FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Laurie on November 05, 2007, 08:11:50 AM
-
I really want one of those Louis Vuitton/Murakami Neverfull totes (in small/PM size) that are only available at MOCA. I also want the coin purse. I'm not a fan of eBay or paying a $500 mark-up via eBay. Pleeeeeeeeease PM me, and we'll figure out something via Paypal or Western Union or whatever you like.
I have the exact prices of both of the items -- I just have to figure out the CA sales tax and the price of admission to MOCA.
If you help me with this transaction, I will be the happiest girl ever.
-
If I had $860 to spare, I would get an electric meat grinder to make preparing my beasts' food easier, a new kingsize cotton comforter cover to replace the one the boxer destroyed this summer, and some insurance on my house. Any surplus could go toward my property taxes.
-
Sarah, don't forget the tiny coin purse. That goes for $270.
-
Woo hoo! My Internet connection for three-quarters of a year! Or maybe for only eight months plus some socks!
-
Come on. I'll do a double mouse pledge again or maybe even a mouse of tomorrow pledge next year. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaase. I need that purse.
-
Laurie, I'd been planning to check out that exhibition--possibly this Saturday. PM or email me and we can work it out.
:)
-
Laurie, I'd been planning to check out that exhibition--possibly this Saturday. PM or email me and we can work it out.
:)
Yay, I love you!! I'll PM you later tonight.
-
I would offer to go get it for you, as I have a membership and could get in free, and I've seen the show and didn't hate it as much as I thought I would, but I never made it up to the store in there and that whole concept offends me on so many different levels that I'm basically ethically opposed to anyone owning any of those attrocious bags.
-
Uh oh. Am I a bad person for offering to help?
-
that whole concept offends me on so many different levels that I'm basically ethically opposed to anyone owning any of those atrocious bags.
Uh oh, I'm falling in love again.
-
I'm just a crank. But seriously, look at this thing.
(http://www.petmansion.com/bags/lvbags48-1b.JPG)
...unless that's a fake. In which case, feel free to buy it.
-
I think it's cute. Also, you're cranky.
-
When you get tired of it, you can just toss it over the side of Faather's Yach-t.
-
I'm assuming it's the commercialism that bothers you, John. I can definitely see how the idea of a pop-up store in the middle of a museum is offensive. I agree, it detracts from the art itself. It's not the same as your standard gift shop, is it? Still, I love the Murakami/Marc Jacob colloboration, and I fucking want that bag.
I've been collecting little Japanese toys for about a decade, and that's how I learned about Murakami in the first place. I'm a big fan of serial art in general. I like the idea that just about anyone can own a little piece or art (or several) for under $100 (in most cases, under $50 or under $10 if we're talking about miniatures). Granted, these colloborations between pop artists and fashion houses are much more luxe and considerably more expensive, but I think it's on the same level.
I've always viewed fashion as a form of art, so I find the LV collaboration more palatable than maybe an artist would. I mean, look at Alberta Ferretti's Spring 2008 collection for Philosophy. The prints were largely inspired by Louise Bourgeois, and the entire collection was beautiful. And then there's Richard Prince's collaboration with Marc Jacobs for Louis Vuitton. I can take or leave Richard Prince. Actually, no, I think I'd rather leave Richard Prince. But, hey, I'll admit that the clothes were beautiful. The bags, eh, I wasn't so hot on those, except for the little Spongebob Squarepants bag Marc Jacobs came out with at the end. Super-cute.
John, can I ask how do you feel about Kidrobot stuff? Do you think it's just as bad?
-
Okay, I'll try and suss this out. I went to the Murakami opening (NOT the one with Kanye West, mind you) and was actually more interested in things than I thought I would be. Six years ago I thought Murakami was the shit, but then a few years later I went to a show of his paintings and was a little distressed at the completely air-tight production methods used to create his paintings, which made his paintings seem like toys. I understand that he has this "superflat" concept, but to me it just seems like he's trying to have it every which way possible. There is no reason for a painting to exist if it looks like a gigantic seemless screenprint. It's sort of an inversion of Andy Warhol. He uses high tech methods to design these paintings, and an army of animation-cell-type-painters to execute them, and they are utterly flawless paintings except for the fact that (aside from some admittedly very savvy use of scale) there is no reason to actually see them in person. I guess the aspect of this that seems slightly dubious in my opinion is that they are still hand-painted, and therefore demand immense sums of money.
