Reading a profile on American artist Jeff Koons in a New Yorker from last April at the doctor’s office, it occurred to me that perhaps he is our Damien Hirst. Sure there are differences, but both are widely popular and have earned recognition well beyond the art world. Both sell their work for tons of cash brand new and used at auction. Both have legions of assistants fabricating their slick art to the highest level of production value. And both are kind of puckish “villains” you love to hate. It begs the question:
2 comments:
I think that you are right about Hirst in some ways, but I think that Koons' aims are also very different than Hirst's. Hirst has many Koons pieces in his own collection and clearly has absorbed Koons' methods of display. Compare "One Ball Total Equilibrium" to "The Impossibility of Death . . ." But whereas Koons is keying in on ideas kitsch, consumption, modes of display, etc., Hirst always claims to be focusing on the "big issues" of life, death and religion but frequently wanders into Koons territory and often appears confused when he does. The skull is a perfect example because Hirst denies it is a marketing and market ploy and will only talk about it in unrelated terms, it being the "ultimate celebration over death" and so on when it is completely boring as an art object when compared to the art market coup Hirst is trying to pull off.
I run hot and cold on Koons, I am looking forward to his show at the MCA. Hirst is just awful at this point in his career, I understand the yBA moment is fading (actually faded and gone) but let go of the spotlight gracefully or do something good enough to get back in it.
oh. Koons is number 2 whatever .
Post a Comment