«

»

Jun 25 2010

Spinster aunt pukes on Jeff Koons (but it’s not Art Week yet)

Tit tape

Figure 7a. Are your boobs affected by gravity? Tit-tape ad promises product will banish unsightly boob saggage for 10 bucks. Product is an adhesive used to tape the top of your boob directly to your chest. TV commercial shown during Jeff Koons bio on the Ovation channel.

I wasn’t expecting to discuss this dick during Art Week, but because I still haven’t had time to sit down and compose myself, using meaningful words to express my innermost feelings on the topic, I may as well take this moment to blurt that I accidentally just saw 10 minutes of an artumentary on American artist Jeff Koons, wherein the self-promoting plastic-coated hack expresses surprise at “the reaction” to that super tacky 1991 series of sculptures and paintings depicting him pronging his wife. The reaction was that the series was more porn than art.

Koons! His work is fuckin ugly and his clever little joke is played. He is so 20 years ago! What is this crap doing on television? Where are The Real Housewives of New Jersey?

Koons to self: “What ugly-ass piece of dime store garbage can I immortalize in chrome and sell to rich morons as a monument to their own vulgarity? Hey, I know! How about this fuckin ugly inflatable toy rabbit?”

Never heard of Jeff Koons?

Arts journalist Arifa Akbar reported for The Independent that in “an era when artists were not regarded as ‘stars’, Koons went to great lengths to cultivate his public persona by employing an image consultant.” Featuring photographs by Matt Chedgey, Koons placed “advertisements in international art magazines of himself surrounded by the trappings of success” and gave interviews “referring to himself in the third person.”

Koons then moved on to Statuary, the large stainless-steel blowups of toys, followed by the Banality series that culminated in 1988 with Michael Jackson and Bubbles, a series of three life-size gold-leaf plated porcelain statues of the sitting singer cuddling Bubbles, his pet chimpanzee. Three years later, one of these sold at Sotheby’s New York for $5.6 million and was in the permanent collection of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. [From Wikipedia. Sue me; no time for real research]

A dudely voice avers in the artumentary that in the wife-pronging works Koons purports to give the viewer the opportunity to revel in the beauty of the human boink while relieving us of any embarrassment we might feel. Koons relieves this embarrassment, quoth the voice, by magnanimously taking on the task of fucking the sexxxy woman himself, I guess so we don’t get any smut on the rest of our art collection. What a gentleman.

Koons claims with a straight face that there no similarity whatsoever between his work and pornography. Even though the wife is, in real life, Ilona “Cicciolina” Staller, one of the most famous porn star/parliamentarians in the world, and he has dressed her in regulation pornwear, and has positioned her submissively in regulation porn poses, and has reproduced the images and pimped’em out. There can be little doubt how Koons feels about his own role in the business; his wife is a passive receptacle, but he depicts himself as that buff and noble Adam character from the Sistine ceiling, the one created by God in His Own Image. Only with his hand on Cicciolina’s ass.

Koons calls this series “Made in Heaven” but a more appropriate title would have been “Check Me Out, I’m Screwing a Hot Porn Chick”.

In the artumentary, Koons says the depictions of himself pronging his famous porn star wife — pimped to the public as art — are an expression of his, and by extension, all human, “sexuality.” This is unsurprising, as men typically lack the ability to distinguish between oppression/exploitation/porn and actual sex. Celebrity art dicks, in particular, appear to be sorely afflicted in this regard, what with their polyurethaned narcissism running amok and spilling out of televisions into spinster bunkhouses without the slightest provocation.

Koons is a smug, smooth, depraved asshole. It’s small wonder that he lists, both as his influences and as the artists with whom he expects to be grouped in art history books, the usual bunch of misogynist asshole dudes from the 20th century canon.

Staller is reportedly suing him for unpaid child support.

It is impossible to look at this crap and not feel like a voyeur, a degraded perv complicit in another woman’s sexploitation, and an agent of the debasement of the entire human species. Is it art? Sure, why not! But it stinks!

81 comments

2 pings

  1. Comrade Svilova

    …his, and by extension, all human, “sexuality.”

    My favorite phrase lately is from your amazing post on Hanging Chads, and I have to roll it out here: ah, the ennui!

