Archives for February 2020

During my time at Abington, as a requirement for the art major, I have taken at least 3 art history courses. It is expected that you will look at a multitude of works from across the world and throughout history. Depending on the specific subject of the class you will see different works that influenced or reflected that time. Even I can understand that there is something to be learned from these works of art whether it represents a message or lesson that words don’t translate as well or just a lesson in history. However, knowing that a work of art is important and trying to be inspired looking at some painting from hundreds of year ago while sitting 30 feet away from a dull projector is still a difficult task for me. Also I think many art majors can agree there is a small amount of B.S. that goes into art critiques and discussions about works, especially in an art history class. A lot of times it can be tough to view the world through the eyes of a long since dead artist who lived in a completely different world compared to ours. The process usually starts with silence from the class until the teacher gives some insight on the painting, artist, or time during which it was created. Even though it can be boring in a classroom the process of analyzing works while at Abington has actually made a difference in how I approach works of art knowing there is an idea to be pulled from every work. It can even be a fun challenge to try and extract these ideas, albeit stressful when there isn’t a professor to guide the discussion. So with a more in-depth understanding of how to analyze art I could go back to the Philadelphia Museum of Art for the first time since being in college and not just look at work on a surface level. I still have a hard time forcing myself to stop every work and try to understand it. Instead I walked through like it was a department store and I would browse until I found works that compelled me to take a second look.

Jeff Koon’s is a sculpture artist who causes a lot of friction in the art world for his controversial artwork. Most of his artwork would fall under kitsch because it doesn’t create any deep thought while analyzing it, any conversation around his work usually revolves around the head scratching question of how he makes millions of dollars from his art. Even worse is his Made in Heaven collection which has pieces that are basically pornography. The only reason I wouldn’t say it is porn is because his pieces are made by hand and it isn’t just photographs and videos, but it still has a shallow meaning. I think any one with half a mind and a simple background in art can ascertain that Jeff Koon’s artwork is very shallow. It lacks any sense of what makes art important. It doesn’t tell an important story, or give some unique perspective of the world. It looks very cool and that’s about as deep as his art is.

Plato and Aristotle are two Ancient Greek philosophers who wrote about art and its place in society. They both accepted art as an imitation of the real world, however had divergent thought on its value in society. I believe they would both have a tough time accepting Koon’s art.

Plato didn’t like the idea of realism in art since it is removed thrice from the ideal image. 1) the ideal image created in the mind, 2)the actual creation of the object, 3) the recreation of the image through. In Plato’s ideal world art “must be subjected to critical scrutiny” (Barrett p.24) before we allow into the world since it has an impact on us and can effect us psychologically. That being said I believe Koon’s art is basic and doesn’t have a negative theme or topic, if it has one at all, so there’s a chance it would be accepted in this ideal world. You have to look past the centuries of difference between the two artist, and one quote made me realize Plato would accept Koon’s cookie cutter creations, “There are correct values, to which works of art are subservient, and it is not the role of the artist to invent, critique, or alter them” (Barrett p.24). It is very possible Koon’s work could be shown in some children’s museum for beauty appreciation as Plato suggested.

Aristotle however valued art much more as a representation. Believing the representation of art is positive and is an outlet, “Aristotle, however, disagrees and argues that such experience are good because they offer us vicarious satisfactions of our own antisocial tendencies and make us less likely to act out what we experience in art” (Barrett p.25). Aristotle’s less exclusive view on art may seem more accommodating to Koon’s work yet I would disagree. Aristotle was focused on the beauty of art and the ways it can enrich our lives. That being said I don’t think much of Koon’s work displays innate beauty. Maybe you could make a case for the beauty in the perfection of some his works like the metal balloon dogs, however, the Greek idea of beauty doesn’t seem to account for perfection since it is not natural.

Citations:

Barrett, Terry. Why Is That Art?: Aesthetics and Criticism of Contemporary Art. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Realism like many other forms of art is not a single consistent definition or criteria. It has various loose guidelines such as, the work must easily identify as the object it portrays. Jeff Koon’s work seems to barely scrape any one of these guidelines at a time. For example the Puppy is a clear representation of a dog, but does that mean it falls under realism? I don’t even think it falls under art. Koon’s work may be representational but it does not cause a unique or different reaction from that of the natural version of his artwork. Then he also has his ‘artwork’ which should be considered porn.

The chapter explains what realism is and offers two varying views on realism and art by Plato and Aristotle. Both great thinkers accepted art as a representation of what is real and accept that art is not 100%. However they differ on the value of art. Plato believed art is too far removed from reality and does not serve a completely positive and useful purpose. While Aristotle believed the value in art is the representation of what is natural and the inherent change caused by recreation is the point of art.

Obscenity is and always will be a part of art. It can be useful at times to expand the minds of people and through generations of art the world has become much less offended to much worse obscenity. When viewing Jeff Koon’s art I am far from offended. Some of his work falls into the casual idea of obscene like nudity and sex. However in his other collections he seems to reinvent the idea of what obscene is. Creating images that are disturbing to look at through layering random unrelated objects with a sexual connotation. The images such as “Hot Dog” in his EasyFun Etheral collection are similarly disturbing to Hieronymus Bosch’s work.