Jeff Koons
Art as rebellion from the status quo helps us see what is really important.
I recently read Herbert Marcuse’s critique on Karl Marx’s economic takes, and I am pleased to share the snippets that I took from it. Marcuse was a prominent Marxist, and used Marx’s economic theories to come to a better understanding of art’s role in society — what it is and why we are compelled to make it.
Now let’s jump right into the meat and potatoes. Marcuse said contemporary art — think Rothko, Pollock, Koons (especially Koons, you’ll see why) — has influential capabilities beyond just entertainment factor.
He claims that art. is. DESTABILIZING. And destabilizing in the cognitive sense — that it promotes a sort of…“thought rebellion”.
When I look at art, I have an automatic reaction. I compartmentalize it — its either good, or bad. Traditional, or modern. Meaningful or meaningless. And I have notions of aesthetic beauty too — what is “pretty” or “ugly”. But Marcuse says the best art — the art that is the most destabilizing — is that which destroys these compartments. Like how I am trying to unlearn my self sabotaging thought patterns goddamit. Art that makes you rethink aesthetic beauty, taste, and most importantly — the institutions that instill these ideologies. Art is rebellious. A contrarian. A naysayer. Ay caramba!
Lets take a good look at the Top Dog when it comes to rebellious art. Jeff Koons.
Jeff Koons’ Balloon Venus Hohlen Fels (Magenta) (2013 - 2019)
“I love the gallery, the arena of representation. It’s a commercial world, and morality is based generally around economics, and that’s taking place in the art gallery.”
Jeff Koons Play-Doh (1994 - 2014)
Marcuse said that art is rebellious because it encourages the “emancipation of sensibility”. And boy do I love this. Marcuse theorized that people, under capitalism (here we go again, talking capitalism!), are wired to look at material things, each other, and even ourselves, through a self-indulgent lens. What can I do with this? How does this benefit me? What is this worth? What does this produce? Both Marucse and Marx claim that society is structured under an oppressive capitalist order, which, one can argue is a product of basic human instincts towards survival. Nonetheless, it promotes the “sensibility” he is talking about here — that to be sensible means to engage in activities that progress the self in some way. And this “sensibility” represents a larger social order, one of the pursuit of progress and a sort of utilitarian rationality.
And because art is inherently non-functional — you cannot use it to produce something or to get anywhere with it — Marcuse says it promotes a cathartic experience. He says it frees us from a Hedonistic mindest wired for gratification to a disinterestedness relation to the piece. A sort of cognitive purification, it encourages a sensory experience debased of any alterior motive — one of pure detachment of desire, functionality and gain. And Marcuse says this is the destabilizing power of art, to throw us off our utilitarian habits and liberates us from the structure of society. This challenge to the status quo promotes an existential relief — uselessness as freedom rather than failure. Chew on that.
It explains why people are drawn to art, and why we create it, despite its non-functionality in a functional-based world. It goes beyond our instincts toward progression, and taps into the more sensual faculties we possess. I mentioned before that it ultimately encourages the disinterestedness in the art. I delve into that a little more here.
“Art is committed to that perception of the world which alienates individuals from their functional existence and performance in society”
Whether or not you agree with this is up to you. You do make the rules anyway.
Now lets talk Koons. Least be said, he’s well…controversial. Taking a look at some of his most porminent works: Balloon Venus Hohlen Fels (Magenta) and Play-Doh, I urge you to come to your own conclusions about it. Would you say it is aesthetically pleasing? What would Marcuse think of it? What do you think of Play-Dohs $20 million valuation?
Lets tease this out. Arguably, Koons’ works are kitschy, ironic, absurd — and yet he is highly acclaimed as a “capital-A” artist in a community that is typically regarded as high-brow, elegant and serious. This dissonance between what people believe art should be, versus what it empirically is has a sort of dissillutionment feel. It is confusing, and with its incomprehensibility comes major, major, major scrutiny. And it totally makes sense — his juvenile (one might say) pieces feel like they are mocking the viewer. I mean he is basically laughing in our faces that he makes a giant plop of Play-Doh, a traditionally childrens toy, and sells it for millions.