I'm not really a sculptor, so I don't appreciate sculptures to the same degree. So, ironically, I tend to think his sculptures are more interesting because they look like gigantic toys; however I'm mainly interested in the work he's made with human figures (like the guy making a lasso out of sperm, or the woman with the huge tits playing jumprope with her breast milk --which are fascinating and dirty and ballsy). I don't understand his whole personal mythology and i"m not about to invest in it because it just seems like blue-chip anime/manga stuff that I'm not that into. Some of his new sculptures are very impressive and pretty awesome. All of the non-LV work in the show would be great to go see on a date where one could drop references to anime, japanese screen painting, buddhism, walt disney, andy warhol, etc. The one LV-specific painting I saw was terrible.
I may just have an irrational beef with L.V. because it seems to be everywhere. Vanessa Beecroft is a particularly odious artist, in my opinion, and I recently came across a terrible book that she made in collaboration with Louis Vuitton. The bags all look cheap and tacky to me, even though they are extremely expensive. It seems like some kind of twisted joke, and on second thought, it probably is. It's almost like he's deliberately designing the ugliest things imaginable to test how well his branding exercise is going. It remains a mystery to me, Laurie, why you would so vehemently dislike Damian Hirst and say that he is full of shit, and yet celebrate this nonsense.
As for Kidrobot, in general I'm not really a fan of any toy-as-sculpture stuff (and yet for some reason I enjoy giant-sculptures-that-look-like-toys I guess), but not philosophically, just aesthetically. Having said that, some of that stuff is cool, and some of it not so much. In general I'm more in favor of spending a couple hundred bucks on a non-established artists drawings/paintings/sculptures than on a luxury multiple handbag or vinyl figurine or whatnot. I'm not against this stuff on principal, I just can never bring myself to think they're worth buying. Like I always covet those Yoshimoto Nara dog-in-a-teacup things, and sometimes seriously consider getting one, but then it just seems so decadent, even if it is cheaper than any "real" Nara painting would ever be. I actually think Murakami has designed a lot of cool merch and toys (all of which are on display at the show), but I actually think, just in terms of cartooning, composition, color, etc., he's a little too intellectual and cold. His main genius is business. If he was selling $50 backpacks at the gift shop I'd be all about it (incidentally, there is the regular MOCA gift shop open in addition to the LV store in this exhibit---thus making the LV merch "art". This is another thing that irritates me, the insistence that all this is somehow a critique or an ingenious play on the relationship with art and commerce. Or that creating and exploiting it to its fullest this relationship somehow makes Murakami more interesting and not just more rich). I think I could keep going on, but that's enough for now. Where's Richard from Chi????*
*changing diapers I guess.
-
that whole concept offends me on so many different levels that I'm basically ethically opposed to anyone owning any of those atrocious bags.
Uh oh, I'm falling in love again.
Attrocious to atrocious - even as she falls in love she can't resist.
-
And that, sir, is why I'm single.
P.S. I find that bag to be horribly ugly, but that's not the point; spending that much money on even the most beautiful handbag in the world would still offend my radical puritan soul, and the idea of having a store as part of an art exhibit makes me very, very sad.
Ironic, ain't it, that I'm rewriting a bio of Armani right now?
-
here's some real art.
http://www.lapdonline.org/sculptures
these are all different sculptures that the LAPD stole.
-
Wah, now I feel bad about my egghead rant. Mrs. Jarvis Cocker, shine on you crazy diamond-studded skull head.
-
Here's the primary difference between Murakami and Hirst. Murakami's art has a soul. Hirst's work doesn't have any soul. You know why? He doesn't have a soul. Damien Hirst is a soulless blowhard. It's true. He's a womanizing asshole and a horrible person in general, and he makes horrible art.
