closer to a Hollywood producer. Also, just to be clear, Spielberg also writes and has edited. There's really zero comparison to be made. At the end of the day Schindler's List and a giant balloon dog are about as far removed as apples and whales.

[julespitt]

1:32 - 1:36

Jeff Coons: "I can't believe people buy this shit... I'm such an artist"

And he just stares at that abortion he calls art, hahahhahahahha...

Sweet.

[CatZula]

Lol, why all the hating? Talentless hack has others fabricate "his" artwork and climbs over the backs of other artists to emerge art the top of the art market, and this is supposed to be applauded? I don't think so. And I don't care what Jeff thinks--his motivations are obvious and he's a simpleton. As far as his bank account, plenty of jerks have become rich scamming others.

[arama0010]

lol why all the hating? Im sure he wouldnt give two shits what anyone thinks, i would definately like to see his bank account, and most of his work I think is really good.

[scottpalmer444]

Saw his show in Chicago a couple years back and really didn't know much about him before that and still don't after hearing him talk about himself and other people that actually produce his work. I get the whole studio thing in a way going back to old masters but not sure this is the same thing? I kind of like his stuff in a strange way but I would not consider myself the artist if someone else made it! I do my own art, hands on, no help, so I am just a schmuck :(

[CatZula]

@scottpalmer444 You're not a schmuck. Koons and Hirst have spread this myth to try to avert criticism. The truth is that the "factories" the Old Masters used were a completely different set up--they were based on apprenticeships. So, the people working in the studios were supposed to be learning techniques from their masters. Koons and Hirst clearly have no mastery of the techniques that their employees execute (look at Hirst's miserable paintings). One wonder if Koons can draw at all.

[scottpalmer444]

@CatZula He cannot and Hirst drawings are very similar. They have awesome promotion though, man!

[CatZula]

@scottpalmer444 They certainly know the "right" people and they promote like crazy. But Hirst has relied heavily on his business manager Frank Dunphy. Saatchi would be the other factor. And Koons has just been around long enough (and stolen from enough better artists) that he's older and successful. It's all just a matter of trying, trying, trying...and then getting lucky.  You can witness the results--two men with no recognizable talent at the top of the contemporary art market.

[DIONYSES000AD]

TOTAL HORSE SHIT

[CatZula]

I just watched this again. Two things. First...Popeye is very "Viral"?? I know what he means. He means Virile...umm, it's impossible for me to accept that the man who mispronounces such a ubiquitous word is capable of formulating a complicated artistic vision. That's the sort of mistake you make when you've been handed a script and you perform it without rehearsing. Second: this level of perfectionism provokes more anxiety, not less. Do these workers look relieved, happy and accepting?

[andrewweis]

@CatZula I think that by "viral" Koons was making reference to Popeye's promiscuity and the likelihood of his having contracted the HIV virus. Jeff Koons is too sophisticated an actor to not know what virile means. Right?

[CatZula]

Also, I will flag for you that none of the ideas that you are subscribing to Koons' work issue from the work itself. The string of associations and the explanation of the work reside primarily in the criticism and essays. I consider that modern lite more than art (which you may see as splitting hairs and coming down on the wrong side--just my opinion). It's a Danto perspective...the work is somewhat incomplete without the critical body that attaches.

[CatZula]

Well, I tend to think that all art (written, visual, etc...) tackles themes of human existence. Literature is more adaptive and more abstract because describing the hanging heart to somebody can provoke a whole range of different imaginative responses, while the hanging heart itself comes in a unique, experiential form...that's all I meant.

[CatZula]

As far as distinguishing between what an "artist" does versus a designer, I think you need to re-think this. You're placing a very specific limitation on art that I don't quite recognize and which goes against your general position. Artists are not the sole arbitrers of what can constitute art. Nor should they be. If art can be anything, it can also be objects defined as art by non-artists.

[CatZula]

Prince takes a photograph of a photograph. It's still a process of making a copy. That's the theft. Koons barely transforms things like the lobster of the hanging monkeys. I will grant that Koons is significantly more interesting than Prince, but I still think a lot of his work is theft. It's nice to see Hirst actually crediting the original photographers in his most recent butterfly series.

