Talk:Jeff Koons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] shouldnt this be mentioned?

Shouldnt it be mentioned that he doesnt actually BUILD his work, or in a lot of cases, even design it. Most of the time he just calls someone with a concept and they do the rest. If the Andy Warhol section has room for this nature of critisim I feel this one definetly does. This is definetly a neutural thing that needs to be recorded about this guy. --jakers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.106.52.10 (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time Travel

He rendered a drawing similar to his famous "Tulip Balloons" for placement on the front page of the Internet search engine Google. The drawing greeted all who visited Google's main page on April 30, 2008.

"Greeted"?? Is Wikipedia Nostradamus now? This article refers to the future in the past tense! I know its only for a day, but still, this is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.126.79 (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Recently added to the article:

"Much of the controversy surrounding Koons in the art world concerns the fact that he personally has no discernable talent as an artist. Koons is frequently derided by critics for his practice of using his Wall Street acquired wealth to commission young, unknown artists to create artworks for him and which Koons then claims as his own."

Statements like this need to be put into context and references made to reputable sources. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Dystopos 23:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] DISPUTED PARAGRAPH

The POV of the following paragraph is disputed by VeniceBruin (whose opinion is endorsed by the single edit of one anonymous user):

In 1992, Koons was commissioned to create a piece for an art exhibition in Bad Arolsen, Germany. The result was Puppy, a 13-meter (43 foot) tall topiary sculpture of a West Highland White Terrier puppy executed in a variety of flowers on a steel substructure. In 1995 the sculpture was dismantled and reerected in Sydney Harbor on a new, more permanent, stainless steel armature with an internal irrigation system. In 1997 the piece was purchased by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and installed on the terrace outside the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Before the dedication of the museum, a trio disguised as gardeners attempted to plant explosive-filled flowerpots near the sculpture [1]. Bilbao police foiled the scheme. Since its installation, Puppy has become a familiar icon for the city of Bilbao. In the summer of 2000 it travelled to New York City for a temporary exhibition at Rockefeller Center.


Minutiae about one of the artist’s lesser works really do not belong in the main biography. Let’s keep discussion about the artist and his artwork on the page set up for it. --VeniceBruin 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're saying that a 43-foot tall sculpture that has become a major landmark in front of one of the most celebrated museums in the world is a lesser work? Or do I detect a POV creeping in? Dystopos 23:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Your argument is so monumentally specious and silly that I scarcely know where to begin. Since when did an artwork’s vertical height become a deciding factor in determining its aesthetic & cultural significance? For instance there’s a sixty-foot sculpture by Oldenburg that stands in front of my office building – does this make it a 40% greater artistic achievement than Koons’ 43-foot “Puppy” in your world? There are also nearly 20 sculptures on display in the front courtyard of LACMA and I can probably find glowing reviews by local art critics about each of them, but how many of them are really universally considered to be great works of art? And speaking of “POV creeping in”, how about taking a look at your own hyperbolic claim that Puppy is a “major landmark.” You might want to inform the Bilbao Tourist Information Center run by the town council http://www.bilbao.net/WebBilbaonet/home_i.jsp?idioma that you’ve officially declared their Koons sculpture to be a “major landmark” because for some strange reason they don’t mention it on their website or even list it on their tourist maps as a local point of interest. --VeniceBruin 17:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't appreciate your personal attack. There are, in fact, many pieces of art that have achieved notability primarily because of their size. That is not, of course, the only claim to importance:
  • Jeff Koons' Puppy is one of the most significant sculptures of the 20th century." - Susan Freedman, president of the Public Art Fund (and former NYC Director of Cultural Affairs) [2].
  • "Puppy becomes a mascot for Bilbao." - article by J. C. Punsola, editor of "M" [3]
  • "Sitting in the midst of Rockefeller Center, Puppy is like a new Statue of Liberty; it receives and redeems. People love it." Jerry Saltz. Village Voice. - [4]
Clearly "Puppy" is recognized as a major work. It does not define Koon's career. It may not even be his most notable work, but it is undeniably notable. We are collaborating on a Wiki, not publishing the last word. If you think the proportion of coverage given to Puppy is unbalanced, then the correct course of action is to contribute more information on other aspects of his career, not to delete content that is absolutely in line with WP's policies about encyclopedic and verifiable content. Dystopos 20:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)



  • It was never my intention to teach Remedial Art History or Introduction to Debate, but here it is goes:

I am truly amazed that you have the intellectual effrontery to bolster your argument with a fluffy comment about Koons by the president of the New York Public Art Fund – that was your best source? You’ve got to be kidding me! What did you expect her to say? And such an unbiased opinion – a gooey bit of praise from the very city bureaucrat who used public funds to bring the artwork into New York so local merchants can scam money off of tourists.