Koons destabilizes typical notions of what defines art, challenging our instinctual notions and exposing the ways in which they cloud our worldview. In this regard, he is according to Marcuse, freeing our sensibilities, despite its displeasing feeling. I mean, a feeling is a feeling nonetheless, good or bad.
I kind of think of his controversy as a sort of growing pain — we are not yet grown used to his works. And isnt that what contemporary art wants to do? So does that make him, a professional? (Am I convincing you?)
“I love the gallery, the arena of representation. It’s a commercial world and morality is based generally around economics, and that is taking place in the gallery.”
Ahhh the “arena of representation”. I just love that. Because that’s all it is. His art cannot be taken literally, because if they were, he would be a nothing. At face value, his pieces are worth the cost of its raw materials (you can argue this for all art). But what they represent — an emancipation — one can argue that this is priceless. That its true value is not even tied to such a material thing as money. Is this a little too woowoo? Well we are living in a world of late-stage capitalism, so just look around. Pretty much everything we put value on, if you look a little closer, is utter woo-fuckin-woo.
So yeah.
Now, I want to ask the question. Do you think this is the whole picture? Are you convinced that his Play-Doh sculpture sold for $20 million because of some sort of capitalism-fueled catharsis? This is a rhetorical question, because for me, I doubt it.
Here we come to Marcuse’s more compelling point — the one I personally perscribe to. He says that good art defies institutional norms. And he suggests in his essay Aesthetic Dimension that art evolves in such a way that it continues to shock the audience, redefining what constitutes “art”. Koons’ works are shocking insofar that they defies moral, economic and aesthetic norms. Let’s tease this out.
How Koons defies moral norms:
It was around the 60’s, when Andy Warhol started growing on the scene, that the art world transformed completely. It was a cultural shift — art become centered around the artist. And it became something of celebrity culture. The value of art seperated from the work itself and became dependent on who the artist was. This was a huge moment! It is such an opaque representation of the shift in society’s ideologies moving away from inherent value, and seeking a more conceptual value. I could geek out on this. And I do! Click here my sisters. Anyway, I would say this was the start of a very polarizing debate on the ethics of art — mostly because artists were selling Brillo Boxes for millions (no hate, all love actually). But during a time when a quarter of the population was living under the poverty line, is it fair to start asking the questions of if this was fair or exploitation. (I talk about this here here here!).
And so Koons is sort of like Warhol — he sells his massive silly looking sculptures in a way that he is almost laughing in the public’s faces. Like yeah I make giant balloon dog figures, and yeah I’m gonna sell it for more than your life is worth. I mean, his moral/ethical controversy is well founded. Again, is his profit fair, or exploitation?
Back to his quote from above, he says its a commercial world and morality is based on economics. The way I see this, is that Koons recognizes that art is increasingly commodified, bought and sold at a market price. Something that, in a moralistically pure world, should not have any monetary value attached to it. Koons is, in a way, saying don’t hate the player, hate the game. Take a good, long, gluttinous stare at the game. The game, is the way we attach a dollar sign number to things to define how much its worth, in a world that cannot be boiled down to such a simplistic metric. Art is an example of this refusal to be compartmentalized into a price bracket, and yet here we are, doing exactly that. We just can’t help ourselves.
So in the same way we regard Warhol as a pivitol figure in art’s history, we will regard Koons. At the time of Warhol, he was also not received lightly. He was cntroversial and hated. Because the two are doing the same thing, they are reinventing the art world. And within a society that does not like change, this recieved backlash. We just arent used to Koons yet, we havent understood the point yet.
Frankly, I have no strong opinion on Koons. But I think that objectively, he destabilizes the art owrld, makes you angry, makes you think, argue, rationalize, judge, feel inferior then superior then inferior again, makes you bargain with yourself on yourself…andultimately, that is what great art does. shrug.
