Comments on: Jeff Koons – Art?

By: Katie Owen

Katie Owen — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:09:40 +0000

Jeff Koons has said himself, ‘A viewer may at first see irony in my work, but I see none at all. Irony causes too much critical contemplation.’ Which is why you should apprieciate his work for being original and fun. Get over it, you are a novice, and this ‘crap’ isn’t ruining art, you are.

By: Samuel Fouracre

Samuel Fouracre — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:59:55 +0000

Jeff Koons is arguably the finest artist alive today. In the series “Made in Heaven” Koons is doing a number of interesting things. Firstly, one must consider the work as an installation and in its original context the large digital paintings were shown with a collection of highly crafted wooden sculptures of dogs staring at the pornographic images with their tongues hanging out.
Koons is not only elevating the (as you admit yourself) very well known vocabulary of pornography to a higher status, (by elevating something widely considered to be base to art), he is also removing the guilt and shame associated with porn. By making the work sentimental, i.e. Rosa backgrounds, butterflies etc, and spiritual, (with the references to Michelangelo where Koons is in the place of God reaching out to Adam, but is actually reaching out to touch Illona’s ass) Koons is attempting to remove the shame that we all associate with acts of love or fornication.
The Made in Heaven series is a logical continuation of Koons’ practice of re-contextualising the objects and visual vocabularies that surround us and are looked down upon by art. He is sincerely looking to break down the boundary between the intellectually superior snobbery of fine art, and the types of dislocated imagery we are surrounded by in shopping malls and on bill-boards and on Television. Furthermore, with the perfection of his practice and the use of craftsman to make his work, i.e. sculptures and painters, he is following in a long line of great artists, from Titian and Michelangelo to Henry Moore and Warhol.

By: anina.net

anina.net — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:04:44 +0000

does anyone know if Jeff Koons has a website or a blog?

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:07:46 +0000

Juha, I think you missed my point a tad. I am not debating whether or not this is art, I wouldn’t dare to do that cause after a long drawn-out debate, we’d come to the conclusion that art can be anything.

My *question* (one of the rare times I’m not trying to make a point but rather survey this blog’s readers) is about the good name of the word “art.” I’m wondering if close-ups of a porn star’s asshole and his cum on her face is “changing” the meaning of art? Cause if looking at porn is a true art form, then consider me an art connoisseur

About my last sentence, it was just my lame attempt to be funny. Sorry I promise I won’t do it again.

Glad to hear you’re enjoying the blog!!

By: Juha Kuusela

Juha Kuusela — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:55:01 +0000

So art with – in your mind – wrong subject matter shouldn’t be called art at all? It’s not that erotic art is something new – take the reliefs in ancient Indian temples or the items from secret room of Catherine the empress of russia. Both those include some very creative and aesthetic work. Now, I don’t find mr Koon’s art interesting or creative at all, but you don’t write about that. Really, the last, cheap, paragraph of your blog entry shows that the problem is with your own attitude and perspectives.

As for the good name of the word ‘art’ being tarnished, I say ‘good ridanse’. In my opinion, just as toughts, theories and arguments, pieces of art should stand or fall on their own merits, not based on what label is used or who is the author. Debating wither or not this or that is art is boring and pointles, but good excuse to avoid talking the art itself.

ps. Altough I thing you dropped the ball here, I really like your blog. Keep up the good work!

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:18:59 +0000

Since the dawn of art, art in all visual forms excluding pure ornamentation (such as architecture and calligraphy) always meant something that conveyed a meaning that most intended viewers could readily discern. Paintings with images of stuff that exists in real life or myth but have obscure meaning (Dali’s “melting clocks” and Picasso’s “Guernica”) challenge the definition of art, but only partially; at least the viewer can get a vague glimmer that the paintings have something to do with tuime and the horrors of war (assuming the viewer knows the latter painting’s title and the historic significance of that Spanish town.)

But paintings featuring completely indiscernable shapes (layman’s term: “just a bunch of squiggly lines”) completely abolish the definition of art. Some of Jackson Pollock’s works serve as prime examples.

By: Antti (the red neck one)

Antti (the red neck one) — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:09:56 +0000

Nah, didn’t Van Gogh paint somewhat raunchy pictures of the ladies he hung out with and nobody is accusing him of tarnishing the name of art. People have just seen it all already. Artist M?Â¤ki killed a cat in his video, the late cartoonist Pystynen put a baby into microwave in one strip, Ismo Alanko and Sielun Veljet sings about wiping their ass with the good ol’ bluecross. Alanko has probably pretty good chance of getting nomination to the finnish academy in the next 20 years.

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:06:56 +0000

I don’t think question is whether or not his work is “art” or not, I’m wondering if his hardcore pornography, err, portraits are ruining the good name of the word, “art.”

By: Erik

Erik — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:47:01 +0000

Who cares if it s “art” or not? People are willing to pay for it, and it has made mr. Koons a very rich man. (And, yes, success is the best revenge, indeed. Especially regarding those high school assholes.)

By: Antti (the red neck one)

Antti (the red neck one) — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:22:01 +0000

Art is hard to define. What nazis and communists thought as art, is considered mainly kitsch by others. If somebody would paint today like Rembrandt, the critics would probably ask him to sell his paintings at the Hietalahti square. And some hillbilly sculpting pinewood into crucifix with a chainsaw back in ??ll?Â¶l?Â¤ is certainly not art.

It is considered anything, that can be projected on fashionable ‘isms today is art and if someone gives a damn about it after 20 years, it is classic art.