Is Jeff Koons America’s Greatest Living Artist?

Before you storm off to the comments section over that headline, stop a moment to consider that no matter where you personally rank Jeff Koons, a number of Europeans seem to think he’s America’s greatest. The subject of overlapping blockbusters in Frankfurt, Germany and the Basel suburb of Riehan in Switzerland — a full two years before he gets a grand stateside retrospective, which will span nearly every floor of the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York — the enigmatic Koons is enjoying a moment of Old World splendor, one that even surpasses his dynamic display at the Palace of Versailles, outside of Paris, back in 2008.

Long a favorite of top galleries and mega-art-collectors, Koons is a perfectionist, who creates exquisitely crafted paintings and sculptures that reference ready-made objects — ranging from virginal vacuums displayed over bright lights and celebrities cast in ceramic or carved in wood to inflatable figures beautifully blown-up in shimmering steel and cartoon characters surrealistically captured in paint. With a goal making art accessible to everyone, Koons succeeds — with a little help from his friends — in turning Basel’s Beyeler Foundation and Frankfurt’s Schirn Kunsthalle and the Liebieghaus Skulpturensammlung into pop culture paradises, chock full of whimsical pieces, through the rest of the summer. Click through to view a whopping selection of our favorite works from all three venues.


Jeff Koons, Stacked, 1988. Polychromed wood, 154.9 x 134.6 x 78.7 cm, Private collection © Jeff Koons. Photo: Jeff Koons Studio / Jim Strong, New York. (On view at the Beyeler Foundation)

Filed Under:

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Koons has made some interesting contributions to the world art market of meaningful/less garbage. He is the master hipster of irony and indifference which eventually will be forgotten because essentially his work hardly communicates any visceral human emotion or reaction rooted in truth or if there is it is obfuscated by intellectual baggage that is extremely unwieldy. In 200 years will a vacumn cleaner or basketball or bunny rabbit really be interesting commentary on late 20th century society? DOUBT IT! Great art is an economy of meaning/form synthesized into a universal language that many people can respond to on many psychological levels of understanding of which, in my humble opinion, Koons work typically does not do.

Real artists can draw. Koons can't draw, he can only copy and appropriate other artist's intellectual property. So, if he can't draw, he ain't no awtis.

In response to MMC - Dusty Rummage Sale Hummels?? Yes and yes again, except they are Fake dusty rummage sale Hummels made in China sorry to diss China, contracted to the Jerry/Jeff/Jim Koons empire's specifications. Is the company who manufactures our soap, our soybeans or our undies a genius? Flavorpill, if you are having a really slow blog cycle, why not post this annoying headline, so that people will still pay attention. Otherwise, the conversation is not...at...all...necessary...meritorious...more than quite silly.

Are. You. Kidding. Decades hence, in a heap of dusty rummage sale Hummels, will be discovered a piece of the equally brilliant, timeless art of Jeff? Jim? Jerry? Koons... what was his first name again? Y'know, the guy who made craploads of money selling crap art.

I personally find Jeff Koons interesting, particularly the way he appropriates seemingly ordinary images. But let's be frank about this article (and why I love FlavorPill): it's designed to start discussion. To think that all Europeans think Jeff Koons is the be all and end all is both insulting and reductive! Let's recognize that not all Europeans are dumb to America and that all Americans aren't dumb to Europe and the diversity of opinion that exists in both places.

Jeff Koons???????Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. He may be the greatest living icon of the hijacking of the art world by people who have no talent other than selling bridges, or in other words, the ART of boollshet.

He doesn't even make his own pieces and his art STILL sucks

Absolutely not!But I'm Italian and so European.

he's not even as good as leroy neiman

Jasper Johns is still alive, right?

if he is, we're in a world of hurt.

Koons was presented well in European Museums. They have a knack for presenting things in a coherent way. I saw Koons' paintings in Hamburg. It was a legit show. In the last decade, Koons' reputation was tarnished in my opinion, because he sold out and inflated himself, just like America.