    Male sexuality IS human sexuality, therefore sex IS p-i-v and ends when the guy orgasms. For people who don’t believe that the patriarchy exists, that all-too-pervasive attitude seems to me to be irrefutable proof of a system that privileges male above female.

  2. humanbein

    Dude art of the first order. Selling objects, assigning values to objects, pretending objects are the only medium for artistic expression. Karen Finley explained this to my satisfaction many years ago, before I had the full dope on feminism.

    While Koons is stroked and rewarded, she was raped and debased over and over again by both the law – Jesse Helms had a fetish for her – and by the media – Pete Hammil started the horrible yam meme that pops up whenever you mention her name.

    She seemed to think that performance art was the true future of art, and that objects traded for money would be recognized as what it really is: Commerce.

  3. La Chica Lucy

    Tape the top of your boob directly to your chest?! What the hell?
    Also, that dude’s art is utterly tacky. And I only looked at that fugly rabbit thingy, not the pronging stuff.

  4. kristinc

    Also, that dude’s art is utterly tacky. And I only looked at that fugly rabbit thingy, not the pronging stuff.

    I looked at the pronging stuff so you don’t have to, and I want my 90 seconds back. It’s astoundingly fucking ugly. All of it.

  5. Vibrating_Liz

    Somebody needs to market Bare Lifts for Men so they can tape their dicks to their foreheads.

  6. Jodie

    I’d never heard of this guy before, and I’m certain I was happier that way.

  7. Ashley

    Liz, that was really funny.

  8. norbizness

    I still feel like I haven’t heard about Jeff Koons.

  9. Jill

    That’s because this blog is all about ME.

  10. Dr. Sarah Tonin

    I looked at some of Koons’ “work”; that there is some profoundly cynical shit. I don’t think something so contemptuous could ever be termed “art.”

  11. Ma'Whis'Ki

    I would suggest re-branding the lifty-thingys for Man-Boobs, as I really hate to see guy-breasts that aren’t perky and hard as howitzer-shells!

    As for Koons, wasn’t he the idiot who did that giant lipstick-tube (with pink lipstick-balloon that inflated and deflated every 20 minutes like a giant erectile-dysfunction penis) at Yale back in the 60′s? Once a moron, always a moron, apparently, and now he’s into rape-by-proxy, as he *wants* women who he doesn’t even know to be fully aware of a) how he ‘likes it’, and b) what a stud he [doesn't] look like when he’s playing Mr. Pokey. I think I’ll pass on the investment opportunity, thanks…

  12. otoc

    Vibrating_Liz
    June 25, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    Somebody needs to market Bare Lifts for Men so they can tape their dicks to their foreheads.

    Art.

    Jeff Koons

    Not art.

  13. janna

    A lot of his sculptures have the same proportions as the drawings that anime-porn-obsessed college dudes make. Also I don’t get his “Made in Heaven” collection at all. Porn, dogs, and flowers, what? Overall, I’m not impressed.

  14. Regina T

    This blog is more artistically talented than anything Jeff Koons could possibly fashion together with his protruding schlong.

  15. nails

    I was trying to find this weird art that was themed around being completely insecure about masculinity. I found it years and years ago. The weird emasculated dude subject was named jeffrey, I think. He was a cartoonishly unmasculine dude in typical dude situations like asking women on dates. Couldn’t find it anywhere, but it really stuck with me. It seems like the antidote to koons poisoning.

  16. shopstewardess

    How can it be art if it isn’t made by the artist? Everything “by” Jeff Koons is entirely manufactured by other people.

    It’s not art, it’s just an illustration of an idea. (See also Damian Hirst, etc.)

    And the idea is just the standard, misogynistic “Look how clever/modern I am”.

    Now I feel old. But at least I’m not Jeff Koons.

  17. Mike

    I am convinced that Jill is the greatest blogger who ever lived.

  18. Carpenter

    Koons is the one that doesn’t make his own art right? He has some kind of factory set up, from what I remember it was pretty big. Also didn’t he make a bunch of plain old inflatable shit as well? I think I remember being really pissed that he wasn’t even bothering to cast shit anymore.

  19. Comrade PhysioProf

    Koons is the one that doesn’t make his own art right? He has some kind of factory set up, from what I remember it was pretty big.

    That’s Kostabi. And fuck art.

  20. ivyleaves

    From the video, Koons as a person seems even more hideous than his “art.” The guy is creepy.

