I like to imagine I live in a reality where neither Koons nor Gagosian nor even Zwirner exist. I salute Yau for his fortitude in dealing with all three.

What really stuck out in the article for me was this line, almost an aside:

It is not painting that is dead, but the repeated use of Pop culture as an unconsidered source, an easy go-to pool of images.

It mostly is lazy, and it's a convenient way for the wealthy to enjoy "low" culture without the "low" people. It drives me up the wall.

Art has no inherent meaning. It has meaning only to those who care about it. I care little about Koons, and even less about Yau. An article about art has all the gravitas of an essay about "Project Runway."

Nice to see one of my favorite poets discussed on the slog, though in his day-job role as an art critic.

"I rejected the ordinary and the extraordinary, because those are rungs one learns how to climb. I do not need a ladder to reach the sky."

(speaking of race, Yau has a pretty funny poem about an awkward instance in which a somewhat famous and very white poetry-critic-and-chinese-translator claimed to be more asian than Yau)

Maybe Ms. Graves isn't the headline writer for this post, but I'd watch tossing around the word "white" as opprobrium. Ms. Graves is white, her readers are, I'll bet, about 95 percent white, the commenters are probably white, most of the artists she writes about are white, and Seattle is among the top three whitest major cities in the U.S. As for the convenient abstraction "one percent": Who does Ms. Graves think buys the work of, say, Mickalene Thomas? Or, for that matter, any serious Seattle artist who makes a good portion of his/her living from selling art? There are other, better charges to level against Jeff Koons than his being white and having rich people as patrons.

Can't remember if I've ever heard of modernism being defined as the opposite of classicism before, I guess I would have to read the article to see what he is getting at.

I always think of the opposite of classicism as being decadence and with this sort of dichotomy it would seem to follow that modernism is more in line with classicism and post-modernism more in line with decadence. Koon's work seems a lot more post-modern/decadent to me than modern/classical.

I'm not sure what we're supposed to be objecting to, here. The fact that he's a classicist, and that's "privileged" and "establishment" compared to modernism (which is itself pretty creaky and institutionalized by now, you know) or the fact that he's not honest about it?

Or should we object because his work isn't very interesting (judging on the accompanying photographs) and sells for a lot of money? Should we be upset because people who work harder and have more talent labor in relative poverty and obscurity?

Should we be indignant that most art not meant for reproduction (comic books, for example) ends up in the cabins of the 1 percent, because nobody else can afford to buy originals?

I'm not at all sure that you and Yau aren't both elevating Koons unduly, even while giving a negative critique, by suggesting that his work has any meaning whatsoever.

At least Koons has a sense of humor. In the binary, coke-or-pepsi, art world behemoth sweepstakes, I'll take Koons over Hirst.

Graves is a poor lady's academic. Not a bad thing to be. If the name Koons wasn't attached to the art, she be slobbering over some new congratulatory artspeak to say the same stuff she always says.

I have to admit, dullard that I am, that I am confused as to how "pop culture" (which I would define as the world we live in) is any different as "a source, an easy go-to pool of images", than, say, a vase of flowers, a landscape, a female nude, or, in the case of our ex-president, a dog?

An artist looks at the world around her (or him) and comments on it.

I like modern art, but the Campbell's soup can as comment is empty to me. Koons can show some humor (the LA County Museum has some good works), but this is looking quite pretentious. It's ripe for parody, and the criticism has some humdingers:

"That’s Koons’ appeal — that he is like us and we are like him, which, I suppose, is okay if you are white and believe in classical ideals, and the unblemished classical tradition."

"At Gagosian — the Home Depot for the 1% — where the three balloon sculptures, according to Jerry Saltz in his recent New York review, are “lined up like cabin cruisers at a boat show.”

@12 Read it. His definition of classicism seems a little simplistic, like ossified ideas about beauty and purity or something. I kind of think of it meaning more like idealism (or at least idealism is part of it) whereas decadence is usually cynical, ironic. I know Koons always presents himself as being sincere and idealistic although I've also always thought this persona (his new agey feel good nonsense and such) was just part of the work.

@13, I agree, it's a bit simple, and is cause for confusion with regards to the actual classical sculptures incorporated and the postmodern practice. Frankly, though, I despise Koons (on a level that goes well beyond more common negative opinions) and thought the review did an otherwise lovely job of dragging his name and work through the mud.

Please confirm Jen Graves; is flowerdog one of the coolest sculptures ever or not? Your a bright kid Graves but your just flat out wrong here. The heroic splendor of Flowerdog mutes all of this identity politics claptrap.

Call me a philistine, but the only thing more boring than an art gallery is reading about an art gallery. Having studied a decent bit of art history, the problem is that most galleries do so little to contextualize their works in a way that is accessible. (Good) museums offer an interpretive experience for their artifacts. Why do galleries assume they can just slap "Jan van Eyck, title, date, medium" and call it good? Why not add an essay on the exploration of artistic identity and symbolism in the Dutch Renaissance?

The Graeco-Roman gods were every bit as capricious, spiteful and inconsistent as Jehovah. That statement fails to convince. Pagans aren't alone in believing gods can be bought off. Christians of all stripes think being sorry and asking for forgiveness means they don't have to accept responsibility for earthly transgessions; "Hey, I asked God's forgiveness voters, so you can forget my sexcapade at election time, voters." The article could have been better argued.

From downtown Bellevue. Not sure if this is an art project, but "ride the ducks" should not be an answer.

[IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/2yl4eow.jpg[/IMG]

"The Judeo-Christian view, I daresay, is more consonant with reality, in which anything can happen for no understandable reason"

This is exactly the opposite of reality, which is governed by consistant laws of physics.

Well, uh, I actually own a Koons. And I think it's a pleasure to have in my house. So he most certainly is relevant to me. That said, I think his best work is currently behind him. I keep hoping for better with every show.

I don't own a Koons, but I do own a La Cicciolina video....

@21 - You win :)