Many wonderful artists have other people doing most of their work- so I dont take issue with that. He and hirst create art that is a mirror of a society that prioritizes the banal- the easy, glam, glitzy. In Hirst's case, also the violent. That's impotant- but for me, as someone who comes to art to witness visual inteligence/pleasure first and foremost- his art is not pleaseing- with the exception of the ballon sculptures and the flower scuptures. They are both witty, flashy, easy...but also beautiful. The painting hurt my eyes(I know they are meant to- but they are niether pleasing nor interesting). Same for me with the kitchy figurines- although they are more interesting. I agree with a previous poster and vote Bruce Nauman as #1.

Perhaps the greatest living "art marketer" , but even that market is a self-sustaining mirage propped up by his current investors. Some of the sculptures made in the JK sweatshop are funny and spectacular, but his greatest contribution to Art is the de-valuation of craftsmanship. Why can't FlavorPill spend a drop or two of ink on one of the thousands of REAL artists who have skill, talent, and are struggling for recognition? Stop feeding the machine! You are part of the problem!

brings to mind the tawdry Don Ho hit, "Shiny Baubles"

Sorry no. His "work" reminds of stuff set up in a bad, old fashioned Goodwill. Look at real artists - Francesca Goodman comes immediately to mind.

Craftsmanship is pretty important to me when determining the value of an artist. He's a grandmaster of monetizing labor, but I think he's a shit artist.

Nah. Not by a long shot.

The recognition factor. Since Koons is the most (undeservedly) hyped American artist, he's the one they know. Same goes for Hirst in Britain, but while also a one trick dog, Hirst at least has great showmanship, an amicable persona and admirable life story, whereas Koons is just creepy across the board. Fact is, America has produced no truly momentous new artists or movements--that we know about--in over two decades, so we are stuck with stale leftovers like Koons and Prince. The big money always circles the wagons to protect its biggest and worst investments.

Oh, Paul Laster. The things you'll write to get people stirred up and commenting. Jeff Koons, America's Greatest Living Artist? Pshaw.

Storming. The guy hasn't had a new idea in years, and his old ones are nearly unspeakably banal. His sculptures are bland, his paintings execrable. (Can anyone remember one?). Europe is where hack American artists of a certain age go to lounge in acclaim. If Koons is the only one of recent vintage to achieve such elevation it would seem to be a sorry commentary on the state of the visual arts in these blanding days.

Two objections can immediately be dispelled: 1) "He's not great because he doesn't make his own stuff." The physical production of the unique art object by the individual artist is only a historically specific value that existed approximately from the Renaissance to about 1917 when Duchamp debuted the first readymade. 2) "Greatest," though admittedly an outdated concept, should not be taken to mean a judgement of quality (most profound, most beautiful, most advanced, etc.) but rather in the sense that he's the most significant (well known, highly regarded, popular, etc.). Nonetheless, I would challenge granting this status to Koons simply because the corporate baubles and banal kitsch he makes are boring and basically one-note. They merely attest to the current decadence of massive economic disparity in which contemporary art has become prized by the ultra rich as a status symbol. Koons's art shouldn't get a free pass simply because its "self-conscious" - which since at least Warhol should no longer be an excuse or a source of interest.

I agree with the first comment...'he doesn't even make his own stuff!!!!'

No... Not even in the top 10.

I really don't think that anyone is the 'greatest' at anything. Why do we keep doing this "great" stuff?

No. The answer is no, not even close.

Since when do Europeans or even the art market decide this stupid question. Art and who can do something well is always decided by the individual. The greatest living artist may very well be someone outside of market and its bullshit.

If zombies eat every living artist in the world and he's the last standing, climbing one of his baloon sculptures to survive : maybe

1) What Anthony - Thursday Jun 21, 2012 at 12:13 pm said. 2) Correction: 'artisans' in the 2nd graph of my post @12:43 PM should read 'artists'.

The hipsters here are begging the question. Yes, we all know that in another age artisans had helpers paint the cherubs and Frank Lloyd Wright didn't wield a hammer and nails. Well, DUH! That Koons has no hand in what he does is not the point. Yes he is an artist to use the term in it's broadest sense, but "the greatest living artist" (as if it's possible to pin that label on anybody)? Of course not. And babbling about Post Modernism, "ideation" and "studies of banality" will never make it so.

The whole notion of "greatest" is bogus and sooooo non post-modern. Get hip!