[thornbird7556]

... while art is so open-ended, interdisciplinary, and universal as to be almost indefinable as a term. I agree with you that Koons doesn't venture into as adventurous territory as other artists. In fact, I'd say he's one of the least adventurous major artists out there; it's one of his weaknesses. But this unselfconscious banality is clearly intended as a kind of "immortal" (for lack of a better word) snapshot of the aspects of modern life that interest him.

[thornbird7556]

I'm actually extremely enamored of contemporary literature and am an avid reader. I simply disagree with you when you say that "Literature is far more adaptive and abstract than contemporary art." Literature, even most post-modern literature, tackles themes of human existence. That which doesn't is still, more often than not (and I do realize that we're speaking in sweeping generalizations), limited to a specific alphabet and the properties of a language...

[thornbird7556]

When you say that you "don't see Jeff leading anybody anywhere" that is, of course, limited to your own experience. He's certainly led me places; back to Duchamp and Carl Andre and other great artists that I'd ignored until Jeff's art and words assisted in my understanding of them. It doesn't surprise me or irritate me at all that Koons refuses to publish his prices, because many do focus entirely too much on prices and that's never been what art is (or should be) about.

[thornbird7556]

I do believe that the original lobster pool toy is art (and that anything and everything can be art) but it wasn't made by an "artist" (someone whose profession is the creation of art). So Koons' theft really isn't any different than the theft of any painter whose subject is a chair that a craftsman designed, etc. Koons does not "take credit for the work" the original pool-toy designer did... he takes credit for his aluminum sculpture of it, which IS his own artwork.

[thornbird7556]

No, I still think that the painting of an apple is an adequate metaphor, as both the lobster inflatable and the apple are things in this world. The "theft" that Koons commits is far less a theft than the readymades of Duchamp or anything in the "found object" niche of art. A true "thief" in the contemporary art scene would be somebody like Richard Prince, in that his works are almost-exact copies of other artists' and advertizing artists' work, with very minimal transformation at all.

[thornbird7556]

I think Carl Andre's a better artist than Koons. Andre's work is austere... less emotionally manipulative. It's entirely about acceptance (i.e. "accept this installment of floor tiles as a work of art"). Andre's work isn't stunted by pop-culture referents or mass media discussion; it's pure acceptance. But it's less accessible to those only periferally interested in art. Koons' message of acceptance (while hidden in "pop" imagery) is more accessible and more "fun" than Andre's, if less profound.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 BTW, as of late Koons has started to refuse to publicly publish his prices...the explanation for which being that he thinks the price overshadow his "populist" vision...so I'm not really going out on a limb here.

[thornbird7556]

... but then, if a viewer gets deeper into his work, he or she will see connections to Warhol or Andre or Duchamp, and learn the values and meanings that are at the heart of the at-first-seemingly-impenetrabl­e "art speak." Koons' work seems quite like a translation book, where he gives you a trite hanging heart and then defines it as acceptance, so one sees things in new ways, in "art" ways that get at themes beyond war and politics and love... really to the heart of how we think about the world

[thornbird7556]

So because the public is so used to those same topics being done to death in books and film and radio and television, many of them come to art with a mixture of intrigue and confusion. The art world offers a wider range of experience and a more open-ended conversation. I think Koons' value, specifically, is that his work is the perfect "gateway drug" leading into other artists' work. Because it's banal, it's easy to connect to, and pieces like Hanging Heart do seem, at first, to be about love...

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 So although the public may think and ask, "Is that art?" What they really mean is, "Why is this in a gallery (or museum)?" Again, I don't see Jeff leading anybody anywhere, not so much because they are incapable of embracing a larger view of art, but because his work simply isn't very interesting or good. And then when people learn about the prices they're completely befuddled.

[thornbird7556]

My primary point was that I don't think the public is as condemning of the high prices of art as you seem to think. I think they're problem with art (if they give art any consideration whatsoever) is what passes for art. I think that many artists do (as you say) tackle the topics of love, war, and politics (including Koons) but that art as a whole is more open-ended and inclusive than, say, the literary world or film. The themes of Carl Andre, for instance, simply wouldn't translate into a book.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Also, making a painting of an apple is an inadequate metaphor...apples are natural products. My issue with Koons has to do with stealing the work of others...not the almighty (or mother nature, etc...).

