Jeff Koons' $91M Rabbit
- Thread starter vuk
- Start date
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
Jonathan
pfm Member
i would place emin in the 'conceptual' camp far more readily than i might koons or hirst ... maybe you ARE a fan after all Tony
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
depends on which Emin works you referring to, some are deeply conceptual others are much more traditional and inwardly reflective. We own 3 Emin original sketches and 2 limited edition prints and love her work
blossomchris
I feel better than James Brown
Do you point these out to guests/visitors to your home?
Alternatively, you can purchase paintings from other artists who are not in the loop, or keep it real dosh wise
Bloss
Tony L
Administrator
I was just pointing out conceptual art wasn’t my favourite period, I’d far, far prefer to own a Rothko, Pollock or whatever to anything of the UK Satchi generation. By saying that I can still see much to like in that period, but I tend to prefer the genuinely conceptual stuff to the stuff (e.g. much of Koons, Hirst etc) that appears to be a rather cynical money making project targeting the hyper-rich. There is a huge difference between say Camilla Parker’s Cold Dark Matter, Tracey Emin’s My Bed or Anthony Gormley’s Field and say Koons’ Rabbit. All the former being wonderful installations that really challenge their audience, the latter being an ideal ornament/wealth token for a corporate head office or whatever. I still quite like it, but I don’t see much depth or any conviction to it. It is Andrew Lloyd Webber compared to Stockhausen, very successful commercially, but ultimately just surface gloss.
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
no they are in a private space, and they were given to us.
blossomchris
I feel better than James Brown
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
we have as well. But it is quite hard to return them to a dead person........they were a bequest
martin clark
pinko bodger
You are very fortunate.*
I'm with Tony ; against my early expectation I find something very moving in Emin's contemplative/process output: and if it moves you - it is Art.
ETA * Gintonic, my apologies now seeing it was a bequest: when such things happen, we'd all much rather have the person behind it in our lives yet ...
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
you have a point. the work relies way too much on scale and material. ignoring those relatively crude, secondary features, it's what my 1sy serious art teacher would have called christmas ornament kitsch. yeah, there's the pop-art irony, but this is a 1986 work.
venton
pfm Member
My take on any art is not to analyse, but just to go with the feeling it evokes in me. If I get a stirring, then it's done its job and I like it. When looking at other pictures of the rabbit on google, Monet's haystack picture appeared. It also stirred something in me, I really liked it.
As to the rabbit.. I recently rewatched Space Oddity for the first time in decades. It blew me away, it is just timeless. It may sound odd, but that rabbit evoked similar feelings to the film. It's generally photographed in stark white rooms, standing alone. It makes me think of that obelisk in 2001, with its lack of features. It makes me think of HAL and the surface gloss of friendliness. Being stainless steel, it makes me think of it in the year 3000, just sitting there timelessly in the same white room. It could be in the final scenes of 2001 where the guy gets older and older. It is an ominous feeling, a timeless feeling (it was made in 1986), against an instinctive 'ooh its a fun balloon'. I've also got a weird love of stainless steel.
Anyway, that's my personal experience. If you look at it and just think 'it's shit' then that's perfectly fine.
Arguing over subjective experience is clearly absurd.
When many people experience similar subjective experiences, the artwork becomes famous. But I don't beat myself up if I see a piece of famous art and it does nothing for me, that's just the reality, maybe in a decade I'll like it, maybe not.
I have to say, a decade ago I used to be in the 'that's not art' brigade. Maybe getting older I'm more aware of going with heart over mind with art, music etc. In this modern world of consumerism, eyes down on phones/ zero attention span, I'm impresed at anything which evokes a reaction.
As to the rabbit.. I recently rewatched Space Oddity for the first time in decades. It blew me away, it is just timeless. It may sound odd, but that rabbit evoked similar feelings to the film. It's generally photographed in stark white rooms, standing alone. It makes me think of that obelisk in 2001, with its lack of features. It makes me think of HAL and the surface gloss of friendliness. Being stainless steel, it makes me think of it in the year 3000, just sitting there timelessly in the same white room. It could be in the final scenes of 2001 where the guy gets older and older. It is an ominous feeling, a timeless feeling (it was made in 1986), against an instinctive 'ooh its a fun balloon'. I've also got a weird love of stainless steel.
Anyway, that's my personal experience. If you look at it and just think 'it's shit' then that's perfectly fine.
Arguing over subjective experience is clearly absurd.
When many people experience similar subjective experiences, the artwork becomes famous. But I don't beat myself up if I see a piece of famous art and it does nothing for me, that's just the reality, maybe in a decade I'll like it, maybe not.
I have to say, a decade ago I used to be in the 'that's not art' brigade. Maybe getting older I'm more aware of going with heart over mind with art, music etc. In this modern world of consumerism, eyes down on phones/ zero attention span, I'm impresed at anything which evokes a reaction.
Colin L
High-tech low-life
Remember people, they have so much money because the rest of the world have so little.
Tony L
Administrator
It always disappoints me when major art pieces vanish into private hands never to be seen again. Fine if they go to philanthropists who then allow major galleries to show the work, but stuff ending up as a trinket in a corporate head-office or oligarch’s bling-palace effectively removes the work from the art world. As stated I’m not Koons greatest fan, but that is irrelevant. This is no different to a Turner, Picasso or Rothko potentially vanishing, it is a major work. By saying that I’d love a Rothko on my wall!
venton
pfm Member
Rothko is another one who get's some people's backs up. I didn't know who he was, but was at the Guggenheim where there was an exhibition of his works. I was blown away by his pictures, being in the room with them made it make sense. I almost had an argument with myself how I could like them, because they are just blocks on colour. I had to back down and accept I simply liked them.
Tony L
Administrator
Similarly I can’t quite explain why, but I think Rothko may be my favourite artist. I can happily sit in the Tate with the Segram murals for hours, they just ‘do something’ somehow. They have a remarkably powerful presence. I really want to visit the Rothko Chapel at some point.