Barrett, Terry. Why Is That Art? Aesthetics and Criticism of Contemporary Art. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Page 27 Koons On His Own Work:
“Koons openly acknowledges his desire for commercial success. He was a highly successful commodities trader on Wall Street, and his monetary gains allowed him to invest in the making of his own art. He promoted himself and his art in full-page ads in art magazines such as Artforum and Art in America, marketing himself in ways similar to executives in Hollywood and on Madison Avenue: ‘I want to be as big an art star as possible. I like the idea of my work selling for a lot of money.’ He compares himself to the Beatles: ‘I’ve made what the Beatles would have made if they had made sculpture. Nobody ever said that the Beatles’ music was not on a high level, but it appealed to a mass audience. That’s what I want to do.’
In response to accusations of cynicism leveled at his work by its critics, Koons adamantly denies any intentional irony in his work, and wishes that it be taken straightforwardly as celebrations of what it depicts. He thinks that Puppy, for instance, ‘is about love’ because for him it is a ‘totally generous piece; it doesn’t segregate.’ He believes that artists can create icons that can ‘reflect the needs of the people, not only in our time, but that they’re chameleon enough to reflect the needs of the people in the future, whatever their needs may be.’
Koons contrasts the liberatory images and sculptures in his ‘Made in Heaven’ series to Masaccio’s Expulsion from the Garden of Eden, an early Renaissance painting in the Brancacci Chapel in Florence, a painting Koons sees as paradigmatic of suffering and guilt about sex. Koons refutes notions that his works are pornographic: ‘Pornography is alienation. My work has absolutely no vocabulary in alienation. It’s about using sexuality as a tool to communicate.’ Koons intends for ‘Made in Heaven’ to relieve people of guilt and shame. He intends his works to be uplifting.’"
Page 27 Kitsch:
“Gordon Bearn, a contemporary aesthetician, provides examples of kitsch current today:
*Hummel figurines
*Paintings on black velvet of a tearful clown or a beatific Elvis Presley
*Muzak
*Eiffel tower pepper grinders
*Ice cubes shaped like breasts
*Peek-a-boo anything
*Paintings of mournful waifs with the outsized eyes made familiar by Margaret or Walter Keane
*Walt Disney Tudoroid or Bavarioid architecture
*Heart-shaped grave stones
*Plates adorned with cute fluffy kittens
*Some critics provocatively include among examples of kitsch the paintings of Adolphe-William Bouguereau, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Andrew Wyeth, Norman Rockwell, the poetry of Robinson Jeffers; some go so far as to proclaim Richard Wagner and Salvador Dali ‘masters’ of kitsch.”
Page 29 Kitsch continued:
“Bearn identifies the philosophical problem of kitsch this way: ‘What does the kitschiness of kitsch consist of?’ Kitschiness is thought to have ‘trashiness,’ but if it does, its trashiness is not due to lack of technical competence in the production of kitsch: Note, for example, the careful skills exemplified in the kitschiest of objects made by Koons. Critics of kitsch generally agree that kitsch and art are significantly difference in quality: Kitsch, in opposition to art, is argued to be nongenuine and inauthentic. Bearn thinks the concept of kitsch is important because by identifying what it is, we can come to a clearer understanding of what art is.”
“More recently, Milan Kundera, in his novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being, writes forcefully about the lies of kitsch: ‘Kitsch is the absolute denial of shit, in both the literal and the figurative senses of the word; kitsch excludes everything from its purview which is essentially unacceptable in human existence.’ Kundera comes to this conclusion, in part, from a theological position. For him, ‘Shit is a more onerous theological problem than evil.’ He argues that since, in Christian anthropology, God invented man in His image, either God has intestines or man is not like Him. Kundera cites the Gnostics’ solution to the ‘damnable dilemma’ when in the second century Valentinus claimed that Jesus ‘ate and drank but did not defecate.’ Kundera continues:
‘Since God gave man freedom, He is not responsible for man’s crimes. The responsibility for shit, however, rests entirely with Him, the Creator of man…The daily defecation session is daily proof of the unacceptability of Creation. Either/or: either shit is acceptable (in which case don’t lock yourself in the bathroom!) or we are created in an unacceptable manner. It follows, then, that the aesthetic ideal of the categorical agreement with being is a world in which shit is denied and everyone acts as though it did not exist. This aesthetic ideal is called kitsch.’”
“In Bearn’s conclusion about Kundera’s and others’ objections to kitsch, kitsch is harmful because by denying anything that is difficult, kitsch purveys pleasurably sanitized and deceitful representations of the world. Based on what we have of Plato’s writings, it is likely that he would agree with much of the criticism leveled at kitsch, especially its appeal to emotion, general neglect of intellect, and distorted representations."
No comments:
Post a Comment