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Literature is far more adaptive and abstract than contemporary art...you need to read more contemporary literature... I agree that the public tends to focus on what art is and what it is not. That's just silly. Koons easily fits within the broadly accepted definitions of visual arts (paintings, photographs) and sculpture. He never really ventures into more adventurous territory.

[thornbird7556]

... the immortal versions. Does a still-life of an apple devalue the apple because it costs more than the apple did or lasts longer than the apple? No, it celebrates the apple by uplifting it into the realm of art. And a perceptive viewer will (hopefully) see the next real apple they come into contact with in a new way. So of course Jeff's work will cost more than the actual lobster inflatable, but I doubt that causes most viewers to assume the inflatable is worthless.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Next, I don't buy the immortalization argument. First, Koons never tracks down the original artist and promotes them. He takes credit for the work, himself. Second, the aluminum lobsters, although perhaps more sturdy than the originals, are far from being immortal. All artwork eventually requires conservation--Koons' work is slightly more sturdy, but so what.

[thornbird7556]

... and it seems odd to me that the high price of a Koons' piece would lead any viewer to see the original lobster pool toy or dog balloon as less than worthy of artistic merit. Most viewers would realize that stainless steel, aluminum and a team of assistants is more costly than a latex balloon, and the prices would consequently reflect that. Koons is trying to immortalize these bits and pieces of our cultural environment. He celebrates them, but of course his will cost more because they're...

[thornbird7556]

I see a division, for instance, between Koons' view and that of an artist like Mike Kelley. Kelley's work does devalue mass culture. That's what it sets out to do. He's stated, "Popular culture is really invisible... but that's the culture I live in and that's the culture people speak. My interest in popular forms wasn't to glorify them, because I really dislike popular culture." Koons' work, on the other hand, really doesn't criticize or devalue the original source material...

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 And with respect to Koons, when I look at his hanging heart I see a hanging heart. Everything else that you've attached to the heart is peripheral, and frankly, I think a bit of a stretch. The type of connections you're talking about are available in a lot of contemporary art. I don't see Koons as actually promoting them, in the work itself, any more or less than those other artists.

[thornbird7556]

It simply makes more sense to do a photoshoot when one's topic is porn than a series of oil paintings. It makes more sense to used hired professionals and a team of assistants in most of Koons art... it all serves as a metaphor for our culture and the means of production by which the originals were made. This is why I disagree with you when you say his art devalues the originals and makes them seem worthless in comparison. His assistants and hired hands reinforce the worth of what he copies.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Next, the process that Koons employs is not connected to the viewer's perception of the work. If you want to argue that it should be, and that critical input external to the pieces is an important part of the pieces, so be it...I don't subscribe to that. I think those things go into evaluating an artist and their body of work, but when presented with a piece, in a gallery, that information is secondary to the immediate experience of the piece.

[thornbird7556]

Warhol, for example, started out painting in a traditional way and then embraced the silkscreening process. Silkscreening is easier, it is less work, and it does (perhaps)take less talent, but it's also a much better media to work in when the theme of one's art is (as Warhol's is) mass production, consumerism, etc. Any critique of his shift into silkscreening should bear that in mind. Koons, too, tackles topics like consumer culture, porn, etc.

[thornbird7556]

To the contrary, I do think that the average viewer understands Koons art. That's one of his primary strengths in my opinion. I do realize I said "People don't 'get' Jackson Pollock, Carl Andre, or Jeff Koons." What I should've said was that people often have outdated assumptions about art. Koons is related to Pollock and Andre in that even those who understand his art criticize his process.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Wow, that's a mouthful. Let me try to be succinct. Warhol's art was about mass production because he was trying to make as much money as possible with as little effort as possible. After speaking with Bob Colacello and others close to him I'm more convinced of that. Second, the Koons porn pieces were specifically translated into oil paintings (photo-realistic ones).

