"Art" in front of the arena?
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
- Status
7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
I have been lurking here for a couple of years, and I respect and appreciate many of you as posters, so pardon me if my first post comes off as combative. But I think some of you are being too quick to judge. I understand the criticism that the price seems inflated, but the price of art being tied to an artist's reputation is just the nature of the market. Though I suspect if we knew the process behind creating the piece we would be slightly humbled.
While a piece that is tied to the city's history has value, a piece that is put in simply to look good also has value. I personally think a bright color piece by Jeff Koons is a great choice, given the renderings of the new arena and its surroundings. Particularly the style of Coloring Book. I don't think the overall composition of the version shown in the original post is all that great on its own. I think this version is absolutely beautiful though:
It is also a piece that plays with light and the environment. You have to imagine it in the context of the environment it is in. For example:
I think the piece has potential that is going overlooked in this thread. Here's another photo of the version the topic is about:
Looks great.
While a piece that is tied to the city's history has value, a piece that is put in simply to look good also has value. I personally think a bright color piece by Jeff Koons is a great choice, given the renderings of the new arena and its surroundings. Particularly the style of Coloring Book. I don't think the overall composition of the version shown in the original post is all that great on its own. I think this version is absolutely beautiful though:
It is also a piece that plays with light and the environment. You have to imagine it in the context of the environment it is in. For example:
I think the piece has potential that is going overlooked in this thread. Here's another photo of the version the topic is about:
Looks great.
I have been lurking here for a couple of years, and I respect and appreciate many of you as posters, so pardon me if my first post comes off as combative. But I think some of you are being too quick to judge. I understand the criticism that the price seems inflated, but the price of art being tied to an artist's reputation is just the nature of the market. Though I suspect if we knew the process behind creating the piece we would be slightly humbled.
While a piece that is tied to the city's history has value, a piece that is put in simply to look good also has value. I personally think a bright color piece by Jeff Koons is a great choice, given the renderings of the new arena and its surroundings. Particularly the style of Coloring Book. I don't think the overall composition of the version shown in the original post is all that great on its own. I think this version is absolutely beautiful though:
It is also a piece that plays with light and the environment. You have to imagine it in the context of the environment it is in. For example:
I think the piece has potential that is going overlooked in this thread. Here's another photo of the version the topic is about:
Looks great.
While a piece that is tied to the city's history has value, a piece that is put in simply to look good also has value. I personally think a bright color piece by Jeff Koons is a great choice, given the renderings of the new arena and its surroundings. Particularly the style of Coloring Book. I don't think the overall composition of the version shown in the original post is all that great on its own. I think this version is absolutely beautiful though:
It is also a piece that plays with light and the environment. You have to imagine it in the context of the environment it is in. For example:
I think the piece has potential that is going overlooked in this thread. Here's another photo of the version the topic is about:
Looks great.
visual art, like all art, is going to be subjective in its appeal. a jeff koons piece of any kind would be a much riskier choice than the more safe/tasteful alternatives; a "giant 6" or something along the lines of the pony express statue or a statue of a family walking to the arena or a nod to the city's railroad history may be inoffensive gestures, and they may have familiarity and nostalgic appeal going for them, but they allow little space for imagination or interpretation or the simple awe that distinct visual art can inspire. hell, critique is itself a worthy kind of engagement that distinct visual art can offer...
personally, i think sacramento can afford to be bold (and even a bit garish) in this particular instance. this city has long carried the stigma of being a stiff government town; as a result, its arts culture is nowhere near as vibrant as a comparably-sized city like portland. sacramento's identity has been one of backward-looking for so long that it has no tangible vision for what it's future might look like. maybe "Coloring Book" is not representative of that future, but featuring a koons piece will certainly draw attention to the city's capacity to engage its citizens (and its tourists) with the arts, and perhaps other esteemed artists will follow...
Last edited:
I have been lurking here for a couple of years, and I respect and appreciate many of you as posters, so pardon me if my first post comes off as combative. But I think some of you are being too quick to judge. I understand the criticism that the price seems inflated, but the price of art being tied to an artist's reputation is just the nature of the market. Though I suspect if we knew the process behind creating the piece we would be slightly humbled.