  21. janicen

    A balloon shaped like a rabbit is art? Hehe. I’m going to giggle all day long picturing pretentious fools “studying” this piece.

  22. Mary Tracy9

    “Is it art?”

    NO. But it sure stinks!

  23. shopstewardess

    janicen, the “art” is that it’s made of aluminum/aluminium.

    Yeah, me too.

  24. Earnest O'Nest

    Applauds spinster aunt’s take-down of dick, not even worth to be called dude; suggests Koons does what Vibratin_Liz’s saying, but taking care to pass by via what such people as these are wont to call ‘the back door’ – for reasons which are as horrendous as they themselves are.

  25. speedbudget

    Well, you were right. You all said it, and I didn’t believe you. Dudes actually do think porn is art.

    Also after reading the article, I was wondering how his wife feels about being used as a pronghole by her own husband for “art” that is very much like the porn in which she stars as the object.

  26. sargassosea

    This Koons fellow is 100% smarm, aint he? Ew.

    Meanwhile, I’ve just taped a Bacardi ad to the old Electrolux. It’s part of my very important new series, “Post-New”.

  27. Jill

    I am convinced that Jill is the greatest blogger who ever lived.

    What convinced you of this? Where is your evidence? Where is your analysis?

  28. yttik

    Ick. Koons.

    People who don’t “get” art are on the right track, much like people who don’t get Bare Lift’s, waterproof, 24 hr, “painless” adhesive. These two things seem to be part of the culture’s shared delusion, some sort of mutually agreed upon hallucination.

    As to Twisty being the greatest blogger ever, I have collected a decade’s worth of data, entered it into the software, crunched the numbers, and came to the same conclusion.

  29. Mar Iguana

    “Somebody needs to market Bare Lifts for Men so they can tape their dicks to their foreheads.”

    In My World, men would have their dicks on their chins.

  30. Helen Huntingdon

    I couldn’t figure out how the boob-sticky things were supposed to work, so I looked up and watched their commercial. All I could think was, Who in the hell would ever want to do that?

  31. Tehomet

    This post was (as usual) ace.

    Koons is an idiot and a puffed-up one at that. I’ve seen his ‘Made in Heaven’ series, in an unwary moment in an art gallery bookstore. I thought it was self-aggrandising bunk. His dick in the sculptures was way bigger than I’d bet a year’s pay that it is in reality, plus his partner was presented as being almost a worshipper of same inflated appendage. Vomit-inducing *and* basically just porn with slightly better-quality presentation.

    Anyway, he’s an idiot and a crap artist, but I don’t see why Koons’ ‘art’ can’t be porn. Why not? Does him saying that it is art elevate it above porn somehow? I don’t think so. I imagine (as I have never seen and hope never to see) child porn photos could be really well composed or whatever but they’d still be child porn, and, like Koons’ ‘art,’ something that could only conceivably serve an useful purpose if it were reduced to ash and used as fertiliser.

    And those tape-for-one’s-breasts things are stupid. I can see the point of bras if they increase one’s comfort, but for god’s sake, why would one want to tape oneself up? It’s dumb. It’s only useful purpose would be to tape something else up. I suggest Koons’ fool mouth, for a start. I would be willing to try this out in person, photograph it or sculpt it, and sell the result to a gallery for a squillion bucks.

  32. Lisa

    I don’t understand the members of the blametariate insisting that this isn’t art for various reasons. It is art; it’s shitty art, but it’s art. “Art” is defined by the artist’s intention, so if one of the blamers decides to make art by picking a bogey and smearing it on some paper, then proceeds to do so, her smear would, indeed, be art. Same goes for Koons no matter how despicable, lazy, cynical, or misogynistic the concept and execution.

  33. Citizen Jane

    Wow, I didn’t know that being a total douche was an art.

  34. mike

    bumping Lisa’s comment.

    “I am convinced that Jill is the greatest blogger who ever lived.

    What convinced you of this? Where is your evidence? Where is your analysis?”

    there. there is proof.

  35. Sylvie

    Don’t know if Koons has made any statements about his intentions (has he?) but if in producing his objets his intentions match the outcomes, shitloads of money coming his way, then its commerce. Good luck to anyone trying that move with a snotrag.

  36. Hattie

    Twisty, you just don’t get it. There is no art any more. All is kitsch.