[CatZula]

Yeah, you haven't really dispelled my basic argument. In fact, you've reinforced it. If Koons is supposed to be changing the average viewer's mind about what art is, but nobody "gets" it, his artistic vision has failed.  And if the work is only being generated for a small segment of the population that can afford his insane prices, but "understand" his art, it's exactly as elitist as I think it is.

[thornbird7556]

But since much twentieth and twenty-first century art isn't about politics or love or war or things that the general population are interested in, it's extremely devalued by that general population.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Just as an aside, an incredible amount of contemporary art touches on themes of politics, love, or war, so I can't get behind that assertion. Doesn't Koons himself try to pass off "Made in Heaven" as being about love? And that stupid hanging heart is ever the epitome of cliche symbols of Valentine's day romantic love...

[thornbird7556]

I think art is expected to be something it isn't, and when it doesn't meet that expectation, the prices add to the viewer's befuddlement, but aren't the primary cause. People "get" Steven Spielberg, so you don't hear many complaining about his wealth. People don't "get" Jackson Pollock, Carl Andre, or Jeff Koons. And the prices are a non-issue for many of them because they have no interest in understanding the art. For those who appreciate the art, the prices don't seem so ridiculous.

[thornbird7556]

I agree with you that most people probably do judge art based on prices, but I don't think it's "a reasonable response." The disconnect happens before the prices are a factor. The "public" (if such a sweeping term is ever legitimate) just doesn't seem to "get" art the way they get music or writing or film. Art deals (as a general rule) with more complex themes than other media. So people look for narrative in abstract expressionism or signs of the artist's hand in readymades and are disappointed

[thornbird7556]

Lastly, I agree with you and others that Koons work costs too much. Most art costs too much, in my opinion. That’s just the nature of the beast (the Art Market) and can’t be blamed on Koons or any other artist. I’d respect his work as much if me made next to nothing. Just as I abhor other artists, like Damien Hirst (the murderous whore of costly animal cruelty) who make millions.

[thornbird7556]

I don’t think Koons’ lobster is any better than the actual pool toy. I don’t think Duchamp’s urinal is any better than a urinal at Applebee’s and I don’t think Carl Andre’s bricks are any better than those in my yard. But I would never have seen the art potential in pool toys, urinals, or bricks, if these artists had not exhibited them in galleries. Galleries can’t decide what is or isn’t art, but they can effect private and public opinions on what can be art.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 In fact, I consider Koons to be of a class of artists who are basically elitsts. they steal ideas, sculptures, images, etc... from popular culture, slap a huge price tag on them, and call the final product art. Meanwhile, if the original artists come knocking, looking for a piece of the money earned, they dismiss the originals as not being art. Look at the feet Koons stole for Niagara...he didn't the original artist a dime because he took them from an advertisement.

[thornbird7556]

The designer of the lobster pool toy didn’t intend it as an art statement. So Koons may rob the visual aspect, but his intention is different. His is not meant to be played with in a pool; his is meant to be looked at and thought about. His is intended as a starting-point for thought, not play. So it’s different than the work of the pool-toy designer, even if it looks exactly the same. Secondly, I myself make no distinctions between in-gallery and out-of-gallery.

[thornbird7556]

Koons goes further than Duchamp or the Minimalists, though, in that he includes the viewer in his definition of art. He’s even said, “The viewer is the art.” I think the issue you and others have with Koons is the high prices of his art, the “robbery” from industrial designers (such as the person who designed the original lobster) and the supposed power of galleries and museums to define something as “art.” I think that the “robbery” is necessary.

[thornbird7556]

Of course, there were many who could not accept them, but the loss is theirs. When one accepts a block of wood as art, it becomes possible for them to accept all blocks of wood as art, whether they’re in a gallery, a firewood bin, or a lumber yard. This is the kind of “acceptance” that Koons is talking about… accepting the ENTIRE WORLD as a Duchampian ready-made. Accepting life itself as art.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Second, Duchamp also, more or less, opened the door to anything being art. Dust, shaving one's head, playing chess...again, I don't think Koons has really added anything. And, in fact, I think Koons has hampered this Acceptance process.  Specifically, because his work is valued at prices so much higher than the originals, I think most people assume that the originals can't be art or they would enjoy equal prices.

