JEFF KOONS "A RETROSPECTIVE" REVIEW BY RYAN DAVIS
Jeff Koon’s is the one of the wealthiest, most popular and polarizing contemporary artists, all things that come with the territory as you rise up the ranks of the art world. We can cut the proper verbiage and tell the truth, or we either think Koon’s is a genius or a load of bullshit. He has drawn a lot of controversy over his career. Koons is not involved in the production of his work, which actually isn’t as rare as it seems among celebrity artists. Many critics question whether some of his work is engaging or simply pornography. I’ll be the first to admit that I have my biases against artists who are not involved with the production of there work. That easily puts me on one side of the fence of Koon’s work and that’s not even discussing how I feel about the visuals or content of his work. I mention this so that you understand that as much as I want to be unbiased in my review, this is my review so I don’t care how biased it comes off. The fact of the matter is these biases are important because work that is engaging enough can have the power to change or at least adjust those biases.
The Whitney Museum exhibits A Retrospect by Jeff Koon’s which is a large scale exhibition covering four floors of a large portion of his work dating as far back into the earliest parts of his artistry from 1978 to the present. All of his most well known pieces were at the exhibit: Equilibrium, Made In Heaven, and Celebration. The quantity of the work is enough to make a second visit to soak it all in.
While Jeff Koon’s work ranges visually from animal balloon sculptures in Celebration to nude photography he has been consistent in his focus. He explores themes of death and it’s inevitability and questioning the cultural context of sexuality. A large portion of his works consists of the use of readymades. Back in the 80s he created a series titled The New making readymade vacuums. These nostalgic vacuums existed as new and yet inevitable obsoleteness. These readymades are not altered or used but displayed in pristine cases elevated in a way that you would a painting. In fact Koon’s created these to exist in the same light of a painting. In his recent works we see returns to the use of readymades were he employs much more visuals to blur the lines of the copy
and the real thing.
Koons’s work and popularity has spanned three decades. The audiences that are drawn out to these grandiose exhibitions are your typical hipsters and old people, which is exactly what I saw. And because criticism is for all intents and purposes dead, you need no more validation of your status then drawing out hipsters and old people especially if those old people are economically wealthy. I can be more specific by stating rich old white people but this is not a commentary on exhibitions and the races of people that come to these shows. The hipster will make a commentary based on a Wikipedia entry they just read the day before seeing the exhibition. The old people are the purchases that validate why it deserves millions of dollars. Most of them have no idea what his work is about until they listen to their portable tour guide device. This is where find myself conflicted. To me he is not controversial because he made works that border the lines of controversial subjects. Art has been there done that. They’re not even explicit beyond simply seeing Koons’s genitalia. They only seem controversial in retrospect which is the context in which these older people understand it when they hear about his work through their tour guide devices. And his minimalism caters right to the mainstream hipsters who’s context of culture is based in large on minimalism – i.e. Apple products, all of fashion etc... I am not criticizing Koons for making work that caters to specific audience. What I am saying is it doesn’t raise new questions that the culture has already accepted. One might say that if that were the case he wouldn’t draw as much controversy as he does if the mainstream culture had already accepted the questions he raises. A valid point but non-artists critiques and art critiques within the field can be two different things. I doubt art critiques are as polarized as non-art critiques. Of course I am proof trying to create a polarizing view within the art community.
I’ve barely even touched on the fact that he doesn’t produce his own work, which I have a huge gripe with. I imagine Koons would argue that the art is strictly in the idea. If that is the case what is the point of the manifestation of the idea. The making of the product and the product itself are interrelated whether the process adds content to the piece or not. The arrogance in his statements is even more beyond me. A lot of the statements about him talk about his precision for details and having a keen eye. These things may be true about him but if we’re speaking in context of the production of the work then that credit goes to the actually producer. Koons set a high standard but it is the producer who has to have the keen eye to meet those standards because otherwise the product will not be made. It’s not like Koon’s will do it. Credit is due where credit is due and if Koon’s deserves credit for coming up with an idea without partaking in its creation then simple logic suggest that the producer(s) deserve credit for there contribution.