While a piece that is tied to the city's history has value, a piece that is put in simply to look good also has value. I personally think a bright color piece by Jeff Koons is a great choice, given the renderings of the new arena and its surroundings. Particularly the style of Coloring Book. I don't think the overall composition of the version shown in the original post is all that great on its own. I think this version is absolutely beautiful though:
It is also a piece that plays with light and the environment. You have to imagine it in the context of the environment it is in. For example:
I think the piece has potential that is going overlooked in this thread. Here's another photo of the version the topic is about:
Looks great.
While a piece that is tied to the city's history has value, a piece that is put in simply to look good also has value. I personally think a bright color piece by Jeff Koons is a great choice, given the renderings of the new arena and its surroundings. Particularly the style of Coloring Book. I don't think the overall composition of the version shown in the original post is all that great on its own. I think this version is absolutely beautiful though:
It is also a piece that plays with light and the environment. You have to imagine it in the context of the environment it is in. For example:
I think the piece has potential that is going overlooked in this thread. Here's another photo of the version the topic is about:
Looks great.
OK, so it's a giant pastel mirror, which due to its placement in a nearly-symmetrical courtyard has reflections that appear to be see-through distortions of reality. It's a little bit neat, though it doesn't exactly fit my definition of "art". It also doesn't fit my definition of $8M. But hey, it's not my money. Let the City Council decide if they want to spend that kind of cash on a public art installation. (After the arena stuff I can only imagine the public debate on THIS one...!)
OK, acrylic-looking. I didn't know what it was made of but that is what it looked like.
You aren't the one paying for it, so the "idiot" term wasn't directed at you.
The video helps clarify what it is, the photos didn't do it "justice" - not to say I think it is right for the use intended. Still overpriced by about a factor of 20 though no matter where it is placed.
And Play-Doh? Really? This is the reason I have a hard time with "modern" art. Some guy makes a "sculpture" of what little kids make every freaking DAY and all of a sudden it is something new and awesome and art "critics" start drooling on themselves. Bah. They wouldn't know good art if it smacked them in the head.
You aren't the one paying for it, so the "idiot" term wasn't directed at you.
The video helps clarify what it is, the photos didn't do it "justice" - not to say I think it is right for the use intended. Still overpriced by about a factor of 20 though no matter where it is placed.
And Play-Doh? Really? This is the reason I have a hard time with "modern" art. Some guy makes a "sculpture" of what little kids make every freaking DAY and all of a sudden it is something new and awesome and art "critics" start drooling on themselves. Bah. They wouldn't know good art if it smacked them in the head.
My god, what the hell is it? Looks like someone drank food coloring dye and took a pee. But what the hell would I know? I don't even appreciate the historical and artistic significance of the Mona Lisa or other well-known pieces. I do, however, think that large reflective metal bubble in Chicago (AKA Cloud Gate or "The Bean) is an amazing piece. Perfect for selfies.
For me personally, all it really comes down to is I like the way it looks. There are things we pass by every day we hardly notice that could offer interesting compositional ideas if we looked for them. If an artist looks at the toy Play-Doh and thinks its colors and the way the clay fits together creates an interesting dynamic, or thinks the subject matter is appropriate for the mood he wishes to create, why shouldn't he draw inspiration from it? I can see how enlarging something we were infatuated with as children could make them seem new to us again and evoke nostalgia and joy.
I like the looks of the Ford Raptor truck and the new GT they have coming out. Doesn't mean that either one of them should be put on a pedestal outside our new arena, no matter the mood of nostalgia or joy they put ME in, right?
Maybe the issue is that some are more concerned about how the piece makes the "artist" feel instead of the folks using the facility?
I get that art is subjective and if someone gets off on a mound of play-doh, hey, more power to them. But this city fought long and hard to keep this team and get a new arena built. I don't think a mirror with pastel colors painted on it is necessarily the piece to put out in front as a shining example of "art" in Sacramento and entrance piece to our new arena. The location and gravitas of that position, IMHO, is above what is being proposed. And the price is just OBSCENE.
If they want to put something like this in the Crocker Art museum or something, go for it. That is where something like this belongs.
Maybe the issue is that some are more concerned about how the piece makes the "artist" feel instead of the folks using the facility?
I get that art is subjective and if someone gets off on a mound of play-doh, hey, more power to them. But this city fought long and hard to keep this team and get a new arena built. I don't think a mirror with pastel colors painted on it is necessarily the piece to put out in front as a shining example of "art" in Sacramento and entrance piece to our new arena. The location and gravitas of that position, IMHO, is above what is being proposed. And the price is just OBSCENE.
