----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [6] Re: "The meaning of things lies not in the things themselves
Never mind the fact that most folks don't
even get a leg itch from Koons or Warhol (well, maybe
Warhol because he's more transparently banal than even
Koons). The thrill in looking at their work is being
in the presence of multi-millions of dollars, exactly
the same as going to Barney's and looking at $10,000
suits or handbags.
WC
__________________________________________________
I saw a Jeff Koons exhibit of in Naples in 2003. Seeing Koons in another
country gave me a fresh perspective of his work. I had been in Rome earlier
in the week and spent some time at the Vatican, the Pantheon and other art
sites. The display of Koons' work was so disconnected from what I had been
viewing, it was as though the collection had been transported from another
planet. That's when my appreciation of Koons began.
Although the world is shrinking and "America" is becoming ubiquitous, still
the American experience is another planet when compared to Naples. The
Etruscans did not select the artifacts which now "represent" them. If alien
archeologists one day attempt to unearth what Americans found important, I
believe they would select the kind of thing (not necessarily the
representation) that is represented by Koons. Koons claims to be
non-ironic. Like Warhol he chooses subjects that are cultural icons:
puppies, balloon animals and Michael Jackson. Like Warhol, he is content to
re-present these icons freshly packaged in serious design.
It is as though he answers the question: "What is the best possible
presentation of a balloon animal?" or a Chia-Pet or other pop-cultural
images. Perhaps we would like to be as complex as the subject of a
Rembrandt portrait. Perhaps we would like to be someplace as dramatic as a
Moran landscape. But, it turns out we Americans live in a world where most
of our attention is paid to the kind of subjects depicted by Koons. I
believe that the reason people rebel against Koons is that he is not ironic,
but has the ability to see the beauty in and to reproduce the kinds of
things he represents.
There is a kind of myth that pop cultural icons are shallow and beneath
serious reflection, yet we give most of our attention to pop cultural icons.
We tend to be inconsistent and self-contradictory in our relationship with
our own culture. Koons has embraced these images. The fact that Koons'
career is lucrative validates his interest in those artifacts we claim are
beneath artistic notice. Our denial of the importance of our own cultural
icons robs us of an authentic relationship with our own culture. Rather
that seeing Koons as a kind of commercial sell-out, I believe he can be
viewed as a counter-cultural voice challenging the inconsistencies and
denial of the American identity.
Mike Mallory