HOMEWORK QUESTION #1: What book has Susan K. Freedman ever written about art? I’m sure this brilliant scholar must have set the art world ablaze with her penetrating insights like the one you quoted. Please do share your findings.


Who exactly was that other guy whose sage opinion on “Puppy” you so liberally cited and why is he on a mission to butcher the English language beyond all recognition? In case you didn’t notice, J.C. Punsola is just a teaching paraprofessional at the University of Barcelona, which means he spends his days making copies and fetching coffee for the department professors.

HOMEWORK QUESTION #2: Who or what is the “M” art magazine that this joker claims to be the “Chief Editor” of – I’ll give you a genuine VeniceBruin Gold Star if you can find even a single issue of it anywhere. In fact I’ll even make your job easier by doing the Google search for you http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=m+magazine+art (don’t get your hopes up by hit #5 – that other “M” Magazine happens to be a gossip rag for teenage girls).


If you want real credibility when discussing Koons or any other artist for that matter, then cite some scholarly work by serious art historians to back up your claims and not some paid shill with a local tourist industry agenda to support or a Spanish grad student attempting to get back at the English for occupying Gibraltar by destroying their language.

And rather than pop off with some half-baked Wiki submission guidelines as a subterfuge to avoid real debate, how about addressing all the issues I raised? Everything you stated in your above reply was strictly your very own subjective OPINION and not an established or verifiable fact (after all, isn’t that what Wiki is supposed to promote?).

HOMEWORK QUESTION #3: Try to find something a little more substantial than flimsy non-art scholars and paid industry shills to support your positions when replying to my original criticism. --VeniceBruin 00:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


p.s., I sincerely don’t mean to offend, but I truly despise intellectual laziness. Just give me well thought out and supportable debate and I’ll promise to give you all the respect that it merits.--VeniceBruin 00:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


It takes a certain type of intellectual laziness to deride other's contributions in language that borders on an ad hominem attack, and place the onus on others to justify their additions or else... OUT THEY GO! Listen—Wikipedia isn't about debate. If you want that, there are tons of newsgroups eager to welcome you. It's about working together. Takes more discipline to make an article better by adding to it than by unilaterally stripping out someone's efforts. I think the article would be improved with a section about Koons' major works, and perhaps even a minor work such as a 4-story Puppy-shrub.—Parker Whittle 00:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you need a road map. We're in the TALK page of Wiki and not in the main article. I'm truly sorry if debating an issue frightens you but isn't that how truths are revealed? --VeniceBruin 00:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle. I knew exactly what page we were on. The presence of a discussion page isn't an excuse to pick fights. Besides, there are far more profound issues with which one can waste one's time. It's all too easy to pat one's self on the back, thinking that one is improving the Wikipedia by culling the contributions made by others. The greater challenge is to make substantive improvements by adding to the contributions of others. That way, everybody wins, everybody is happy. It's okay with you if other people are happy, isn't it?—Parker Whittle 00:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the goal of Wiki simply to add or to be objective and informative? Isn’t it better edit out what is deceptive or misleading rather than keep it in for quantity’s sake?--VeniceBruin 00:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • 1. Only one of us has brought ANY verifiable sources, of whatever pedigree, to bear on the question at hand. I will be amused to see which of your esteemed historians and fellow master debaters support the idea that "puppy" is a lesser, non-notable achievement in Koon's career.
  • 2. If you are honestly not trying to offend, but feel compelled because you despise laziness, then I can think of something more constructive for you than assigning insulting "homework" to your fellow editors: Expand the article with your deep knowledge of art history so that my trivial material about "Puppy" survives as a mere footnote to a much improved article.
  • 3. If you will kindly point me to Mr. Koon's most notable pieces - the ones that outshine the relative insignificance of "Puppy" - then I will try to add some material about those. You may, because of your superior intellect and familiarity with reliable sources, find that you are frustrated with my lack of progress in achieving the correct balance. Again, you are invited to find ways of contributing that do not remove verifiable content created in good faith by your fellow Wikipedians.
  • 4. I will continue to revert your deletion because your sole argument, that the subject is trivial, is wrong. There is nothing deceptive or misleading in the section you removed except, perhaps, the unsupported inference that the number of words it has in the article is a direct measure of its importance. If you wish to continue with that argument, present your case without resorting to attacking me. The prohibition against personal attacks is among Wikipedia's more fully-baked policies.
  • 5. There is really nothing more to say on the subject. I will no longer respond to attacks. I will be pleased to consider any non-original evidence that discredits the facts covered in the section. Dystopos 02:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


