The worst. Crap.

Sorry, in my apoplexy I've posted this on the discussion board. If someone could please fix this for me.

You are talking about him - he wins!

Koons isn't an artist, he's a self publicist. What he does is the worst form of money making conceptual nonsense.

NC. well, actually it's crap [his self portraits showing off him fucking his italian porno star wife], but becuase he pulled it off, i give him the not crap. he was like paris hilton before paris hilton. who is also not crap, by virtue of being crap.

but i seriously do like his sculptures though - esp the cast walgreens bunny.

http://www.cvm.qc.ca/mboudreault/Images ... Rabbit.jpg

and the basketballs

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork ... view=image

and the pink panther molested by the lady on the front of the boat

http://www.artplus.it/village/db/b/imag ... _koons.jpg

but yes - images like this deserve a cock punching, but i think that's what he's going for. he's sorta like michael douglas showing off catherine zeta-jones - and god do i hate that smug prick.

http://www.artnet.de/magazine/reviews/e ... p?picnum=7


still - NC with some waffles.

Waffle for Puppy.

A lot of his work is aesthetically pleasing to me, and I think its funny too. Easy peasy NC.

solum wrote:A lot of his work is aesthetically pleasing to me, and I think its funny too. Easy peasy NC.

Then, applaud you as I might for getting what you can from the lameness of Koon's work, you are misreading it. The point, apparently, is not to examine the stylistic merits of the work but rather the cultural logic that has led to the thing being in the gallery in the first place; the piece is conducting a SCANDALOUS investigation into its own formal capacities as an object that has no aesthetic value (e.g. a kids toy) placed in a context that supposedly demands such value.

When Duchamp did it, it was cool. Almost a century later it represents one of the stickiest culs-de-sac in cultural history.

Quatermain wrote:

solum wrote:A lot of his work is aesthetically pleasing to me, and I think its funny too. Easy peasy NC.

Then, applaud you as I might for getting what you can from the lameness of Koon's work, you are misreading it. The point, apparently, is not to examine the stylistic merits of the work but rather the cultural logic that has led to the thing being in the gallery in the first place; the piece is conducting a SCANDALOUS investigation into its own formal capacities as an object that has no aesthetic value (e.g. a kids toy) placed in a context that supposedly demands such value.

When Duchamp did it, it was cool. Almost a century later it represents one of the stickiest culs-de-sac in cultural history.

I disagree. To me, the point is, well, what I said already. I'm not "misreading" anything. The author is dead, remember? This means I get to decide if/why I like things w/o being accused of missing the point.

Quatermain wrote:

solum wrote:A lot of his work is aesthetically pleasing to me, and I think its funny too. Easy peasy NC.

Then, applaud you as I might for getting what you can from the lameness of Koon's work, you are misreading it. The point, apparently, is not to examine the stylistic merits of the work but rather the cultural logic that has led to the thing being in the gallery in the first place; the piece is conducting a SCANDALOUS investigation into its own formal capacities as an object that has no aesthetic value (e.g. a kids toy) placed in a context that supposedly demands such value.

When Duchamp did it, it was cool. Almost a century later it represents one of the stickiest culs-de-sac in cultural history.

Maybe Duchamp's doing it was cooler to you because: A) You're removed from that period of time so the immediate cultural context is lost, and B) You feel less taken advantage of because Duchamp did not use images/items that were SUPPOSED to have aesthetic appeal.

For me, the change that occurrs between Duchamp and Koons is that Duchamp was only recognizing the mass-produced object of UTILITY (snow-shovel, bottle rack, urinal, etc...). At that time the concept of mass-produced items was confined to mainly objects of utility. At that time concepts such as branding, mass-marketing, and trademarking of images and sounds were new and largely unrecognized. Koons was recognizing a new generation of "readymades", that were based not on items of mass-produced utility, but of mass-produced useless objects whose only purpose was aesthetic, but intrinsicly lacks value (or does it?).

Plus it offends people, which is fun - and what could be more offensive than a 4'x8' chromogenic print of him fucking his Italian porno-star wife up her closely shaved ass?

I'm with Solum on this one....It's CRAP, but funny enjoyable CRAP, that only tips it's hat to how CRAP most things that most folks like are CRAP anyhow.