[thornbird7556]

Koons art is about acceptance in the same way that Duchamp’s art or Carl Andre’s is. Duchamp’s ready-mades challenged a narrow-minded view of art in the early 20th century, and were often intended as ironic or risqué… full of innuendo and the existentialism of the WWI era. Carl Andre and the Minimal artists of the 60s took the ideas of Duchamp even further. They asked the Art World and the public to accept stacks of bricks and blocks of wood as sculpture.

[CatZula]

Also, let me point out...how in the world is the negative message "look at how materialistic we all are" a message of acceptance. Koons, up until fairly recently always stated that there was no critique being offered in his work...that is the truth. The Lobster sculptures are Koons' simplistic attempts to imitate Dali...that's all Koons does...hire other artists to imitate work produced by others and slap a huge price tag on the result.

[telecake]

He's no artist. Any person who has self-respect shouldn't work for him.

[CatZula]

Nope, nope, nope. Weak reasoning all the way around. First, Jeff Koons' art is a vehicle of acceptance? What does that mean? Is blather at best. Second, the Dutch Masters may have painted what they saw...intellectual property rights were simply different back then. And they tended to paint fruits and other natural objects. They didn't turn another person's inflatable lobster sculpture into their own work of art, barely transforming it, but boosting the price to insane levels.

[thornbird7556]

@CatZula I'm glad that you wrote "another person's inflatable lobster sculpture." If you accept the original pool toy as a "sculpture" in and of itself, irrespective of Koons' transformation of it, I certainly can't argue with you. It shows a deep understanding of what art can be on your part. I too think that it, and all other pool toys, are sculpture. I think Koons' goal is to show (by immortalizing them in steel or aluminum) that the originals were sculpture even before he discovered them.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Let me first say I like a lot of the ideas you've expressed. I believe whole-heartedly that anything can be art. And yes, I see the original inflatable lobster as a sculpture. As far as I'm concerned, the original sculpture may not have specifically intended the piece as art only because they didn't think it would be received as art...which is a pity. Meanwhile, children may delight in the piece in a way that transcends any gallery experience...

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Now, with that all said, I have to differ on a few points. First, Duchamp was one of the first artists to make the viewer part of the work...specifically with Etant donnes...so I don't think Koons has really added anything there. And if you really want to get technical, religious iconography brought the viewer in far earlier (specifically to reflect and contemplate).  There have been a few other artists who have done it as well who pre-date Koons significantly.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Third, Koons is a very active player in driving up art prices. He pals around with Peter Brant in America and billionaire art collectors worldwide. He has always pushed his prices, and most recently, he's purchased a huge mansion in New York City. And he's made this money not by teaching people to value the originals, but by selling fetishized versions of those works that happen to bear his name and are distinguished by little more from the originals.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Finally, I will agree that the museums and galleries hold a lot of power to define art, but I just don't think Jeff is trying to tear that down. I think he's very much a part of the machine and is effectively doing the opposite. He tends to blather on about whatever seems fashionable to sell his wares..but I think his actions speak louder than his words. As for the galleries and museums, my hope is that the museums won't be collateral victims of this market...

[thornbird7556]

@CatZula You may be entirely right about his character. His elitism (if it exists) is regrettable. All forms of segregation are problematic. I defend his art (rather than his person) because I still disagree with you about its potential. You wrote that you think most people assume that the originals can’t be art or they’d enjoy equal prices.

[thornbird7556]

@CatZula I just don’t think this is so. When I first discovered Koons, I felt exactly the opposite. I began to see art in almost everything, everywhere, and felt differently about life as a result. It really was, for me, a change in consciousness. Later, when I read about Duchamp and Minimal art, Koons importance diminished. But since I discovered his work first, it was his work that really opened me up to these feelings and ideas.

[thornbird7556]

@CatZula Had I discovered Duchamp or Carl Andre first, I may have felt, as you do, that Koons hasn’t added much to the readymade tradition. But I think his work is more accessible to those viewers not schooled in art history/theory. Had I not discovered Koons, I mightn’t have been as open to the readymade or to Minimalism.