  37. jezebella

    MaWhiski, you’re thinking of Claes Oldenburg. Tha lipstick on a tank was an anti-war piece, as I recall.

  38. Lisa

    Sylvie–Koons is facinated by kitch and his intention is to elevate it to the level of fine art. Alas, my art history tomes/printed lectures are not on my office desk to cite, but I distinctly remember discussing Koons during my Art History classes in college. As far as what people buy, all I can conclude is that there is no accounting for taste.

  39. phio gistic

    Koons doesn’t actually make any of his ‘art’ – he has a stable of studio helpers that do all the grunt work. He’s just the ‘idea man’ and they do all the creating.

  40. Lisa

    phio gistic–so did all the artists we would consider “the masters.” It’s called a “workshop” and it doesn’t negate the validity of any of the artwork discussed.

  41. phio gistic

    Lisa – I was addressing the comment about him “not making his own art.” But thanks for the condescension!

  42. Sylvie

    Hi Lisa – were you quoting or paraphrasing a critic or someting else. As an aid to furthering my understanding of the Koons (for it is he) started to read an interview from 1986. Got as far as first para and the phrase “the artist” and that was that. The artist, the artist, the artist, it’s “an artist” mateyboy, you’re not the bloody Queen (respect ma’am). Basta.

  43. sargassosea

    All may be kitsch, Hattie, but not MY kitsch! MY kitsch is better than yours!

    Blamin’.

  44. ew_nc

    Lisa – There is also no reason to correct a person’s perception of art. It’s time to do a self-check when you’re being a bigger tool than the (alleged) males who are commenting.

  45. yttik

    The Academy of Arts and Sciences which Koons is now a fellow of, was started to “cultivate every art and science which may tend to advance the interest, honour, dignity, and happiness of a free, independent, and virtuous people.”

    I can’t post an icon of somebody laughing and puking at the same time, which is probably a good thing, because that’s how I feel.

    It makes no difference whether we call something art or call something science, what it is is puke being sold to the patriarchal public under the guise of intellectualism. Art as an institution stinks because it is full of patriarchal dominance and bias, much like science as an institution stinks. We can debate till the cows come home about what constitutes art or what constitutes science, but that’s really not the point. The point is that what is labeled Art and what is labeled Science are both defined by the patriarchy and often used to justify farther oppression.

  46. Lisa

    Sylvie–The book we used in our class was The Shock of the New by Robert Hughes.

  47. gwyllion

    OH SNAP!!!! this is SO FUCKING PERFECT – i am teaching a summer class at WSU and this weeks topic is the banality of art with the nauseating Mr. Koons as the center topic – i am sending all my students to here – this blog – and to these responses – could y’all BE more topical?!? THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU –

    p.s. i LOATHE Koons and the kitsch he rode in on!

  48. Sylvie

    Hi Lisa – thanks for the ref. Glad to know when “the artist” needs properly formulated intentions there a critic around to supply them.

  49. Comrade PhysioProf

    Don’t know if Koons has made any statements about his intentions (has he?) but if in producing his objets his intentions match the outcomes, shitloads of money coming his way, then its commerce.

    Now this is quite interesting. Should the intentions of the creator have any influence on what we deem art (or, for that matter, science)?

    Fuck art.

  50. Jill

    “Art” is defined by the artist’s intention[...]

    Discussing art can be complicated. Everybody, particularly on a blog where art is not necessarily the default area of expertise, is bound to have a different idea about what it is or isn’t.

    There is, for example, a pretty venerable school of criticism, backed up with compelling arguments, that says the artist’s intention is entirely irrelevant.

    For the purposes of Art Week I’ll more or less consider as art anything that can be categorized as an idea with a frame (literal or figurative) around it. Whether a thing is successful as an art-thing is another matter.

  51. Koré

    We are using the word ART like it’s something valuable, and what we don’t like gets deemed not-art. But Art, with its commercial value and display of power from the wealthy classes, is Patriarchy, right? Koons is very clearly patriarchal art.
    Can there be a non-patriarchal art or is this an oxymoron?
    (Sorry that I can’t articulate my thoughts better, or that I can’t think better)

  52. Jezebella

    “Lisa – There is also no reason to correct a person’s perception of art. It’s time to do a self-check when you’re being a bigger tool than the (alleged) males who are commenting.”

