No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by TinyMcSmallbrain on Apr 25, 2019 7:24:08 AM
The $70 Million Rabbit

"Why Jeff Koons’s “Rabbit” Could Sell for up to $70 Million "

"But perhaps the most important work in the show was a three-foot-high stainless steel bunny—a work that’s key to understanding not just Koons, but the transformative power of the art object in our modern world."

CarlosFandango - 17 May 2019 22:56:29 (#1 of 42)

What a load of nauseating self-serving wank.

Arjuna - 17 May 2019 23:06:23 (#2 of 42)

I reckon its worth at least double that

JohnIlly - 17 May 2019 23:34:49 (#3 of 42)

No such thing as one rabbit. They breed like . . .

CarlosFandango - 18 May 2019 00:29:51 (#4 of 42)

...key to understanding not just Koons, but the transformative power of the art object in our modern world.

This is the pretense, isn't it? This is the heart of the pathetic narrative. This is where the emperor's old and smelly clothes are hung while he displays his flaccid tackle to the uncritical crowd.

I've seen Koons' stuff. I've seen Bubbles and Wolfman. It's not bad. It makes you think. For a few minutes. Not more.

"Transformative power"? Really?? Oh please.

I mean please, fuck off and get a fucking grip. And stop eyeballing the eye-watering wads of cash. It's not just vulgar but downright embarrassing.

Koons is an entertainer. He has his highs and lows.

On a scale from Sooty and Sweep to Tommy Cooper he is somewhere around Jimmy Tarbuck. From Terry Wogan's Floral Dance to Nessum Dorma, he sits alongside Madonna. Ronald McDonald to the Left and Escoffier to the Right, Koons is ByronBurgering somewhere in the middle. Just Eat. He's ahead of Mills & Boone but leagues behind Cortazar.

He's a sassy sales guy. He's Warhol on speed. He is fun. He is noisy. He is not durable or profound. He has done well. Played the game well. Good luck. He's Freddy Starr, but hopefully with a happier ending.

Go and look at the sunset. Or get up at 5am and watch the dawn in your local park. Get on the roof of your house somehow. Wash your feet in a fountain. Get laughed at. Just once, order the most expensive dish in a restaurant.

Save yourself $70 million.

widenation - 18 May 2019 01:19:54 (#5 of 42)

Koons is the kind of oddball that only the US could produce. None of his work really "stays with you" for more than a moment or two of interest, which usually concerns the (commissioned) craftsmanship. There's something distinctly unpleasant about much of his stuff.

uranrising - 18 May 2019 10:18:55 (#6 of 42)

Carlos, would you call the work meretricious?

Arjuna - 18 May 2019 10:47:55 (#7 of 42)

The stainless steel sculpture sold for $91.1 million, surpassing the $90.2 million record set by David Hockney last November

Footballers go for double that

Arjuna - 18 May 2019 10:49:29 (#8 of 42)

Jeff is probably knocking out another couple of dozen right now

CarlosFandango - 18 May 2019 11:07:27 (#9 of 42)

would you call the work meretricious?

Goodness me no Uran. Definitely maybe not overly completely much.

But the thing with Koons, and most big name contemporaries, is that (much of) 'the work' itself gets reduced to a minor element in a fawning masturbatory self-referential arms race between nearly-failed columnists, primarily for the benefit of weapons-grade tossers.

It ceases to be about the art itself and is not even about the much-vaunted narrative - which of course has its validity. It is mostly about brokering the reverberations within the echo-chamber.

Tadagee - 18 May 2019 11:08:18 (#10 of 42)

As Alex Rotter, the chairman of the post-war and contemporary art department at Christie’s, put it, the release of Rabbit in 1986 “would not only shake the art world to its core, but alter the course of popular culture as we now know it.”

Would it? Would it really Alex? So how's that going?

uranrising - 18 May 2019 11:17:23 (#11 of 42)

Goodness me no Uran. Definitely maybe not overly completely much.

I can't see why not, but absolutely no matter.

That second sentence is a thing of wonder. Does it maybe mean 'Well maybe slightly.'?

Tadagee - 18 May 2019 11:27:26 (#12 of 42)

Probably says a lot about me that the only reason i know who Jeff Koons is, is because he married a porn star.

Macpaddy - 18 May 2019 11:47:05 (#13 of 42)

Carlos has it bang on.Coons is arts version of David Blaine.

Dubris - 18 May 2019 11:49:40 (#14 of 42)

#9 - Haven't collectors always wanted to have a piece by a particular artist because it's by that artist rather than because of the work itself? I don't see anything in this in principle that a Victorian industrialist or a renaissance prince wouldn't recognise.

Macpaddy - 18 May 2019 11:52:30 (#15 of 42)

If Bromio was still around he'd come rushing in to sing Coons' praise.

more likely to physically attack me for saying that.

uranrising - 18 May 2019 12:40:15 (#16 of 42)

Interesting misspelling.

Macpaddy - 18 May 2019 13:07:33 (#17 of 42)


CarlosFandango - 18 May 2019 13:15:48 (#18 of 42)

Does it maybe mean 'Well maybe slightly.'?

Yes. But part of what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't do to tar all with the same brush.

I don't consider 'the works' to be universally marvelous, average, or worthless. But the discussion around them is toe-curling.

uranrising - 18 May 2019 14:24:50 (#19 of 42)

Macp, isn't his name Koons?

But part of what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't do to tar all with the same brush.

I agree. And I can see ambivalance as between all of his work, and the work which was the starter of this thread, and to which i was referring. So wasn't tarring all.

CarlosFandango - 18 May 2019 14:34:24 (#20 of 42)

No, indeed you weren't - Didn't mean to imply such a thing.

And hello to MacP. Yes, would be interesting to get both barrels hear from The Major on this.

Check Subscriptions
Home » Arts