[thornbird7556]

@CatZula I think the high prices are unfortunate, but more unfortunate is the focus on these prices. Really great things can happen when one distances themself from the politics of the art world, the biography of the artist, and the insanity of the prices, and sees art for its intellectual and (for lack of a better term) “spiritual” value.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 And I think that a reasonable response of an average person at this point (I'm not saying any individual will react one way or another), but I think many do react by dismissing art and feeling excluded from the "art community" because they can't wrap their minds around the prices associated with what is seemingly...an aluminum version of an inflatable toy. I don't think they then perceive the value of the original toy. I think they see the original toy as valueless.

[thornbird7556]

@CatZula There will always be people who look at abstract expressionism, for instance, and puff, “such and such amount for THAT?” or “My KID could’ve done that!”… but the experience of those who enjoy the play between shape and color on the canvas is more fulfilling. Irrespective of price-tags, I think Koons’ work has merit as an invitation to see life as art; my personal experience is an example of that.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 I'm glad that you've gotten something out of the experience. But I think the price tags on art have become so outrageous they've begun to nullify the value of the art (in a spiritual or intellectual sense). Your average person encountering any work for the first time, at this point, is going to judge the work based on the price, not the merit. And frankly, Koons is over-valued for what he produces. Especially since he gives zero value to the originals that he utilizes.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 You're right that there will always be people who are similarly confounded by abstract expressionism. And I blame the artistic community that inflated the price on Pollocks work for the general state of the art market. It was almost as if the less an average person might identify that a piece was a work of art the more they drove the price up. But I think this has bread a culture of fetishists, not an open-minded community.

[CatZula]

@thornbird7556 Let me also add and make clear that I don't believe in separating the art from the artist. For my own notions of acceptance, as it were, I think you need to evaluate and judge work, in part, informed by information concerning who made the art. It's not always an overriding consideration, but I think it's important (so we're not likely to find common ground on that issue).

[thornbird7556]

Koons is an absolute genius. That he can transform something like Sunco Item #461053 into a vehicle of acceptance by immortalizing it in aluminum and displaying it in a museum setting is awe-inspiring. Just as the Dutch masters made paintings of the items that brought color to their era and culture, so does Jeff Koons for ours. Whether the massage is positive (accept onesself) or negative (look at how mindlessly materialistic we are) the art is valid and powerful either way. He's a strong artist

[madbrain94]

He had people painting halftone, that's borderline slavery lol

[jackquio]

There we have it people, mr Koons has found the meaning of art! "A vehicle of acceptance." Why on earth have people been debating this topic for so long when they could have simply asked Jeff Koons? Jeez...

[CatZula]

Want a lobster of your own for under $10? Google: Sunco Item #461053.

[CatZula]

It does seem like Jeff Koons is the AppleJacks of the art world (I just like him!)...I wonder how many people would pay a million bucks for a bowl...

[ramirezjohnp]

I will always like Jeff Koons.

[JohnWhitesideParsons]

He is God.

[thecrazythingsido]

@JohnWhitesideParsons MAKE ME COOL I AM A SHITTING GOD 

[vtoutzia]

Other people do his job. He is definitely NOT an artist.

[spd13062]

Indyrichboy has Mr. Koons down pat.....he is the hack of all time in the art world. Whenever I want to get really pissed off, I just turn on a video of Koons discussing art, and very soon I'm filled with disgust and peeved with the notion that this prick has made millions on trash.

[rvggarcon]

What a horrid celebration of kitsch, that should be the title of his exhibition.

[actuallyadam]

It's a factory, not an art studio.

Koons operates at an irrelevant conceptual level.

[spiralisedcat]

wish i had some studio space,i have a 8ftx6ft room but its enough for now,personal

[CatZula]

Who wouldn't be content?...Let a bunch of trained artists make giant childrens toys and make ugly paintings, and collect all the money and credit...of course he's content. I'd say sign me up except I find the proposition soul-destroying....much like his work.

[teamcrumb]

he speaks well. he seems content.

[DunneArtmateur]

Hes a warhol dream

[CatZula]

@DunneArtmateur more like a Warholian nightmare...

[lltrf]

Dumb.. Fake artist..

