“It’s a work in which Koons fully appropriated his source, Sherrie Levine–style,” Harrison added. “So in this instance, the case for Koons having transformed the original would have to rely almost entirely on the status of Koons’ work as art. From an aesthetic point of view, it’s difficult not to see this as pure pilfering, in line with much postmodernist appropriation at the time.”
Source: Experts Weigh In on Jeff Koons Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
2 Comments
It seems like Koons is not really an artist. He’s hybridized a modern form of rabble-rousing. I think he poses a threat to the image creating industry and it will be downright anarchic if he gets away with his image pilfering.
The whole thing is mind bending to me, because his statements on culture aren’t original. He can only succeed by using the art industry and fame itself as his medium. Also, Koons might be an unknown if he weren’t consistently embracing such financial risk. It’s shocking because this is what gets him paid, and because he’s abusing the very system he’s using to make his statements.
I would like him a lot more if he weren’t laughing his way to the bank on the backs of hard working artists and idiot gallerists. Perhaps if the art world and its wealthy patrons would ignore Jeff Koons, all this might stop.
Perhaps not.
Artist or not, he might be a very necessary voice in our culture.
I’m a big fan of Koons, but I’ve had problems swallowing some of his ‘appropriation’ excuses.
This is a blatant theft of another’s creative endeavor. Not even an attempt to re-imagine the original.
Comments are closed for this article!