Los Angelenos: HALP!

[buffcoat]

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.

[Sarah]

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? 

[Oogie]

here's some real art.

http://www.lapdonline.org/sculptures

these are all different sculptures that the LAPD stole.

[John Junk]

Wah, now I feel bad about my egghead rant.  Mrs. Jarvis Cocker, shine on you crazy diamond-studded skull head.

[Laurie]

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 when I was 5.

[John Junk]

I don't get it. where's the soul in this?:



as opposed to this?



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.

[Laurie]

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.

[Susannah]

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.

[Laurie]

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.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

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.

[John Junk]

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

How about a $4000 Taschen book about Muhammad Ali which includes a sculpture by Jeff Koons with a dolphin jumping over a tire?

[buffcoat]

I don't know much about art, but I know I don't like it.  Art, that is.




http://www.thecityreview.com/f00ccon1.html

[Laurie]

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.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

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.