Kooney Bin

I haven't blogged in about 99 years, but I just HAD to share this link at the NY Times about how Jeff Koons thinks he owns the balloon dog shape. Unfortunately, what Senor Koons seems to not get about being a pop artist is when you take ideas from our culture as common as a balloon animal or a can of soup you can't really claim you own them. And if someone else wants to make art, housewares, t-shirts, or balloon animals that look like your work you should probably not be a dick about it.

Who will he sue next? Everyone with a topiary shaped like an animal? Maybe only if they are calling it "art."

CHECK THE ARTICLE HERE

Dlisted talks about F***ARTs

One of my favorite blogs, Dlisted, makes art/fart jokes about Kim Kardashian starring in the art issue of W Magazine. I don't really need to add anything to THIS scathing commentary.

Sol LeWitt or Moderately Priced Furniture?

This category of comparison is proving to be one of endless possibilities.

Who stole the Klonopin from the Klonopin Jar?

Since no one can seem to stop talking about Damien Hirst this week (I think it was that "sharktank" article in the Times), I've decided to just go with it.  So here's yet another post about Mr. Hirst:

I was once at a student artshow where a young sculptor created a piece similar to these "medicine cabinets" of Hirst's. The artist laid out a variety of different prescription pills he or she collected from friends on top of a pedestal and tacked labels beneath each drug.  The piece was intended to be about the proliferation of psychotropic drugs, showing just how many powerful medications one could find within even a small group of close friends.  What made this work memorable, however, was that there was one pill missing.  There was an empty slot labelled "Klonopin," leading me to believe that some college student in attendance had stolen that particular pill.  The whole idea behind the work fell away, and with that one empty slot the piece became about 'who the hell stole that tranquilizer?'  The missing pill made the work the star of the show; everyone in attendance was laughing and whispering about it.  As my friends approached me I'd immediately ask, "Oh my god, did you see that someone stole the Klonopin?"

As I recount the experience, I wonder if the artist might have left the Klonopin off the work on purpose.  I guess we'll never know who stole the Klonopin, or if the whole thing was a set up, and that's what made the work interesting.

Jeff Koons or shitty Christmas gift?

My boyfriend likes to tell a story about the worst Christmas gift he ever got: a Chia Pet. All I can tell him is just to be glad he didn't get a Jeff Koons instead.

All that glitters is not worth $100 MIL...

Piggybacking off Allie's last post, I thought I'd give ya'll a side-by-side skull comparison. At left is Damien Hirst's "For the love of God, 2007"  valued at $100,000,000; at right is one of Pottery Barn's newest Halloween acessories "Glitter Skull" valued at $19.  Remind you of one of these shitty fashion magazine features entitled "Blow the rent, Pay the rent?"

OOOOO, Sparkles!!

I am not sure if I am a fan of Damien Hirst. Yes, I like most of his ideas, but I am so professionally offended by his art factory and general whoring it up that I have a hard time really appreciating his concepts. For the Love of God was no exception. I can really get behind the inspiration, which was reportedly his mother asking him something along the lines of, "well... what are you going to do now?" Of course, cover a skull with diamonds. Personally, I would have trained hamsters to perform The Rite of Spring but with a post apocalyptic twist (after three martinis, you would totally pay to see this).

The funny thing about this skull is that the idea has to be the artistic genius in this piece as Hirst in no way did this himself. Not that I would necessarily fault him for this as he is not a jeweler, however it is the flawless execution which is the real selling point of this piece. Seriously, if it wasn't flawless it wouldn't be creepy or nearly so emotive. Hearken back to the scandal with Spiritus Callidus #2 by John LeKay; the Pillsbury-esque crystal skulls which is the idea that Hirst allegedly ripped off. The reason why no one really bought into the concept stealing (no matter how likely it was the Hirst did take the idea) was that a professional jeweler doing an amazing job of faceting the skull took the concept to an original place. Bearing this controversy in mind, Hirst can in no way take credit or copyright of this sparkly skull idea otherwise he opens a can of worms all over himself. Well, this is where irony steps in. You can now own your own 'diamond encrusted skull' from Pottery Barn. I heart you karma.

