Jeff Koons at Versailles
 

This sounds excellent - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...ch-924515.html

Since visting Versailles at 18 I've never felt the need to go again, but this does tempt me.

I agree Caroline - very tempting.

I'm thinking about going myself. I haven't been inside the château for about 10 years either, so this is clearly a way to get people to go there who wouldn't normally go, now that the tourist seasons has calmed down.

Thanks for posting! I like Koons' sculpture! I don't know how I managed to miss this news, but I'm excited now as we're planning to visit Versailles next week.

I saw an installation of Koonz at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in June. It was interesting.

The sculptures are huge and they are shiny. I took a picture and I can see myself in the statue.

I have always wanted to make out with Jeff Koons.

Thin

You may have your chance since he is no longer with La Cicciolina. Their marriage only lasted a year, but she ran off with their son.

the New York times has a take on this exhibit.
www.newyorktimes.com
scroll down to arts

I am a big fan of Jeff Koons. I was immediately drawn to his work when I saw "Michael Jackson and Bubbles" at the Whitney Biennial (can't even remember what year that was).

His "Flower Dog" in Rockefeller Center was fabulous, especially after all the plants started to grow.

I will see his work when I visit Versailles in November.

I think Damien Hirst should put one of his sharks in a fountain at Versailles. :)

Thin

NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/ar...gn/11koon.html

The article does mention that the Hall of Mirrors was closed for an installation. I guess it's probably open now.

Some of visitor reactions are just funny -- like "I paid to see all of Versailles.... I didn’t come here to see a red lobster that I can buy in a gas station in Quebec to go in my pool."

It's an interesting read. They even interviewed Jeff Koons. From what I gather he's a very meticulous artist. I've yet to appreciate his art, but he's an obvious darling of the art market, at least based on current prices. And art critics are nearly uniformly positive about his work as well.

You're all welcome.

Well, I couldn't resist it - even though I have no holidays or money left, I just scored Easyjet tickets for £60 for each of us, going on a Saturday & back Sunday :-)

P.S. Thanks for the other link, 111op. yk, please post your impressions & any tips ! We'll be going on Sunday 23 Nov.

Looks like fun. The photos would be more interesting than the ones I took at Versailles the one time I went. Wish I could scoot over for the weekend for £60 myself.

Have a great time, caroline!

Jeff Koons is very much in the news lately. There was a retrospective in Chicago, and he was chosen as this year's artist for the roof garden at the Metropolitan Museum. I guess it's not surprising that he's enjoying the spotlight in France as well.

But I think the NYT article hints that Francois Pinault may have a hand in this. After all, this lends prestige to Pinault's own collection, and Pinault is also the owner of Christie's, the auction house.

It's interesting when art & business comingle. I was reading an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning, and Larry Gagosian (the art dealer) will send artworks to an abandoned chocolate factory in Moscow to be viewed and sold. Among them is another Koons, this one like a wrapped chocolate egg (not for sale).

Thanks 111op. Interesting thoughts & I think you are right. Pinault is also paying for the new contemporary art museum in Venice, isn't he ? I didn't realised he owns Christie's.

A talking point here is Damien Hirst sidestepping his dealers & selling new work through Sotheby's. I tend to think this is wrong, as dealers put up the money for premises, adveryising etc to showcase unknown artists and to me it is only honourable for the artist (and buyers) to stick with them when the money rolls in. And it's not as if Hirst needs the extra 50% or 60%.

Damien Hirst's diamond skull will be at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam from 1 November to 15 December if anyone is interested in seeing this piece of bling.

Yes, Palazzo Grassi is Pinault's creation also. I saw the news about Hirst and Sotheby's also. I wonder what his motivation is. Probably more $.

I'm not sure how much Pinault actually owns of Christie's. If you do a search, there's an NYT article from 10 years ago (1998) that Pinault bought a 29.1% stake of Christie's at that time. I'd imagine that the stake has gone up since.

The line between auction houses and dealers is actually not as clear as you may think. Haunch of Vension is now owned by Christie's. And I can't remember which old master's gallery -- but a very famous one -- has auction house ties. Actually even the line between auction houses and museums is not as clear as one thinks.

Speaking of Hirst's diamond skull I think the news is that it was sold to a consortium of investors of which Hirst was one. I've always wondered if that means that it couldn't find a real buyer.

I'm not really a fan of Hirst's works either.

More about auction houses & galleries, in case anyone is interested:

http://www.nysun.com/arts/auction-ho...dealers/52493/

The old master's gallery I may be thinking of is Noortman, owned by Sotheby's.

The various conflcts of interest are interesting to think about. You have conflicts of interest when the museums come into play. Placement of works in museums increase their value. And there's been a trend for museums to get private collectors to finance their special exhibitions and retrospectives.

Perhaps in the end, everyone gains and it's a win-win situation?