Both Hirst and Murakami have a small army producing art for them, sure. Murakami uses his assistances as hired hands. He has a vision of what he wants, he articulates it to his assistants, and they help him execute said vision. Hirst, however, simply uses his assistants. Those spin paintings? He produced five of them because he "couldn't be fucking arsed to do it." Five out of 300. Also, I produced probably about 40 on one of these things (http://www.amazon.com/Alex-Art-Spinner-Spin-Kit/dp/B0002Q2O9C) when I was 5.
-
I don't get it. where's the soul in this?:
(http://i.gagosian.com/files/524a9410.jpg)
as opposed to this?
(http://www.studio18.co.uk/shop/images/damien_hirst/Hhirst_BGE.jpg)
Seem like two sides of the same coin to me.
Hirst may be an asshole and a womanizer, but anyone who likes any art, music, or literature should not be judging the merit of work through the lens of its creator's private life. Also, I didn't mean to infer that having assistants creating work invalidates someone's art, cause I don't believe that at all.
-
I don't get it. where's the soul in this?:
[picture of a wonderful painting]
as opposed to this?
[picture of a horrible painting]
Is it a cop-out for me to say that art is subjective, and I simply like the first one because it makes me happy? I think there's a sweetness in his characters, even in the scary, fangy ones. I don't feel anything in particular when I look at a Hirst, not even anger at how stupid some of his shit is. It's just boring.
-
At least you guys haven't brought Jeff Koons into the fray yet. Talk about an asshole. (Zing!)
Oh, I crack myself up when I'm supposed to be doing work.
-
I lol'd, Susannah.
I honestly don't know much about Jeff Koons, but I think a lot of his work verges on the absurd. I really like his cutesy stuff, especially the silly dog and bunny sculptures. Does Koons even pretend that there's a deeper meaning behind his art, though? Because if he does, then he is also on my s-hit list.
Postscript: Actually, Koons is already on my s-hit list, if only because none of the pictures I've taken of myself having anal sex have ever gone to auction at Sotheby's or Christie's or wherever it was. And that's not fair, even if the aforemention pictures of myself performing lewd acts do not exist. I don't care to have "Koons anal sex auction" in my search history at work, so I can't tell you the ridiculous amount of money some crazy rich person paid for a picture of Koons anally penetrating his young girlfriend.
-
Allow me:
http://artnews.com/anniversary/top10.asp
http://www.thecityreview.com/f00ccon1.html
http://detroitarts.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_archive.html
I'm not at Rutgers today in case anyone's curious.
-
What I'm sayin' is, all these guys are doing variations on Warhol. I do not think your "art is subjective" comment is a cop out.
That "young girlfriend" was Koons's wife, a member of Italian Parliament as well as a porn star at the time. He would talk about those pieces in grandiose terms, but his Pee-Wee-Herman-meets-Norman-Bates public persona leaves me wanting to give him a free pass. I actually think he's a good artist.
Speaking of absurd merchandise/art/co-branding:
http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/photography/reading_room/62.goat_a_tribute_to_muhammad_ali.1.htm
(http://www.taschen.com/media/images/320/default_goat_tribute_04_0706141200_id_44457.jpg)
How about a $4000 Taschen book about Muhammad Ali which includes a sculpture by Jeff Koons with a dolphin jumping over a tire?
-
I don't know much about art, but I know I don't like it. Art, that is.
http://www.thecityreview.com/f00ccon1.html
-
What I'm sayin' is, all these guys are doing variations on Warhol. I do not think your "art is subjective" comment is a cop out.
Oh, I definitely agree with you. I think Murakami is particularly Warholian, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
That "young girlfriend" was Koons's wife, a member of Italian Parliament as well as a porn star at the time.
They weren't married at the time that photograph was taken. Christ, I just looked her up on Ye Olde Wikipedia. She's older than Jeff Koons. How is that possible? She was 40 in 1991, when he did that "Red Butt" / "Red Doggy" series.
-
Postscript: Actually, Koons is already on my s-hit list, if only because none of the pictures I've taken of myself having anal sex have ever gone to auction at Sotheby's or Christie's or wherever it was.
Insert Secret Santa joke here.