"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."
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-jeff-koonss-rabbit-sell-70-million
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.
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.
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.
uran OMG I can't explain that. I know full well his name is Koons and yet I misspelled it, not once but twice. That is more than embarrassing.
As the I Ching says, 'No blame.'
All appreciation of art is subjective -- some people might think Jeff Koon's weird creatures are pants, other people might consider that Henry Moore's weird reclining figures are underpants.
I do too. I quite like a lot of stuff.
You love it.
Bubbles is quite spectacular. Whoever made it did a decent job.
I saw an exhibition of Jeff koons porn photographs at the tate which was fine but rubbish. However, despite the person warning people at the entrance, several middle class families were taking their quite young children in. Which felt wrong.
Agree. They should get rid of those interfering busybodies.
$ 70 million Zimbabwe would be about a million times more than what it's worth.
And whichever idiot paid $ 90 million for it deserves to have been parted from their money.
<<Koons is the kind of oddball that only the US could produce.>>
I met one from Winnipeg once.
<<Koons is the kind of oddball that only the US could produce.>>
I find comments like this somewhat pathetic, to be frank.
The nature of oddballs is that they are not representative. It also implies that the person making the claim has been everywhere else and has ascertained that the conditions necessary to produce a Koons do not pertain. Which itself implies that those conditions and the process are understood in some detail.
It's wank, in other words.
I appreciate that. let me note, however, that I don't really think the poster in question spoke at all with malice, and I tried to be a bit light in my response as well.