If they want to put something like this in the Crocker Art museum or something, go for it. That is where something like this belongs.
Last edited:
I have been lurking here for a couple of years, and I respect and appreciate many of you as posters, so pardon me if my first post comes off as combative. But I think some of you are being too quick to judge. I understand the criticism that the price seems inflated, but the price of art being tied to an artist's reputation is just the nature of the market. Though I suspect if we knew the process behind creating the piece we would be slightly humbled.
While a piece that is tied to the city's history has value, a piece that is put in simply to look good also has value. I personally think a bright color piece by Jeff Koons is a great choice, given the renderings of the new arena and its surroundings. Particularly the style of Coloring Book. I don't think the overall composition of the version shown in the original post is all that great on its own. I think this version is absolutely beautiful though:
It is also a piece that plays with light and the environment. You have to imagine it in the context of the environment it is in. For example:
I think the piece has potential that is going overlooked in this thread. Here's another photo of the version the topic is about:
Looks great.
While a piece that is tied to the city's history has value, a piece that is put in simply to look good also has value. I personally think a bright color piece by Jeff Koons is a great choice, given the renderings of the new arena and its surroundings. Particularly the style of Coloring Book. I don't think the overall composition of the version shown in the original post is all that great on its own. I think this version is absolutely beautiful though:
It is also a piece that plays with light and the environment. You have to imagine it in the context of the environment it is in. For example:
I think the piece has potential that is going overlooked in this thread. Here's another photo of the version the topic is about:
Looks great.
Calling it "art," charging $8mm for it, and promoting it as a centerpiece of culture and the arena is silly. I read up on Koons, and he's definitely part of the school of "society is stupid, banal art is profound," which I'm not a fan of. I read an over-long piece trying to fit it into post-modern philosophy and, as someone who has studied that in depth (including as it relates to art), I find it vapid and more or less insulting to what real art stands for.
I've spent tons of time in various museums and appreciate good art. I'd laugh at it and move on to the next piece if I saw it at a museum, too.
I'd rather see something highlighting art that reflects Sacramento and artists from the area. For a place that can lay claim to Joan Didion, Mark Twain, and John Muir, not to mention somewhere that is the birthplace of modern California, I'd rather see something more significant and meaningful.
Again, it's pretty and looks nice. Just don't roll it out as a centerpiece of the new arena.
I like art. I'm cool with going outside the box and don't mind the rabbit.
It appears Mr. Koons is a world renowned talent. From the stories I've seen, I like some of this other stuff.
The real issue here is we are buying a crappy piece by Mr. Koons. It's not objectively a good Koons piece.
This is so Sacramento. We have a statue by Koon guys!!! Oh, cool one of the balloon dogs? No. The big Scotty dog? No. Balloon flowers? No. The broken open egg? No. Uh, what did you guys get? One of the coloring books. Oh ... uh ... that's cool.
Ok, so his balloon dog goes for 50 million and the 5th and worst of his coloring books goes for 8. Will you do a purple balloon sword for 12 million? Cool. Vivek, get out your check book. Fans are pissed and you can be the hero for 6 million.
It appears Mr. Koons is a world renowned talent. From the stories I've seen, I like some of this other stuff.
The real issue here is we are buying a crappy piece by Mr. Koons. It's not objectively a good Koons piece.
This is so Sacramento. We have a statue by Koon guys!!! Oh, cool one of the balloon dogs? No. The big Scotty dog? No. Balloon flowers? No. The broken open egg? No. Uh, what did you guys get? One of the coloring books. Oh ... uh ... that's cool.
Ok, so his balloon dog goes for 50 million and the 5th and worst of his coloring books goes for 8. Will you do a purple balloon sword for 12 million? Cool. Vivek, get out your check book. Fans are pissed and you can be the hero for 6 million.
The only problem for me is, why is a city like Sacramento going to pay between 1-6million for a piece of art when that money could go elsewhere? This is Sacramento where millions of dollars could really go towards something more beneficial for the city. This art piece does nothing for the community. The only people who will get to see it are fans attending the game. Seems like a huge waste of money for a city struggling like Sacramento.
- Status