As I explained, I personally inherently find greater expression in the aesthetically pleasing as my interest in 'form' shapes my thinking and feeling on the subject.
I equally appreciate, however, that others want to 'go against it' to put their message across.
Let's take the relatively obvious example of the work of Jeff Koons. The jury is still out on whether there is indeed a message - he himself claims there isn't, although he has said in relation to his 'Jackson and Bubbles' (as per billboard.com) 'For me, Michael Jackson served as a kind of spiritual authority who could help people feel secure in embracing their culture, whatever it was', so perhaps there is a (straightforward) message.
When I look at the whole of the Jeff Koons art train I see the ultimate example of modern-day consumer society, i.e. 'pushed to the extreme'. Apparently, Koons doesn't shy away from admitting he's always wanted to be rich and famous; he's doing that very well.
Take his 'Balloon Venus' (as per time.com) or 'Poodle' for instance,
- either everything that's wrong with today's consumer society, and does it very well;
- or everything that's wrong with Jeff Koons, which it also does very well.
It's either provocative, questioning the issues of where society is going and where Art is going by taking kitsch to the extreme, or it's simply loading more stuff onto the runaway consumer train.
The former, in my opinion, would be more worthwhile ...
A choice between the Rabbit or the Venus of Willendorf? ...
No comments:
Post a Comment