Jeff Koons: Art or Smut?

It's been over twenty years since former Art Institute of Chicago student Jeff Koons unveiled his Made in Heaven exhibit in Europe. This infamous collection of work contained sculptures and paintings of the artist engaging in graphic sex with his then porn-star wife. The paintings range from spread-eagle images of his wife to images of sieman dripping from Koons' penis into her mouth. None of the paintings mentioned are actually done with paint but rather, like magazine centerfolds pasted onto canvases. Under medias used it reads: ink and canvas. This leads the discussion to, is this art? And to expand the idea to the bigger argument, what is art?

To compare Koons to Warhol is an insult to Warhol, what Wahol may have lacked in substance he made up for in vivid color, technique, irony and staying-power. This is not to say Jeff Koons is not memorable but is it memorable for the wrong reasons? This emperor has no clothes, quite literally. His work seems to cater to the shallow, American 1980s. His pieces are hardly artful and so tasteless this publication will not reproduce their image. Nudity and sexuality are not the problem in Koons work, it’s the clear lack of technique. Not only does it lack technique but its content is just ridiculous, it's like an X-rated Lisa Frank folder. If art is supposed to mirror life then what kind of life are these pieces mirroring? A late 1980s coke binge? A vintage porno? Or an extremely self-inflated artist.

The artist himself claims there is no hidden meaning behind his work and yet the pieces sold for an alarming amount of money. This all leads back to the question, what is art? Is it art if someone pays millions for "ink on canvas" (even if they can buy essentially the same thing at any newstand for about ten dollars) Is it art because someone else did it instead of you? Perhaps Koons is the only one who can honestly say what his paintings in this series mean but to the ordinary-joe it's simply pornography.