    Really, ew_nc? Then what the fuck are we doing here?

    Lisa’s comment was based on historical fact. Artists of all kinds have worked in teams for centuries: architects, sculptors, printmakers, glassmakers, and quiltmakers come to mind immediately. Chuck Close used to make his own paintings, but he’s disabled now, so he has studio assistance. Does this make him “not an artist”? Because he’s *disabled*? Louise Nevelson kept making giant metal sculptures with the assistance of young healthy assistants well into her old age. Should she have quit making sculpture because she got old and couldn’t lift 100-lb. hunks of metal any more?

    If an artist has an idea she can’t execute all by her lonesome in her chilly walk-up garret in Montmartre, does that mean her installation/quilt/cast bronze/building/woodblock print isn’t art? No, it does not.

    The 80s were a weird time in the Fine Art Market. The culture of Greed is Good deified the likes of Mark Kostabi, Jeff Koons, et al, because they matched the zeitgeist. The whole fucking decade was consumerist excess and the dudes what made money met the buyers where they lived. Koons is a giant tool, and I always skip over him when I teach contemporary art, because I don’t think he deserves any of my time or attention. See how that works? I teach art history as a feminist, and I tell the story the way I want to tell it. I use a textbook that reproduces no images of rape or violence against women (Stokstad) and I ignore the more egregious asshole artists.

  53. Jill

    We are using the word ART like it’s something valuable, and what we don’t like gets deemed not-art.

    Stay tuned! I intend to address this very topic in the next Art Week essay. For those who would like to be spared my usual 18 introductory paragraphs, what I’m gonna say is this: art is the graphic representation of ideas, but not all ideas are good ideas, and not all representations are legitimate representations.

  54. bbz

    Memento Mori.
    Koons is crap.
    THIS is Art.
    Eyes, head, heart, soul….engaged, in a meaningful way.

    http://www.muchafoundation.org/MIMGDetail.aspx

  55. Sylvie

    Confused again – Jill, your definition of art seems to subsume that of porn. Comrade Wotsit, my comment about Koons was specific to him and to this thread. His own words about his product were gibberish which suggested to me the matter for him lay elsewhere – the if in my comment was a big if – who knows, he may really believe his own justifications for boring us with his tat. (http://www.jca-online.com/koons.html). Ha ha bollocks – he’s a money grubbing knob.

  56. Lily Underwood

    As usual, the spinster aunt has the last word.

  57. sewoodhull

    The emperor may say he is well-dressed, but that has no bearing on whether he’s wearing any clothes at all.

    The first time I saw Jeff Koons was on a television show in which he displayed a wet/dry shop vacuum cleaner that he was selling for $250,000–he had done nothing whatsoever to alter it from its original state (he told the interviewer that it symbolized “lungs”). I owned a wet/dry shop vac EXACTLY like it that I bought for $35. Koons said what made his worth $250,000 was that it came with “A Letter of Authenticity”–my $35 model came with a warranty. I got the better deal.

  58. ivyleaves

    Some of these comments brought to mind some images I ran into while googling Koons. Get a load of the price paid at auction for child porn and anime porn masquerading as art, or if you will, proof that culture=porn=rape (not for the squeamish):

    http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/blogon/art_news/doug_mcclemont_on_sothebys_contemporary_sale_in_new_york/4575

    BTW: The he’s no longer married to the “object” of his desire.

  59. Carpenter

    Its weird I have no problem with Duchamp’s ‘ready mades’ that he didn’t construct, but I really hate Koons’ art factory. Maybe because it is because Koons is recycling a now hundred year old idea.

  60. slythwolf

    Art douchebags are beyond my energy capacity this weekend, so here’s a thought on the boob tape.

    Aren’t my tits already attached to my chest?

  61. Jill

    Confused again – Jill, your definition of art seems to subsume that of porn.

    Sylvie, I’ll be taking the unpopular position that art isn’t holy or sublime, but is in fact merely the representation of ideas (yes,’abstract’ art too). A few typical arty ideas: Symmetry. Angst. Blue. War Is Bad. Flowers Are Pretty. Less Is More.

    Pornography is the graphic representation of rape, presented from the point of view that rape is awesome. Make of it what you will.

    I’ll be enlarging on this theme in the next post.

  62. Jill

    It’s not even that he’s recycling the idea, but that he has so grotesquely capitalized on it.