Hey kid... You wanna buy a skull?: http://www.potterybarn.com/products/glitter-skull/?pkey=call-decorative-accents

Do you think it is a rip off?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_LeKay

Watch Out for Falling Artists

I think she should get an incomplete because she didn't die. Better yet, can she turn it into a series?

http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/08/25/girl-on-trial-for-making-bad-art/?icid=mainhtmlws-maindl5link3http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemondrop.com%2F2009%2F08%2F25%2Fgirl-on-trial-for-making-bad-art%2F

Seriously though, this is the type of bullshit that gives performance art and art in general a bad name. This same rational would make an episode of Punked the equivalent of watching Art21. But maybe I have been in the presence of genius for many years now and never knew it.

I'll have a PETA platter to start...

Oh, PETA, PETA, PETA... where would I be without your shenanigans?

There has been an upswing in PETA (this would be the pro-animal rights group, not the 'people eating tasty animals' one) controversy in the past week. Some real classic moments. Who could forget Nia Long and her airbrushed poll? Or the beached, bikini clad whales of Jacksonville? I am going to gloss over my personal feelings on their objectified and twisted use of women and their nefarious art department and jump to the newest controversy.
PETA's panties are now in a twist over Kansas City's refusal to put their sculpture of a crying, chained, baby elephant up in a public, city park for a month long installation, which would be a protest to the circus whilst it is in town. Charming, really. While I do not regularly attend the circus, my gut feeling is that those baby elephants are living higher on the hog than a large segment of the world population (but why would we protest the starvation and trafficking of children?). What's more, PETA is challenging this refusal as an attack on 1st Amendment rights. Seriously??? A city can elect to put whatever they want up in a public space, hence the whole opting for something that won't be political or offend/disturb. Not to mention, the moment something is put up as 'art,' which this sculpture would clearly count as, it can be judged and rejected by anyone, anytime. I would also like to point out that this fiberglass elephant is not particularly well executed or visually pleasing AND it actually looks happy and festive. Kansas City will allow PETA to protest/rally and bring their elephant for a transient event, though. But not good enough... PETA wants a full month installation for their art. It is amazing how much self-righteousness has infiltrated their message so that they can't even understand that art, regardless of the author, does not have to be accepted. Or at least pick a blue state to debut that delightful little pachyderm (and hope that there is not a Feminist contingency in town lying in wait).

Whatever. It will be interesting to see the fallout over the 'save the whales,' too. There are so many groups that do billboard defacement/improvement art and I think it is safe to safe that this one is ripe for an embittered parody.
And now I am off to floss my teeth with a strip of bacon.
Check out the KC story: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/1391745.html

When is MoMA going to get a clue? The year Nineteen-Ninety-NEVER?

Whenever I go to MoMA, I get so fucking angry.  And not just because I'm cheap and there is a $20 entrance fee (even though I'm a member and get in free, I am irked by the audacity of those ticket prices).  I'm mainly angry because all I see is work by big famous male artists and a few hot naked women.  Isn't the old joke about how the only way for women to get into museums is by posing nude getting  a little old?

Jerry Saltz recently called MoMA out for this on facebook.  Paris's Centre Pompidou has started promoting art by women with it's "elles" project. The Brooklyn Museum has got it's Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art.  So when is MoMA gonna get a fucking clue?  Though I'd really love for major museums begin to make serious changes with regards to female artists rather than launching NEW! (and separate) projects, at least such projects are a start.

NY Magazine calls it like they see it: http://nymag.com/arts/art/features/40979/

Do you like women? Go here: http://bitchmagazine.org/post/art-without-men

Remeber when the Guerrilla Girls mentioned those shocking artworld stats years ago? Not much has changed:  http://nymag.com/arts/art/features/40980/

Museum curators dealt it, The New York Times smelt it.

