advertisement


Jeff Koons' $91M Rabbit

I know that all art is a personal thing we all like different things, which is a good thing. But there are several things that frustrate me about this kind of work. I guess a lot of it leaves me a bit empty emotionally. Things can look impressive in the right setting, because they're huge or because they place contrasting colours or textures against each other in a way that has some impact. But put them in a different room or without the right light or right coloured background and all that's lost. I just find a lot of it one dimensional, it's the same basic idea over and over again, a big shouty visual statement with nothing much else to say. The Rothko's I've seen have been just this; I don't dislike them actually, in that setting, but they leave me with no great desire to look back again once I've turned away. Whereas a few months ago I literally ran back to the Scottish National Gallery to snatch another 10 minutes with a particular Rembrandt.

Some artwork is simply beautiful, and would be beautiful in any setting.
 
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.

i wonder what the perception of koons might have been had he NOT been so commercially successful - i guess one could argue that he's mocking his own audience by dint of his work-product which i guess was the point of it. I like the fact that koons infurates people at any rate
 
Remember people, they have so much money because the rest of the world have so little.


there's an excellent and very early explanation of this by none other than John Ruskin in the early 19th century in a piece titled 'the veins of wealth' - brilliant read. it explains how power over labour is the thing one ought really look at and also makes an important distinction between 'mercantile' and 'political' economy, the latter being something our media totally ignores.
 
It's shit. If it were 2" tall and made of plastic you'd think "Oh, a small shit plastic thing". But because it's big and made of shiny steel somehow it qualifies as art.
People who buy this crap need composting :);)

but that's the entire point.

it's not at all about representation the way it's 'object', the rabbit-balloon is ... it's a referent to a kitsch object and 'blown up' deliberately out of scale and from expensive materials for a very specific reason. If it didn't sell for so much money I don't think people would be so critical and maybe even call it 'clever' ...
 
would you display this in your house?

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/jeff-koons-rabbit-auction-record/index.html


http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F190516092625-jeff-koons-rabbit-1.jpg

Appalling. I wouldn’t give 91 pence for it...
 
Blusterous, huffy nay-saying about contemporary art is so tedious and cliche I’m surprised people can do it with a straight face.

It’s perfectly okay not to be interested in art, but why the righteous indignation?

The ‘would you have this in your house?’ question is about as relevant to the value (artistic and monetary) of a work art as asking whether you’d want Einstein’s theory of relativity, the Chelsea football team or the Villa Savoye in your house.

Art, like football and quantum physics requires effort and knowledge to appreciate.

Also, this a pretty modestly sized Koons by his standards.

I think it’s an astonishing thing. It does something very different to ‘classical sculpture’. It comes out of an entirely different system of values and is manufactured using a very different set of skills and materials, but it’s great - super iconic and memorable.
 
The ‘would you have this in your house?’ question is about as relevant to the value (artistic and monetary) of a work art as asking whether you’d want Einstein’s theory of relativity, the Chelsea football team or the Villa Savoye in your house.

Einstein’s theory of relativity is in everyone’s house!
 
Oh good an art thread.
I can tell you about my recent travails.
A month or so ago I visited my son and wife in New York. Whilst there I was very keen to see Jasper John's White Flag at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Off we went. Those of you who know the museum will know how huge it is. Eventually we got to the modern section. Try as we could we couldn't find it. So I googled the piece in point. Google told me , White Flag, owned by the NY Museum of Modern Art, not currently on display!
Doh.
 
Oh good an art thread.
I can tell you about my recent travails.
A month or so ago I visited my son and wife in New York. Whilst there I was very keen to see Jasper John's White Flag at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Off we went. Those of you who know the museum will know how huge it is. Eventually we got to the modern section. Try as we could we couldn't find it. So I googled the piece in point. Google told me , White Flag, owned by the NY Museum of Modern Art, not currently on display!
Doh.
You don’t need to go to the Met to see the colour sucked out of the American flag.
 
Your point being?
Nothing more than a light hearted joke about US national identity being in crisis at the moment - it’s a slightly crumby joke because that crisis is quite colourful really.

Sounds like an annoying experience wandering around trying to find something that was removed from display. I ❤️ The Met though, always plenty of amazing things to see.
 
Blusterous, huffy nay-saying about contemporary art is so tedious and cliche I’m surprised people can do it with a straight face.

It’s perfectly okay not to be interested in art, but why the righteous indignation?

The ‘would you have this in your house?’ question is about as relevant to the value (artistic and monetary) of a work art as asking whether you’d want Einstein’s theory of relativity, the Chelsea football team or the Villa Savoye in your house.

Art, like football and quantum physics requires effort and knowledge to appreciate.

Also, this a pretty modestly sized Koons by his standards.

I think it’s an astonishing thing. It does something very different to ‘classical sculpture’. It comes out of an entirely different system of values and is manufactured using a very different set of skills and materials, but it’s great - super iconic and memorable.


So, it’s so tedious and cliched then ?
In your opinion...

You think it’s art and I don’t.
 
The only truly artistic aspect to this work is having the brass neck to put that price tag on it.

Henry Moore it ain’t.
 
The only truly artistic aspect to this work is having the brass neck to put that price tag on it.

Henry Moore it ain’t.

pretty sure moore himself fell under very similar scrutiny once upon a time - not that i would compare this with moore in ABSOLUTE terms - relative maybe though
 
I visited the Metropolitan museum a few years ago and they had a display of Koons pieces on the roof. Fantastic objects at first hand, extraordinary craftsmanship and utterly without useful function so qualifying as art in my book. Wouldn't be able to fit one in my house though!

9fc11c5185502907d678821799ebad196e5cd993.jpeg


e48ff483667a869ba8082bcacb3051283b3421f4_2_666x500.jpeg


c51e6c9405640f7e8bfbad500c96e71f8e619c31.jpeg
 


advertisement


Back
Top