Jeff Koons is one of the worlds most prominent artists and one of his most famous works was his balloon dogs series. Now an art gallery is creating more balloon dogs. They have been described as “mini-Koons.” The context of being an art gallery causes the new work of Park Life to be inextricably linked to the old work of Koons.

I support the copyfight but appropriation in one’s art does not mean forfeiture of copyright.

Except that we all know this is bullshit. Every work of art created today is built on an ancient foundation of prior works. At some arbitrary point we decide that an idea is sufficiently divergent from that foundation to be considered a new work, but that point is always arbitrary and always open to question.

Cory’s clever witticism about pirates wanting to be admirals reminds us that laziness and greed are always there to convert today’s dangerous young turks into tomorrow’s entrenched old farts.

Well, prior art is not a defense in copyright. The standard for a copyright is whether the author created something original. Under one standard, the argument then becomes what’s the original portion: the entire sculpture? Just the shape? The size? The glossy finish? The answer to those questions then gets compared to the allegedly infringing bookends.

That being said, there are other factors that can be used to help the store: are they advertising it as an objet d’art? If not, then they can allege they are just making copies of a traditional balloon animal, rather than referring to Koons’ work, etc.

At the end of the day, unless the gallery commissioned those bookends, they can always rely on the supplier to fight their legal battle. Or they can contact a law school clinic–if I were a law student, I’d love to work on this case…

not for the balloon dogs though – just because he’s shit.

now where’s my clown outfit…

Duchamp and Basquiat were geniuses.

The context of being an art gallery causes the new work of Park Life to be inextricably linked to the old work of Koons.

This is a load.

The art world is filled with sculptors who depend on foundries to make the final versions of their work.

Yea, and I think that’s kind of a shame. I really like the DIY/maker ethic, and before art became Art, it was a craft.

I’m really impressed with people who can make incredible things. “Idea people”… not so much. Ideas are easy; creating is something different.

Mr Koons is kind of impressive as a business man, but personally it’s not a domain I find too interesting. Actually, I don’t find art too interesting any more. Too many Koons and Faireys…

I can’t say I see much difference between what Koons does and what Lichtenstein and Warhol did.

Well, as far as I know Lichtenstein never sued a comic book company, and Warhol was on pretty good terms with Campbell’s.

What’s more, while I absolutely don’t agree with the fetish that the art world has made out of new, if you are going to make a fetish out it, you have to award points to the people who got there first.

Duchamp gets most of the points; very little new has been done since Dada. So I think the art world just needs to get over it and move onto a new phase.

Yea, and I think that’s kind of a shame. I really like the DIY/maker ethic, and before art became Art, it was a craft.

You make it sound like this is a new phenomenon in art, but even the Renaissance Masters used assistants and craftspeople for those purposes. Doing the creative stuff and outsourcing the technical work frees up the artist to create more work overall.

Not true in Warhol’s case. Mr Warhol was a very successful illustrator and commercial artist for some time before he moved into ‘fine art’.

He at least was very much one of those unsung “unknown hard-working commercial artists” himself: and that adds to his later works.

As far as Mr Warhol is concerned, don’t be fooled: nobody in fine art was doing what he was doing when he started doing it.

And he himself had for long been a successful fully-employed very busy commercial artist by the time he re-created himself as a “fine artist”.

For Mr Warhol, art was always work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahhWksSmX6s

And he was/is right about that.

Koons doesn’t actually craft the metallurgy himself.

I won’t defend Koons in this copyright case but there’s nothing wrong with a fine artist who depends on other skilled craftspeople for final production. No single person could have created the Statue of Liberty even if they had all the necessary skill sets to do so but Frédéric Bartholdi still deserves credit as “artist.” The art world is filled with sculptors who depend on foundries to make the final versions of their work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GphPmGOHy_Y

I heard Koons also demanded that everyone, worldwide, cease and desist being or acting like a self-important douchebag.

That said, painters such as Rubens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Paul_Rubens

would also ‘outsource’ some of their work :))

Not wishing to get into an not/art argument (I took some art theory classes during my undergrad to learn how to identify wankers and to help better appreciate art :)) I would say that if people buy it because they believe it to be art…none of which takes away from the fact that if he’s involved in, or doesn’t prevent this stupidity, then he will only damage his own image.

They constitute, and must be considered as, one large set or series, and ought to be displayed as such.

We’re having the same kind of problem here on the east coast, in Baltimore City, where a businesswoman appears to have lied on her trademark application so that she could get exclusive rights to use the word “hon” (a very old Baltimore term of endearment) in commerce. Since she received the trademark, she has done the same kind of overreaching that Koons is doing.

You can find out more about our troubles at http://www.facebook.com/cafehon.

Working artists who have made a name for themselves know what that name cost to create.

Like any business, thewich to maintain the value of that which they have created.

Mr Koons is free to attempt to use the Courts, as is any citizen, if he feels that to do so will help him to preserving the value of his name. Without looking at many more details, I can have no opinion as to the merits of his specific claim.

But as far as any effect that this baloon-dog claim may have on Mr Koons’ “brand” ….well, didn’t Andy Warhol once say that in some cases, “Any publicity is good publicity”?

PS: I like some of Mr Koons’ work, but I haven’t seen a lot of it.