The MoMA just admitted the snail, aka pig’s tail, aka monkey’s tail, aka little mouse, aka @, into its hallowed architecture and design collection. Really. And somehow, @ earned it.
Skin Fluke
I went to the opening of the Jeff Koons-curated “Skin Fruit” show at the New Museum the other night. When I got there, Jeff Koons was in the main lobby/atrium area, chatting with lots of people. Someone had given him some sort of prismatic picture-viewing object with two viewfinder eye holes. Koons looked into it and then looked back at the person and smiled and said “Wow!”
But really, the show was all about this guy, Dakis Joannou:
He’s the guy on the right. He is a really really rich industrialist and art collector. Big fan of Jeff Koons apparently. He also likes Maurizio Cattelan a lot, as evidenced by the sculptures on the left, and the epic Cattelan sculptures included in the show, one of which Roberta Smith rags on hard in her excellent excellent excellent review of the show. She is first of all such an amazingly clear writer, and second of all, she really makes an effort to understand and communicate the context, which is so essential for drawing meaning from contemporary art – both the meaning of the work itself, and the meaning of the way it is presented.
Tasty pull-quote:
Sure, “Skin Fruit” includes several outstanding artworks by significant talents, and there are a few genuine surprises. But whether the artists are 1980s stars like Mike Kelley and Cindy Sherman or relative newcomers like John Bock, Nathalie Djurberg and Dan Colen, nearly all are well-known quantities in New York, widely supported by other museums and high on many collectors’ must-have lists. Nearly all emanate from one stratum of the art world: the one where the money is. Is this the most effective way for the New Museum to use its time, space and energy? That’s the question of the art season.
For an interesting dose of context, note the yacht to the left, owned by Mr. Joannou, and custom-painted by Mr. Koons.
Overall the show was ridiculous. Jeff Koons jammed in as much big-big-big work as humanly possible into the not-huge New Museum galleries. There were some amazing pieces though. A Paweł Althamer sculpture actually had a real guy strapped to a real Roman-style cross, struggling and shaking and not enjoying himself at all. Sounds kinda stupid maybe, but is stunning in real life. And…damnit, this Koons piece to the right, “One Ball Total Equilibrium Tank,” is actually awesome. We’ve probably all seen it before one way or another, but it’s still kinda sick. Apparently, it’s salt water in the bottom half of the tank, fresh water floating on top, and the ball sits right in the middle of the two layers. I had never noticed this before, but the ball says “Dr. J.K.” Hardy harr!
Also, Tauba Auerbach’s painting was impressive as usual. It wasn’t this one (to the left), but a similar idea. Her website is cool, btw.
One last thought: “Skin Fruit” is really the title? Really, Jeff Koons? We made lots of skin flute jokes on hockey team road trips when I was 12. No one on the team had actually had consensual sexual relations yet at that point, but we all obsessively shared ridiculous metaphors and what-if sexual scenarios. But never did we come up with something so clever as “Skin Fruit.” What a crisscross. Thank you, Jeff Koons. Thank you.
Whitney Biennial 2010 (and its discontents)
So, on an amazing snowy slushy day in New York, I saw the Whitney Biennial.
First of all, the Condo painting was just ok, alas.
The show is totally the talk of the town of course. Everybody has an opinion on it. Weighing in, we have Holland Cotter from the NY Times, Jerry Saltz from NY Magazine (both basically positive), and some dude named Sebastian Smee (seriously?) really hating on it, hard.
On the whole “the show that everyone loves to hate” trope, I’m kinda like, who are these people who vociferously HATE a huge curated art show? Do they want their $18 back because all the art is “bad,” or are they just upset that they’re not included in it themselves, or what?
Here’s the deal: With the Biennial, the Whitney’s task is to put forth someone’s idea of what is significant among all that is being produced by American artists. That’s a pretty subjective task, and I think we all know that no one likes exactly the same stuff as anyone else. Now, the reality is, the Whitney Biennial is this institutional construct, and it just IS this thing that functions as a kind of benchmark. If you don’t like it, propose an alternative, or make one and tell us about it. But just to say it sucks? Seriously? That’s all you got, Sebastian Smee (seriously)?
I like these cats the best: they just want to talk shit on 303 gallery and shoot guerrilla photography while wearing awesome shoes. Yee-uh.
Here are samples of some of the work that was memorable, one way or another:
It’s worth seeing. Go see it. And look out for the Bruce High Quality Foundation installation. Word.