Hi 111op. I didn't mean Palazzo Grassi but the new one on the site of the old Customs House - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...5/italy.france. I didn't know Haunch of Venison is owned by Christie's. I'm also not a great fan of Hirst's although I did find some of his early stuff, particularly the shark and 'A Thousand Years' quite compelling at the time.

I think you're right, we all win - we the ordinary punters get to see more art, even if we can't afford to buy it !

I missed that news, caroline. Thanks! I didn't realize that Selma Hayek has Pinault's baby too. Gosh, the info you learn from reading Fodor's. :-)

There's an article on the Hirst auction in today's NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/ar...gn/15auct.html

His timing is surely "impeccable," when only two investment banks on Wall Street remain independent today. I'm curious to see how he fares. The article claims that auction estimates are about 50% of dealer prices -- but I suppose that probably tends to be the case anyway. It's what they will end up fetching (or not) that's really the question.

This takes me back to Venice in Spring 2006 - our arrival coincided with an opening of works from Pinault's collection at the Palazzo Grassi. I think Koons' pink puppy is our most downloaded photo on Webshots.
http://tinyurl.com/5nzhwz

I just checked the news. Hirst's auction has done very well so far, setting new records.

Probably bought by all those bankers/traders who made millions whilst their bank sank - investing in art before the next bank goes under?

Yes, they estimated a max of £62.3m for the first night and took £70.5m. There are 223 pieces in all - which does rather make it seem as though he just oversees a factory churning them out. Still, rich collectors still evidently want to buy - although there was talk here of his dealers buying some to keep prices up. The paper here said a third share in the £50m skull was sold to a consortium with Hirst allegedly 'buying' the rest, but reckoning it will sell on for £150m. And I suppose the stones do lend it an intrinsic (and appreciating) value.

110p, dealers here generally take 50% - I don't know if it's the same there ? - so auction prices being half of dealer prices makes sense (although there is then the buyer's premium of course).

110p, I was at a talk by Tracey Emin & Jerry Hall last night and TE echoed what you said - Damien Hirst's sale doing well is good for everyone. She also said his timing was spectacular, as she thinks people buy art in hard times - something like "you can't run away with money in the bank, you can't run away with a house, but you can run away with a work of art" :-)

Hi caroline, I think that there will be a correction (crash?) in the art market. The thing is nothing goes up forever. Everyone has good theories for why a market seems unstoppable at one time (be it dot.com, real estate, art, etc.), but I think the reality is what goes up must come down. At one time even Warhols were quite cheap because no one wanted them.

And this is Tracey Emin talking. After all, she has to talk up the market. How can she sell her stuff otherwise? :-)

This list, taken from one of Galenson's papers, is a bit outdated. (Galenson is an economist from Univ. of Chicago who has looked at art.)

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...sts_tables.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/3jw6g5

When I look at this list, one artist jumped out -- Kenneth Noland. I happened to like his works, but notice that his record was set in 1989. Granted, this list is quite out-dated, and I could be wrong, but I doubt that Noland will fetch that price (around 2 million) today.

Also I can't help but wonder if there's a certain rigging in art markets and auctions. Dealers bid to support their artists, etc. It's, after all, not a terribly transparent or efficient market.

Hm, well, as one who has a modest Emin piece...:-)

All interesting stuff, thanks 110p. I did hear that Jay Jopling (Hirst's London dealer) was at the auction last week & was expected to buy to keep prices up - but perhaps he didn't need to !

Coincidentally, Channel 4 here showed a very interesting programme by Robert Hughes last night, 'The Mona Lisa Curse', all about what he thinks has been the corrupting effect on art of the boom in prices since the 60s and especially since the 80s. I don't always agree with him but he raised some very thought-provoking issues and it was all very coherent and well thought out. The idea that most struck me (although I should have thought of it before) was how since the high prices mean that art museums can no longer compete, they are now largely dependent on gifts and loans from wealthy collectors - which means that their taste or investment plan then dictates what the public sees (as well as through their influence as board members, trustees etc).

The dictates of corporate sponsorhsip also came into it and I thought of the sponsorship by the bank I work for, over the last year. Having signed a deal to sponsor 2 big exhibitions of modern / contemporary art, last summer they sponsored the big summer art exhibition which was Andy Warhol, and later this year they are sponsoring the Gerhard Richter exhibition (which was originally going to be Beuys). Funnily enough they missed out this year's big summer art exhibition which was Tracey Emin :-) (It didn't get a corporate sponsor at all so well done to the NGS for going ahead with it.)

Hughes did speak to some pretty deluded and/or unpleasant people; but also to some rather sweet people of modest means who'd bought stuff when it was cheap, because they liked it - and they eventually gave it away to museums, rather than selling it for big money.

This was the first part of a three-part series on 'Art and Money' and Russia is the next subject.

Hey everyone-

We just returned from our trip last night, and we saw the Jeff Koons last week.