If you hate museum curators as much as I do (backstory: I used to watch the front desk at a small museum and those sons of bitches were so rude and full of themselves it was unbelievable), then you'll love what the New York Times has to say about The New Museum's clever "Younger than Jesus" show:

"The same biographies (of the artists included in the show) reveal that nearly all of these 33-and-under artists already have substantial careers in progress, with solo shows in commercial galleries, appearances in international surveys and so on. So this isn’t a promising-newcomer event. It’s a market-vetted product and one that, my guess is, entailed relatively little adventuring on the part of its organizers. That much of the work might easily have been found and delivered over the Internet may be the show’s most distinctive generational feature."

Aww, snap! I love it when major publications keep it real.

Read it all here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/arts/design/31cott.html?ref=design
Read more about why I hate curators here: http://effartblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/so-heres-photo-from-new-york-times.html

My Teachers Set Me Up for Failure: Kid Paints and Other Stuff

I am currently volunteer-teaching (ah, the great money-making options for artists) an art class for 9 year-olds where we are making Audubon-style bird watercolors. Things seem to be going well--let's just say that the Peeps are starting to look more and more anatomically correct--and we are now entering the coloring phase of the drawings where a we've come across a little snag. Unfortunately, it was not until now that I realized that watercolor sets for kids are like a cruel joke. Who came up with these colors?? I understand that kids are attracted to bright, primary colors, but how are you supposed to paint even kind of realistically with a basic set as a kid? Nothing in the world comes in these colors except for Grimace and Smurfs. And lets not start on the futility of the white watercolor... just to highlight the fact that you screwed up and can't fix it.

Unfortunate experience in hand, I am now proposing a new kids watercolor line up: venetian red, yellow ocher, naples yellow, alizarin crimson, ultramarine, cerulean, burnt umber, and cobalt violet. It might be harder to make fuchsia, but at least you (and/or your students) could botch your way through almost anything. I maintain that it would be better than the box pictured above.

Let me end this rant with a little story to tear at your heart strings: earlier this week, I watched a child get teary eyed realizing that she had to paint a song sparrow (made up of 6 or 7 different shades of pale but saturated brown) and there was no brown in her watercolor box. Yeah, I suppose that I could have sat there for twenty minutes to figure out all the nuances of the crummy little colors to come up with close to the necessary hues, but I am not getting paid to volunteer all day (insert diabolical laughter fading into crying jags).  All I am saying is, can't we do better? Think of the children.....(music swelling)

Giclee? How about Gi-cliche?

One of my BIGGEST pet-peeves in the reproductive fine art print world today is the use of the word "giclee" to mean "made on an inkjet printer." Why? Mainly because the term giclee gives us no information about the printing process, unlike older photographic terms like gelatin silver print, platinum palladium print, chromogenic print, and even some of the newer terms used to refer to prints made on inkjets like archival pigment print or digital c-print.

According to the ever-helpful Wikipedia, the word "giclee" is derived from the french "glicer" meaning "to squirt, spurt, or spray," and was coined by a printer wanting to differentiate Iris proof prints from the finer art prints being made on the same printers. The history here, however, is somewhat superfluous to me because I have absolutely no problem with the coining and early use of this term. My problem is with the fact that such a clearly nonsensical and euphemistic word has gained popularity over more clear and to the point terms (like the aforementioned archival pigment print and digital c-print). Is the public really that easy to fool? Would we really rather hear some bastardized French-sounding gobbledygook than a clear, concise description of the printing process?

In addition to all this, "giclee" just kind of sounds gross when you say it. And it sounds like that awful JLo movie "Gigli." Gross.

Art We're Over: "Funny" Charts.

Yes, the "viral graph" had its moment in the sun.  The "Rick Rolled" graphs were kinda funny, as were the ones based on rap songs when they first appeared on Ebaums.  I'm not embarassed to say that I've spent my fair share of time on GraphJam.com, but now, artists and illustrators are taking these humorous charts and including them in their online portfolios.  Are we really supposed to believe that these one-note pie-charts and venn-diagrams are art?

I'm absolutely ready to call LOL Cats art because they take something that exists out in the world and breathe new meaning into it, often by turning it on its head (I can has Duchamp, anyone?).  But these charts and graphs I see all over town (aka the art+design blogosphere) are just too facile for me to really believe in.  There's no new meaning, no deeper read, nothing more than surface cleverness put down on paper (or pixels) in a few quick moments' time.