[MsJony1234]

what the hell is this, this is a production factory -

[wilishire1200]

I don't know... I think he speaks honestly, and definitely has a connection to what he does. The extent to which he uses assistants is nuts, I admit, but it is what it is. It's interesting how that fact really challenges people's idea of object ownership. It's not Lucian Freud because he's not Lucian Freud. Would all those people be making that work without Koons? Whatever, the debate will go on.

[Naiveartgirl]

jeah, celebration ;-)

[Estragon17]

I never noticed this before.... he talks and acts just like a fundamentalist televangelist or cult leader.

[teamcrumb]

@Estragon17 idiot

[gushplop]

@Estragon17 he does!

[andrewweis]

@Estragon17 Yes! I was just thinking that! He talks exactly like Larry Rice televangelist from St. Louis!

[codeninja100]

@Estragon17 just because he talks slow and gentle? get real.

[Kozica2]

Ten człowiek nie ma prawa nazywać się artystą. Nic sam nie tworzy ani nie reprezentuje swoja osoba. Jest najleprzem ucielesnieniem postmodernizmu i postartyzmu swojej epoki. Sam nie jest w stanie narysowac prostej kreki, cała pace za niego wykonuja "robotnicy" ktorych zatrudnia. Sprzedaje siebie jak dobry towar i na tym polega cały jego artyzm. Ale najgorsze jest to ze on sam swiecie wierzy ze jego gowno jest dziełem sztuki. Proponuje pakowac w puszki i sprzedawac masowo..

[indyrichboy]

The emperor has no clothes, people. This hack has his own little sweat shop going and no matter how well he can sign his signature, it is NOT his work. It is just sick and sad that imagination with no technique seems to be the pinnacle in the art world. He is is just smoke and mirrors and the suckers who bought into his junk don't want to see their 'investments' plummet. You want someone with cred, remember; Nobody touch's Lucien Freuds brushes but Lucien Freud.

[solostrategies]

It IS his work. He concieved it. He directs the color and the composition. He may be more of an Art Director (which is what I think he is) but it is HIS creations/art. I do agree howver that I have a lot more respect for those who put there hands on every piece that they do. But like Hirst says "Id never be able to keep up with the sheer amount of ideas that come into my head if I didnt have assistants to move this or sand that or apply another shade of color I wanted." Good point about Freud.

[CatZula]

It's not his work...he appropriates like crazy...he supplies neither the ideas nor the talent...he's more of a salesman than anything...I won't debate his merits on that but I do wonder if we really want to equate artist=salesman (with nothing else going for the dude). Picasso was a first-class salesman but also one of the best drafters who's ever lived.

[oneu778]

how many more years till his train is up and running?

[lacricriva]

This guy is megalomaniac. In fact, all contemporary art superstars are megalomaniac.

[Tobias1969]

He's great...more power too him!

[acstratton]

Koons is going down in history as one of the greatest artists period.like it or not. he sells at the highest prices, and gets his name and mug in the books. whoever can do that for the longest amount of time wins. picasso is the most referenced artist in books...and therefore is the most recognized, known, and important. more than art, this guy has mastered marketing and image.

[bscottb8]

All the marketing in the world won't change lead into gold, or a hustler into a genius.

[aramun02]

"we"

lol

[toddolavi]

architects design buildings and do not physically build them....the have assistants...ie contractors, workers who do the building for them.....just like Jeff Koons does with his art.

[stinkriverstudios]

Thank you. Much like Warhol, Jeff is an orchestrator of huge ideas about space, color, kinetics, time, composition etc..

You cant do grand things (scale and concept wise) by yourself. Thanks for being sharp enough to notice that.

[listerineisgreen1]

hes got some great ideas..but i would prefer if he made his own art.

[asderso]

He banged CICCIOLINA and that is what matters. Hahahahhaaa...

[stinkriverstudios]

And then the cunt took off to Europe with his child. Typical whore. Jeff loved her and she shat all over his heart (and then of course, took every penny she could. She wants more now and is "claiming" he owes her a few million in child support. This is based on Italian courts/law. How fucked up do you have to be to split to Italy and try to crucify (who is well known around the world to be) an absolute gentleman. Great shot though, I cracked up !!!