    Duchamp, it will not surprise you to hear, is one of the dudes Koons cites as a spiritual colleague. But it’s bullshit, because when you look at the R Mutt urinal, you chuckle and you get it, whereas when you look at Koons’ million-dollar vacuum cleaners, you just see a massively arrogant asshole ego floating on a superfatted culture of ennui.

  63. Bushfire

    Ivyleaves, I checked out that website you linked. Gross! How obscene is it that someone will pay millions for a piece of plaster or box of soup cans while millions of people are starving.

    I blame the megatheocorporatocracy.

  64. Ashley

    Hope you do speak on the classist issue. That whole Art-as-institution, I think is totally built on class structure and patriarchy itself.

  65. Carpenter

    -It’s not even that he’s recycling the idea, but that he has so grotesquely capitalized on it.

    Totally there with you. I guess that is why the factory production pisses me off so much, because if not even the idea is original then it just seems like a regular factory. I would hesitate to outright deem it ‘not art’, but rereading my comments it seems like I am doing just that in some circuitous way.

  66. j

    This is what art is according to patriarchy: (Warning, triggering)
    http://www.deviantart.com/#/d2ruspy
    That site is great for connecting with other artists since it’s THE online art community, but everyday “omg nude breasts” or women + violence photos are featured in the spotlight section. It’s almost like there is a subtle message to us female artists.
    They’re normalizing porn as art, fetish porn as art, snuff porn as art. I feel it’s dangerous, but don’t know what to do. It’s not just this one site either, of course.

  67. Koré

    @bbz
    Mucha, really? Women as decoration?

  68. Koré

    I’ll be taking the unpopular position that art isn’t holy or sublime, but is in fact merely the representation of ideas (yes,’abstract’ art too). A few typical arty ideas: Symmetry. Angst. Blue. War Is Bad. Flowers Are Pretty. Less Is More.
    I’m looking forward to that post then :)

  69. speedbudget

    Art is patriarchal. Studying art, having the means and ability to go to school to be an artist, is being in a privileged position. Yes, occasionally they elevate the “unschooled” to the pantheon of the great (Grandma Moses comes to mind), but it’s never a full inclusion. It’s always understood that those artists are freaks with limiltless vision and talent, isn’t it too bad their technique is crap due to lack of school seems to be how they’re treated.

    Art in the patriarchy is a closed club, much like masculinity. Yes, there is the occasional woman who seems to be accepted, part of the crowd, but everybody is looking for a way to exclude her too, if she seems to step out of line or get too “uppity.” Women and minorities practice art at the pleasure of the patriarchy.

    Hence, art is a recycling of old ideas and old ways of getting them across. Which is a shame because art seems like the best way to wake somebody up, some regular schmoe, to some pretty radical ideas. Art is representative, so it can be in-your-face or it can subtle, and both are pretty amazing ways to get a point across.

    I would like to see some art that resonates with me, that stops me in my tracks. I haven’t yet cause everything is soaked in patriarchy. Even the stuff that’s supposed to shock is ho-hum cause it’s all coming out of the same borg mindset. It’s predictable.

    This is some precoffee blaming, so I apologize if it’s unclear. I can’t wait until Art Moment starts.

  70. Jodie

    Hanging in my house (among other things, as I love what I perceive to be ‘art’) is a poorly executed cross stitch consisting of “HELLO FRIEND!” under a simple bird on a branch. It’s in crappy shape, but it makes me happy to look at it. It probably didn’t live up to the vision of the artist who designed and made it…but the flaws make it that much more endearing. When I look at it, I seem to get a little of the artist herself, which is then translated by me in new and different ways. If that’s not Art, I don’t know what is.

    Certainly not Jeff Koons, unless “blah” is an authentic response.

    I’m not an art scholar. I paint and draw a little, and often love to look at the art people make.

  71. Nikki

    Koons is an utter wang.

    I’m fascinated with him the same way I’m fascinated with horror movies- it’s depressing and enlightening to see just how much bullshit he can get away with.

    I’ve always found his “elevating the banal” schtick condescending to the point of cruel. In interviews with him, I’ve heard him say (paraphrasing heavily from something I saw in art class five years ago) “You are going to love my art. You will either like it because you understand it and you’re smug and superior like me, or you’re going to love it because it’s using elements you recognize from your sorry excuse for everyday life.”