He's a clever, derivative ironist with a knack for self-promotion and marketing. I appreciate his ability to profit from the same system he seems to view so cynically. But we cannot call him a genius. No.

yes, he is the real deal... or, not to put too fine a point on it, the real "fake" real deal, epitomizing all the delights and hazards of living in a post modern nation at the eclipse of western civilization. the fact that he doesn't get his hands dirty is all part of it. good on him. "greatest living artist" is never a term that can be applied in the present. that is a decision that will be made by the next generation, when everyone reading this article is dead. but after resisting his work for years, i must say, he breaks through the clutter and noise of everyday life unlike anyone other than damien hirst (who i have to give serious props to, as well.)

Yes. No Question. To make this amount of work and to make it so utterly perfect, you have to have an army of skilled laborers in order to produce it. Just like artists/directors from James Cameron to Stanley Kubrick -- certain art requires teams of people in order to make their vision a reality. This lame romantic poetic gag view point that art has to be made by the sad artist alone in his studio has to be done away with. Sure their are artist like Fred Tomaselli or John Curin that work alone and produce magnificent work. But Koons, is about epic scale. He is our modern day Michealangelo, who also did epic works with teams of skilled assistants. Let us applaud Koons and thank him for giving American art some much needed flamboyance and style that can be internationally appreciated.

Rembrandt didn't completely make many of his own works. He had a shop of artisans that he oversaw. It still amazes me how difficult it is for people to divorce ideation from craftwork. We're not talking physical skill here, we're talking thought & ideation. Art has moved passed the craft of making "art." Did Frank Gehry or Frank Lloyd Wright hand build any of their buildings? No. They created the designs and ideas for them. Do photographers physically create the image you see? No. It's a light & chemical process. Do writers hand write each book they produce? No, a machine does. But the idea and story in each one is the author's creation. In terms of profoundness, other commenters have already correctly pointed out the purpose of his works are studies of banality and in keeping with Postmodernism. People should try reading a book on culture. (And no, this doesn't include reading Ulysses at a hipster bar in Williamsburg to look intelligent.) The argument for Bruce Nauman is valid. The breadth of his works is unparalleled. And it could be argued he has affected how we think about art more so than any other living artist.

NO. Best marketing w$ore from the US - yes.

Can you really nail that title down to one person? No, I don't think so. There are many fabulous artists. My favorite contemporary artist is Robert Burridge.

I'm perplexed by this, he doesn't create his own work, yet others have the absolute lack of anything remotely artistic in their brains, but want to suggest that this person is the greatest living artist of our time... It makes me think that humans are sliding down the Evolutionary scale at a far greater speed than I thought!

No. And the idea that he might be the "greatest living American artist" says less about Koons and more about America, art in America, and Europeans who look at art in America.

yes, but then again I am european so what do I know.

The suburb of Basel is "Riehen", not "Reihan". The latter sounds more Chinese than Swiss German. /nitpicking off

The answer to the question asked by the headline of this article is: no.

Bruce Nauman is the greatest living artist IMHO. Koons is not even close; there are lots of artists who are great artists. Not Koons.

"Of course they’re not “profound.” That’s part of the point of postmodernism. Apparently art should never have a sense of humor, especially not about what it means to be art." Well then according to your statement Gaby these no talent hacks from postmodernism are then just plagiarizing ground that the modernists already covered quite successfully at the beginning of the same century and numerous times after. Just off the top of my head "Fountain" is a 1917 work widely attributed to Marcel Duchamp that was a common men's urinal, (Koons uses floor vacuums, whoop-dee-doo) and later we had the gigantic Claes Oldenburg sculptures typically featuring very large replicas of everyday objects, (again Koons brings his giant balloon animals, zzzzzzz). So when does the joke get old, or repeated too many times to be no longer considered significant in the history or movement of contemporary art? Let's face it after Warhol it got tired, and Koons and his ilk have brought nothing new in ideas or any kind of real stimulation to further the evolution of visual arts.

No, He is a posuer. America's greatest living artist is most likely toiling away somewhere, completely oblivious to his or her level of name recognition.

Andy Warhol didn't make his own work either. Nor have many of the vanguard artists of the mid-to-late 20th Century. Of course they're not "profound." That's part of the point of postmodernism. Apparently art should never have a sense of humor, especially not about what it means to be art.