[asderso]

stinkriverstudios, I fully understand your point, never expect from an xxx star(Cicciolina) to have a fair character !!!

[stinkriverstudios]

yes. point well made my friend.

[asderso]

Thank you for understanding, I begin to feel it's not that much FUN being an xxx actor, it's like calling an escort home and worse - with no privacy !!! kind of mechanic, don't you think ?stinkriverstudios ?

[stinkriverstudios]

Yes. I see exactly and your right. I think the novelty and glamour wears off quickly. Actually a nightmare to live that type of existance. Thanks for your intelligence.

[asderso]

Yeah, it looks excellent from the outside... hot girls, travelling all over, money and comfy life but I think John Dough, the xxx star said it clear after years of performing: "I started getting more satisfaction masturbating then banging all of those hot girls from VIVID..." Hmmm??!!!

[artrca1000]

Let's take the art out of art.

[chandru1103]

impossible.

[soniccage]

Or just focus on Janet and Tyra... lol

[wingkon]

I know he's prolific and all, but does he actually have any physical input into his art? Seems like he just has some chinese workers doing all the work.

[doonarxxx]

you so right, its all gone too far

[jimmiegun]

an architect doesnt construct the building does he! :)

[xSiouXBoix]

Not only in his artwork really cool (especially Made In Heaven), but he's HOT! Seriously.

[welldoneslick]

the train was kinda cool but it sucks those people have to be in that building. Going to get the colorful lung from all that paint.

[chamallowbleu]

what a fucking douche

[Mcrankfan]

agreed, koons is nothing but a scummy businessman hiding under the title "Artist".

[stinkriverstudios]

Envious are we? Dont rip a guy for loving what he does and getting paid millions of dollars to do it. Marcel Duchamp once said "The artist of the future will merely point at what he has done and say its art, and it will be art. He will no longer have to wait on the judgement of others to confirm his life's work and passion."

Think about that.

[TheHonourableJLD]

True, but this isn't a new idea: Rembrandt was famous for having a studio full of assistants -- his shop was dedicated to business, the very lucrative business of art.

[stinkriverstudios]

Well said my friend. MY jury is out on Koons as a true artist. I guess he is by definition but he frustrates me. Overall, I love what he does I guess because it is conceived, composited, and ultimately cretated from his mind if not his direct hand. I prefer that someone's hands touch something they call artWORK. The definition of art has been defined by the individual, whether we agree with it or not.

[kittyfly]

I concur!

[chandru1103]

along with warhol, hirst, michelangelo, da vinci, carravaggio...anyone that matters has used studio assistants.

[stinkriverstudios]

Thank you.

[solostrategies]

Excellent point. People forget that all the masters you mentioned did the same damned thing. Becasue they werent in magazines or on You Tube they seem to us to be more regal or "honorable." They all did it.

[CatZula]

@solostrategies No...they didn't.

[stinkriverstudios]

@CatZula Yes, they did. Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Carravaggio, Rodin,... Yes, they did. There were a few, and I mean a few, that did not but you could count them on one or two hands. It is more than safe to say that "the masters" used, exclusively, assistants and apprentices. Look them up and stop embarrassing yourself on here.

[CatZula]

Lol, I'm not embarrassing anybody...Monet, Turner, Corot, Pollock, Van Gogh, Duchamp, Bacon, Matisse...lots of people who are ten time the artist Koons is actually put brush to canvas themselves...and Da Vinci and Michelangelo are both notorious for actually being skilled artists. To say that "the masters" EXCLUSIVELY used assistants the way Koons relies on others is a truly bizarre and unworkable assertion. Is Koons paying your bills?

[BTC141]

It's called Conceptualism, that means that everything is fair game and can be interpretated as art. You obviously don't understand art or the history of art...do you.

[soniccage]

Not in the slightest, his work is lovely ...

[hoodmrmirror]

@Mcrankfan

"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art"

Warhol.

[CatZula]

@hoodmrmirror Sooo...Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the greatest artists of our time? If that's your argument, their billions versus Koons millions means Koons is a pretty meaningless artist. Warhol too (and he was far from being much of a millionaire). I think you might want to avoid quoting Warhol...