It was quite entertaining, IMO. I was familiar with his "metallic" sculptures, though not at all with the rest of his oeuvre which we got to see a bit at Versailles.

I think some works fit quite well in the surroundings, however, a few (such as the lobster, or the vacuum cleaners) don't work as well.

What I also enjoyed was the audioguide included a brief commentary of each Koons work in each room.

Excellent, thanks very much indeed yk. We will get the audioguides.

I've seen a certain amount of Koons' work before - and like some pieces more than others - but am particularly attracted by the idea of seeing it in such seemingly incongruous surroundings !

"But I think the NYT article hints that Francois Pinault may have a hand in this. After all, this lends prestige to Pinault's own collection, and Pinault is also the owner of Christie's, the auction house."

It's more than a hint. Six or seven of the 17 sculptures are from M. Pinault's collection. The director of the château de Versailles formerly worked for M. Pinault in Venice. Pinault is the largest collector of Koons in the world.

Selma Hayek's baby's father is Francois-Henri, the son of François, so the baby is his grandson.

Thanks for the correction. Selma does seem too old for Francois. I didn't realize it's Francois le jeune we're talking about.

Caroline, that TV show sounds very interesting. I just saw the Gerhard Richter exhibition at Serpentine in London yesterday. Also underwitten, by, well, Louis Vuitton, so Francois must have a hand in this too.

The show is called 4900 colors, which Richter can arrange in various configurations. For the Serpentine show, he shows 49 square paintings, each of which is 10x10 or has 100 colors. It was interesting trying to calculate how much each square is worth and so how the entire project may be valued. Based on a guess, I thought each square was worth 3000 pounds (I won't explain how I came up with this number), so 4900 colors would cost 14.7MM pounds.

I think the market value, though, is much lower than this, however. I'm not sure if any of Richter's works has cracked the 10 million mark yet.

Since Jeff Koons is showing his work at Versailles, I think Damien Hirst should do a collaboration with Deyrolle of Paris.

Thingorjus

Ah, I'd wondered if the Richter exhibition in London was the same one we are getting and assumed it was. But 'ours' is a retrospective so it seems not. Hopefully it will have an example of the type of work at the Serpentine, though.

A Richter work is currently my favourite piece in the NGS collections - http://www.nationalgalleries.org/col...ms/4:5077/4972

Hi caroline, the Serpentine is usually too small to have a full fledged retrospective, as I'm sure you know. But the shows there are usually quite interesting. Plus they have the interesting architecture pavilion every year too.

I think you'll probably have one example of that type of work in the retrospective since it's pretty seminal Richter. But if not, you can go to London! :-)

True ! Don't have any plans at the moment but it's always a possibility if we want to see something enough. The longer I've been away, though, the longer the gaps get - our last visit was for the Antony Gormley exhibition in June 2007.

I'd forgotten about this year's pavilion being by Frank Gehry, though, or I might have gone for that. What do you think of it ? Have you been to any of the events there ?

I liked it actually. The roof is like deconstructed butterfly wings. Thought it was quite fun. Personally I find the Serpentine Gallery quite lovely. It's a small space, and the exhibitions are usually quite thoughtful (starting from 2006, I've seen a couple of shows there -- on Ellsworth Kelly, Thomas Demand, Paul Chan and now Gerhard Richter).

I live in NYC, so it's not realistic for me to go to actual events at Serpentine frequently. But I've been passing through London fairly often. By the way I saw the Gormley at Hayward also. I think the show (or part of it -- at least the bit with the misty room) came to a NYC gallery. I forget who his dealer is in NYC though.

I think that the two of us probably shouldn't hijack this thread. Maybe you can e-mail me at op 111 op 111 at hotmal.com (remove all the spaces) if you're interested in chatting more? I'll have to remember to check this account as I don't normally check it these days. :-)

Hi 111op - that will be nice, I'll do that. Although since I started this thread I think I am entitled tio hijack it :-)

Oh, I didn't realize that you started this thread! :-)

I'll check that e-mail account I gave you, but I'll write from a different one that I check daily. That account doesn't have my name either, but actually I use it much more often these days -- more often than accounts with my name. :-)

Look forward to chatting more later.

It has been said that the art movement of the 21st century is called "marketing."

This is second-hand info but I will pass it along for whatever it's worth.

DH and I were in Paris a few days ago and on the train back to Amsterdam (where we are currently living) we sat next to a Dutch artist who had made the trip to Paris just to see the Koons exhibition.

He said he was very disappointed because of the incredible crowds - felt like he couldn't really experience the exhibit. (From his description it sounded like the Sistine Chapel in the summer - you are in a herd and have to keep moving with the herd.)

I know Versailles is always crowded, but maybe the exhibit is making it even more so? So maybe it's even more important than usual to time your visit as best you can to avoid peak times. Just passing along his comments FYI ...