    His art (and yes, it’s art, it’s just aggravating and terrible art) is extremely classist and dudely in the extreme. If I remember right there was some talk when the “Made in Heaven” series came out about how he was taking porn culture a step further by not just treating his wife like an object, but actually making an object that objectifies her. See what he did there? Tee hee, clever! I just threw up a little in my mouth.

    As far as I’m concerned, he’s the Joe Francis of the art world. Actually, if I was presented with one of them and I could only punch one, Batman villain style, I’m not sure which one I’d choose. Probably Jeff Koons- there are enough people waiting to punch Joe Francis, people still think Jeff Koons is Such A Clever Artist and give him millions of dollars.

    What a fucking wang.

  72. Ma'Whis'Ki

    Jezebella–

    Thanks for identifying the lipstick-thingy as Oldenburg. It just makes me laugh that these guys are all so derivative of one another that I can’t remember who is responsible for which hunk of junk! They have their heads crammed so far up each others’ asses, they just keep recycling each others’ shit…

  73. Jezebella

    Oldenburg predates Koons by about 4+ decades, and is actually a lot more interesting and less wangy than Koons. Well, that depends on your feelings about Pop Art, I’d guess.

  74. Hattie

    Jill: I’ve seen a lot of the violence porn and plain old porn and vapid kitsch that is called art in Europe. The marriage of violence, porn, and kitsch goes way back. It’s just that like everything else there is so much more of it these days.

  75. AileenWuornos

    Koons makes me ill. The scary thing about the link that j posted to deviantart is it’s apparently a self-portrait.

    It’s scary how my peers don’t see anything wrong with any of this.

  76. ew_nc

    Jezebella – yeah, really. I get real tired of the intellectual elitist comments, wherein blamers get to show off their liberal arts degrees by picking apart minor inaccuracies in another’s comments. As far as I’m concerned that’s just women oppressing other women who didn’t have the luxury of advanced education. Have you noticed how often a woman feels she has to apologize for not phrasing something correctly? More attention was paid to how someone said something rather than what that person was trying to convey. This is the same shit that happened on the message boards.

  77. Embee

    Have always been intimidated by art because I feel like I don’t “get” it. I mean, sure, I like some of Rothko’s works and the Mona Lisa actually made me cry but I cannot form a coherent critique of this guy’s stuff because it makes me sick. And I don’t want to look at it.

    This: “In My World, men would have their dicks on their chins.” Yee. Haw.

  78. Jezebella

    You know, ew_nc, you are attributing intentions to commenters that you cannot be sure of. You claim we’re “showing off”, which is unkind and unfair. Perhaps some of us think of it as *contributing to the dialogue*, eh? Calling someone an intellectual elitist because they (okay, *I*) happen to know more about art than the average bear, because it’s my fucking PROFESSION?? The hell with that. When blamers share their knowledge, I think it’s great. I love learning stuff here. I love learning about science and nature stuff and feminist history from other blamers. It’s shitty to tell women who know stuff to shut up because other women DON’T know that stuff.

  79. Jill

    More attention was paid to how someone said something rather than what that person was trying to convey.

    The picking of nits is often an indulgence of the supercilious, but ideas that are imperfectly expressed are often imperfectly understood, both by the expresser and the expressee. Even so, I rarely consider grammar error alone a sufficient reason to zap a comment, so I wonder, who do you think is inflicting this elitist punishment?

  80. Antoinette Niebieszczanski

    When I was nine, some perv in a car showed me his schlong. Was weenie-waving his idea of performance art?

  81. vitaminC

    I saw the prong sculpture in London. Let’s just say this guy has a pretty inflated opinion of himself.

  1. Tweets that mention Spinster aunt pukes on Jeff Koons (but it’s not Art Week yet) « I Blame The Patriarchy -- Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PZ Myers, Amanda Marcotte. Amanda Marcotte said: http://bit.ly/bGPABK 20 years later, it's still clear Koons is a hack. [...]

  2. Jeff Koons Deconstructed By Spinster Aunt Twisty, Whom I Am In Love With | Cyanology: the Blog

    [...] being overpriced garbage in general, his “work” is deeply sexist overpriced garbage. Spinster Aunt Twisty elaborates so I don’t have to. On Koons’ “pieces” portraying the artist in coitus with [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>