      • Let me summarize what you just wrote: “Your deletion of my paragraph is wrong solely because I say so, regardless of its admittedly weak context and inappropriateness. I will keep stubbornly resubmitting the same deceptive and misleading paragraph ad infinitum because I refuse to do any serious research on this matter myself since it may actually refute what I had written. I don't actually know much about Koons art or even how to look up information about him but for some reason these little factoids didn't preclude me from writing about him on Wiki in the first place. I will rely on you and others in the future to write a comprehensive treatise on Koons oeuvre that will hopefully engulf my cherished paragraph until it finally attains the level of obscurity that it currently deserves. If you should ever disagree with me again I will tell Wikipedia that you are personally attacking me and they will deal with you to the fullest extent of the law.”


LOL! Okay, you win –- keep your paragraph with my blessings! Not many people can get a laugh out of a cranky old attorney like me the way you just did with your “Puppy” fetish. Please don’t ever delete a word of your post – this is without a doubt the funniest tap dance around an issue that I’ve ever witnessed on Wiki. Congratulations & well done! --VeniceBruin 03:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Outside comment

Wow. People sure are passionate about their kitschy art, aren't they? Reminds me of a recent debate I commented on in the Darth Vader article. Fans are fans wherever you go, I suppose. VeniceBruin, I really do think it wouldn't hurt you to tone down your rhetoric a bit. Aesthetics is hardly a matter of objective truth.

Executive Summary: I think you're both right.

First, it seems unnecessary to remove the paragraph. I find it, at the very least, amusingly informative. Secondly, it seems to focus, inappropriately, on just one of his works (it is, after all, a short article). Rather than continue this back-and-forth revert war, why not each of you insert a paragraph describing one of major works in similar detail? Problem solved!

BTW – VeniceBruin makes reference to some other page where Koons' work is discussed. I didn't see any such page referenced in the article. Did I miss it?—Parker Whittle 23:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

PWhittle, You’re correct, there is no reference to Jeff Koons “Puppy” to be found anywhere on the website link I provided which was precisely my point. Dystopos claimed that Puppy was a “major landmark” in Bilbao, Spain – the Town Council of Bilbao doesn’t seem to share his POV as indicated by their own tourism website.--VeniceBruin 00:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You read me wrong. You mentioned a page for discussing Koons' work. Is there such a page on Wikipedia? If not, is there a prohibition to discussing an artists' works in a separate section on the Wikipedia article for that artist?—Parker Whittle 00:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


My bad. The page I was referring to above, where discussion of the artists work should take place is this very one and not in the main article. My problem with the aforementioned gentleman's submission is that he is writing a puff paragraph about one of Koons lesser known works and then padding it out with trivialities. Let's face it, Koons is best known or infamous (by his own choice) for his most controversial works of which “Puppy” most certainly isn’t one of them.--VeniceBruin 00:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a fine argument. Personally, I don't much care for Koons' work, but I wouldn't see anything that would qualify as "puff" in the paragraph about the canus flora major. In short, the paragraph is informative, and encyclopedic. However, the article's too short for it. Rather than deleting it, add a new section, "Works," or something like that, with a paragraph on each of Koons' major works. Then, go ahead and let our other erstwhile editor add the paragraph about "Puppy".—Parker Whittle 00:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


