Results tagged “Jeff Koons” from Real Clear Arts

While everyone's been getting worked up about the exhibition of art, curated by Jeff Koons, from Dakis Joannou's collection at the New Museum, something that looks far worse is going on at the New Orleans Museum of Art. Starting today, it's showing Dreams Come True: Art of the Classic Fairy Tales from The Walt Disney Studio.

The timing couldn't be better -- for Disney. According to NOMA, the show

also will include artwork from the upcoming Walt Disney Animation Studios musical, The Princess and The Frog, an animated comedy from the creators of The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, set in New Orleans and due for release at Christmas 2009.

The movie opens nationwide on Dec. 11. Makes you wonder who the biggest beneficiary of this exhibit is, doesn't it?

Wait, it gets worse. According to The Times-Picayune, "Lella Smith, the creative director of Disney's Animation Research Library...selected the art for the exhibit..."

And that was because? NOMA has no curators? (I see several listed on the website.)

Ms. Smith also wrote the catalogue. Disney animation may be a legitimate exhibit. E. John Bullard, the museum's director, defended it to the T-P this way:

Do people still look down their noses at pop culture?...We're going back and discovering what turned people onto art in the first place. ... There can't be anyone in America who has not seen a Disney movie, as a child, a parent or a grandparent.

But that's the wrong question. One right is, why didn't the museum exercise its curatorial judgment and its right to select what is in the exhibit? And other, is this the right time for the show, given the movie tie-in? And a third, did Disney contribute to the cost of the exhibit? And a fourth, whose idea was the exhibit?

This is starting to be a trend, a very bad one.  

BTW, I've chosen to illustrate this post with a picture of NOMA, not a "princess" cell, because why give Disney more free publicity? Turns out that choice was an easy one anyway: Disney has a always been a fierce defender of its copyright, and the picture on NOMA's website for the exhibit is emblazoned with a large  © Disney Enterprises, Inc. that spoils the view anyway.

Photo: Courtesy of the New Orleans Museum of Art  

Are there more art prizes for individual artists this year, or does it just seem that way? And are they all worthwhile?

I've posted here about several -- the MacDowell Medal, the Wolgin Prize, Guggenheim Fellowships, the Public Art Award, the Biennale's Golden Lion award, and of course ArtPrize. Some new, some old, and just a small sampling of those available.

Last Thursday came the brand new "First Annual Art Awards" produced by artist Rob Pruitt at the Guggenheim Museum "in association with" White Columns and "event partner" Calvin Klein Collection. Phew.

The dozen awards were for lifetime achievement, an international exhibition, and nine meant for exhibitions and projects that had significant impact on the field of contemporary art and took place between January 2008 and June 2009 in the United States. Artists and art world professionals (it's unclear how they were chosen) selected the winners, except for the two Lifetime Achievement Awards, which were determined by Pruitt, the Guggenheim and White Columns, and the Rob Pruitt Award, which "was decided solely by the artist."

The awards were given at a dinner at the Guggenheim, intended to rival the Oscars: "Tickets for the event were offered by invitation only." The prizes, designed by Pruitt, were fashioned as buckets of Champagne that are actually lamps.     

Ok, it was a benefit, but the whole thing strikes me as off-key -- a fest for the elite that ends up being more about partying than art, and alienates the general public. And, yes, as the Los Angeles Times' Culture Monster blog said, it was supposed to be ironic -- but I wonder if that's how it was perceived. David Ng, the LAT writer, wondered, too. Many news outlets seem to have ignored the whole thing.

Just in case you all want to chat online about art, but don't have time -- per my post on Oct. 19 about the Guggenheim Forum -- I went back to the website to see what this iteration, which was about spirituality in art, had yielded. The Forum/chat was triggered by the Kandinsky retrospective now on view, prompted by his belief that art "belongs to the spiritual life." A transcript of the one-hour chat, which took place on Oct. 22, is posted on the Guggenheim's website (here).

This chat, hosted by Krista Tippett, of Speaking of Faith, seemed to be more substantial than the last one, which was on design, but I noticed the same problem -- people talking all around an issue and at cross-purposes. It's the nature of online discussions.

Here are some interesting quotes drawn from the transcript, but missing the connective tissue (NB: my listing them here does not imply agreement!):

At 2:20: I like this line in Louis' last post: The artist is a tuning fork for an out of tune and unlyrical society...

2:21: I feel like people are realizing that materialism and attachment to things didn't bring them meaning or happiness. Art often awakens parts in people that have been dormant for a long time and remind them that there is life right now in them.

2:27: I look at the work of Jeff Koons & some of it really makes me smile... there is something divine going on there.

2:30: a lot of the art with humour in it comes from a place of suffering indeed - whether mental, physical, spiritual, whatever -but 'drawing in black' so to speak/type, is quite easy... it's letting the light in that's hard.   

If I can make it down to Wilmington in the next few months, I'll be stopping in at the Delaware Art Museum to see "Exposed! -- Revealing Sources in Contemporary Art." It's a home-grown exhibition that began on Aug. 15 and, as you may have guessed, explores the use of existing images, either in quotation or appropriation, in paintings, photographs and prints.

Drawing on the museum's collection and loans from collectors, the exhibit juxtaposes 27 works alongside the works they borrowed from. Aside from poster-boy Richard Prince, whose Nurse paintings (inspired by book jackets) have had a stunning runup in prices over the last few years (and recent decline, no doubt), artists in the exhibit include Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol, Glenn Ligon, Grace Hartigan, Ellen Gallagher, Jeff Koons, Roy Lichtenstein and Robert Colescott.

Heather Campbell Coyle, curator of American art at the museum, organized the show, which runs until Oct. 4. She also started an exhibition blog on Aug. 3, which she claims to be having fun doing. One entry: she spent a mere $163.48 on exhibition source materials, buying comics, pulp novels, a paper-doll book and other emphera mostly from eBay and Abebooks (and possibly crossing swords at one point with the Metropolitan Museum of Art, over a certain Vogue needed for its "Model As Muse" show).

Heather agreed to answer my Five Questions.

Remember that "confidence report" from London-based ArtTactic that I wrote about here several days ago? Most of the study, which involves interviews with key participants in the art market, was behind a pay wall, and I was able to give you only a few bullet points.

Now ArtTactic has posted a podcast, with video charts, showing much more of its hand. It reveals more evidence for ArtTactic's verdict that there is "less negativity" in the contemporary market. But that's all relative. As is explained, the index ranges from zero to 100, so any index below 50 means that the firm received more pessimistic than optimistic views of the market. That index shot from 11 in December to 28 in June. But that's still gloomy, just less gloomy.

ArtTactic also breaks down the market by price categories; perhaps not surprisingly, the only category in truly positive territory was the segment for art priced at less than $50,000. There is also some, but less, confidence in the $50,000 to $100,000 and for works selling for more than $1 million. The middle market is the most dicey. Anecdotal evidence over the last six months has suggested the same thing.

In December, a significant number of people thought that recovery would take more than five years. With prices skidding since then, more than 60% of respondents now believe that recovery will take just 1 to 2 years. And the pace of price declines has definitely slowed down. As a result, people feel that the market is much less risky than it was in December. Because there is less liquidity in the financial world, there is perceived to be less speculation.

ArtTactic also ranks artists, and the top three rated for "long-term" value are Gerard Richter, Jeff Koons and Cindy Sherman -- the same as those at the top in December. Damien Hirst is not in the top five, but he has apparently moved up smartly since December.  

The entire podcast, with charts, can be heard and viewed here.

Oh, yeah, and regarding the just-concluded June sales on London (versus the May sales in New York,