I would have less of a problem with the paragraph (or at least half of it) IF it were part of a much, much longer section on Koons art in general. Throwing in a paragraph that is nearly a third as long as the entire article itself radically distorts the relative importance of that artwork and consequently makes the entire biographical entry very misleading.--VeniceBruin 00:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Given your level of interest in the subject, I think it would be great if you were to start it. Good luck to both of you!—Parker Whittle 00:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion. Koons undoubtedly deserves a much longer article. Unfortunately, as an intellectually lazy non-scholar I am ill-qualified to be of much use. If the other contributors will assist me by providing links to writing about Koons's more important work, I will do what little I can. In the meantime, I will also preserve the section at issue, which I believe is mischaracterized as a "puff piece". Dystopos 02:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] COMPLETE REVISION 30 AUGUST 2005

I read the article and the discussion page. I rewrote the whole thing. I have incorporated all points of view but in a balanced context. Previously there was a distinct partisan (anti Koons) stance. Whether one is for or against Koons is irrelevant. Wiki is here to provide a NPOV on Koons' place in the (art) world. I trust it will be acceptable that I have removed the POV tag, as otherwise it would appear to apply to my article. It did not take that much research to compile a much more thorough biog, and it struck me that if all the energy that went into the discussion page clash had gone into contributing to the article - well, it would have saved me the work for one thing. I think there is an important lesson to be learnt here, if you'll excuse the preaching - it is better to expend ones efforts making it right rather than in dispute over what is wrong. Peace. And knowledge. 212.159.74.44

  • Nice job. There are still some broad opinions in there, but I guess it's almost impossible to discuss a contemporary and controversial artist without reference to diverse possibilities of interpretation. Your lesson by example is valuable. I hope you'll create an account and continue contributing. (FYI, you can sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post.) Dystopos 01:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've just discovered the tildes! I can't see any way of addressing Koons' position (at least for the purposes of Wikipedia) other than representing the spectrum of responses to his work. That seems to me to be the unavoidable NPOV. I would be quite happy to provide a POV, but that is obviously going to start an edit war (again). The reader now has an overview of Koons. I will be continuing as you suggest.

212.159.74.44 14:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag removed

I have removed the POV tag, as there is no justification or explanation given on this page for placing it in the article section, nor can I see any obvious POV in that section, as it gives a balanced report on the different views of Koons' work that exist. Please note that POV refers to the Wiki editor's POV, not to the sources quoted. In other words, it is not the Wiki editor's job to assess outside commentators' for their objectivity: that is up to them. It is the Wiki editor's job to give a balanced survey of them. Tyrenius 02:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koons as "idea guy"?

Hi! Long ago I was chatting with a film critic pal who mentioned Koons as an example of a newer sort of artist: one whose contribution is the idea, getting other people to do the actual sculpting. This came to mind again when I was reading an short article on Koons[5], but I don't see any mention of that here. Is something like that worth including? William Pietri 15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is very relevant and should be included. It was common in Renaissance art. Mark Kostabi was criticized by having works produced by subordinates.--Gkklein 06:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the photo??

What happened to the photo??--Gkklein 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It got removed from Commons or Wikipedia, no doubt due to copyright violations. Will remove code from article --Dogears 19:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characterization Of Koons's Work

"The crucial point of Koons is to reject an alleged hidden meaning of a work of art. The meaning is only what you perceive at the first glance, there is no gap between what the work is in itself and what is perceived."

From Koons's own comments this is not correct. He argued (for example in the Taschen book of his work from the 1990s) that the posters of basketball stars were about social mobility, that the alcohol adverts were about class, and that the equilibrium tanks were a counterpoint to the basketball posters. There is also the personal content of "Celebration", which puts the work in a very different light if you know that he was denied access to his son while making that series.

Koons is difficult to categorize. He was lumped in with the Neo Geo artists for no good reason, he isn't a Simulationist, and Late Pop doesn't really do him justice. He's probably a Neoconceptualist in the current scheme of things. You can make a strong case for him being Warhol's heir, but he identifies himself as being more conceptual than Warhol.

I'll rework this section if that's OK.

Rob Myers 12:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)