What does one actually do with a $91 million, stainless steel rabbit? You can’t leave it outside, it might get stolen. You can’t put it inside for a number of reasons: it’s stupid looking; people will see it and they’re bound to ask questions; and if you answer honestly, they’ll think you’re stupid too. Perhaps it’s an investment rather than an aesthetic decision, in which case you’d maybe put it in a storage unit? Presumably, if I’m to answer any of these questions, I’ll need to acquire enough money that $91 million is expendable.....gotta go check out the want ads.
18
Adam Ruins Everything - How the Fine Art Market is a Scam https://youtu.be/NSdbASDdwU4
7
Somehow, the phrase "money laundering" comes to mind...
9
Fools and their money. And it's only fitting that it was a Mnuchin that bought this garbage "art."
10
Ridiculous. A sure sign that a business cycle is near the end of a bull market is sky high prices for works of "art" and/or real estate.
5
What is wrong with these people?
4
Oh Ileana Sonnabend look what you started!
If someone is stupid enough to pay that much for something they mistook to be art, I suggest a session or two of therapy.
3
And I have a bridge to sell you.
2
"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."
4
Yet the rich don't want to pay more taxes and we can't afford Medicare for all. Talk about the Emperor losing his clothes.
10
Some one needs to make a Thousand knockoffs and sell them cheap. 91 million is silly stupid money. The greater fool theory.
10
Did Mnuchin Pere purchase this as an agent for someone wealthier than he, or for himself? Perhaps as a gift for the lovely Louise...
Was it worth it? Perhaps to someone with more money than taste.
9
Well its a horrid trite looking thing. Famous for being famous. It may be valuable now, but in a decade or so, will no doubt be considered the ultimate object of yes you can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time .
11
Opera has not a one to show please we g P
When I saw the winning bid, my first thought was "Seriously??" Events like this confirm my conviction that homo sapiens deserves our inevitable extinction as a failed species. I believe I will post an image of this sculpture with its price tag next to a photo of immigrant toddlers sleeping on the ground covered by flimsy mylar blankets while their parents languish, awaiting an asylum hearing.
14
This only show how disgusting wealth can be. Only that would explain paying this obscene amount of money for a third rate self-promoter with a zero aptitude for art and an aesthetic of a barbarian.
9
This certainly helps to explain where Steven Mnuchin inherited his own stellar taste in the arts from.
This trash is not art. It’s purpose-built iconography for people who worship money.
6
The system works! Mnuchin's just doing his part as a job creator, in this case on behalf of fabricators of metal bunnies
4
And in other news, Energizer batteries files suit against Jeff Koons....
6
Another long list of comments about how other people should spend their money.
Just maybe that money going to the S.I. Newhouse foundation will be in better hands than Mnuchin's, and if so the sale deserves praise rather than criticism.
7
Koons is not an artist. Shades of Morley Safer.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/yes-but-is-it-art/
7
I think people buying this kind of art do it for the investment, not a passionate love for the work in particular. Things blown up ridiculously large is a very easy to do in the art world and a base kind of “gimmick” that often delights the public. It’s not easy to execute, but easy to think up and get others to do the hard work of making it look real for you (especially if you have deep pockets). This easy art-gimmick is so prevalent, I’ve always had a name for it - Giantism. Is it high art? A beautiful, sophisticated, original thing? Don’t make me laugh.
I believe soon we will be seeing less and less of this type of art, as the public moves from saying, “I must be dumb, because I don’t get it” to “This is boring and bad, let’s go look at the Degas.”
The NYTimes is part of the elitist groupthink that still celebrates this kind of charade as evident in their incessant coverage of artists and art like this. We must not assume class guarantees taste or publications aren’t tethered to larger financial interests.
Koons was once asked in an interview, “Can you draw?” and he answered, “Oh yes, I used to win many awards for it.”
I politely ask, has anyone seen these awards? Does the emperor wear clothes? Does Giantism, the easiest kind of student-level idea deserve such a crown of glory (and financial excess)?
Show me art that the artist touches him or her self, without assistants doing all the work, that isn’t just a blown up bunny, that isn’t boring, that is hard - please.
4
Yes, to the point. I might add that if only art academia and the curatorial ecosystem would believe what you wrote.
Lol. Absurd. Makes about as much sense as paying Georgetown $400,000. to admit your kid.
6
I'm no art critic, but "Rabbit" strikes me as a cute, inoffensive piece of sculpture. However, putting a $91.1 million price tag on it bothers me. In an age epitomized by income inequality, paying so much seems more like a statement of privilege than art appreciation.
9
Some serious questions I am asking myself...Is this what happens when you approach 90 years old and you are so wealthy that there is no other euphoria moment left for you to pursue? Or is it to trigger some long gone childhood memories of when you had your first bunny toy (or pet)?
3
@Cetico. And After reading this mind boggling news item.... I want something warm and fuzzy to cuddle with.
1
It's amazing that rich people are willing to abuse workers, deny healthcare, and run our planet headlong into climate catastrophe just so they can get shiny stuff from extremely mediocre 'artists.'
25
Wish I had so much disposable cash to blow it on faux art. I'm jealous and sickened at the same time. How does that make you feel that kids are going hungry while you blew 91 mil on a dust collector.
Nice
19
Wow. Wish I had that kind of jack. Just thinking about how many less fortunate people I could help with that money instead of wasting it on an object to put on display for bragging rights among those of similar mentality. Don't really understand how a person could get more pleasure out of spending that much money on an object than the satisfaction one would get from helping others instead. That's a lot of money and could really make an impact. And if you have that much money that you can drop nearly a hunge on art then it is even more baffling why you wouldn't use it to help your fellow humans.
13
Mr. Mnuchin could have built "The Wall" instead.
6
Not only is the $91.1 million obscene for this "event," but let's be kind here, Koons's work is an art-co. There is no art in this, only .1% status-pornography and idiocy of art fashion.
A nice touch and rich irony that the buyer is the father of such a major fraudulent expert and department head in the Trump administration.
18
To be incensed when someone spends their own money on whatever they choose does not fully capture the emotion. The core of it is that the emotion rails against the entire culture wherein such practice is ordinary and expected. I do not understand the art, the meaning of it and certainly not the price. But I do understand that the cultural and financial gap between those that apparently do and those without such wealth will indeed cause jealousy and pushback at a time when the wealthy are additionally seen as the recipients of enormous tax breaks.
3
...Because there aren't better, more life-improving, and positive-legacy-creating things to do with $91.1 million, right?
10
Kind of makes one nostalgic for Robespierre.
9
Koons' $91M "Rabbit": Schlock sold as high art that literally mirrors vulgar consumption. All in all a good avatar for the current state of affairs.
14
Art is taking us in directions we never thought we’d go. For all of you bemoaning this milestone, suspend judgement for a couple decades before some wise interpreter of our times tells us just how significant this piece is.
1
It may be important, and as a sculptor I understand that.
But how many impoverished, hungry kids could be fed for 17-18 years on $91,100,000?
Or on even $90,000,000?
11
@Expat Syd Significant to who? The few in the art world who will get rich off of it? The art world today is purely self serving. Some how, some way, some day I am sure there will be this great thesis on this art that a tiny fraction of the world will fawn over and media like the Times will write more self serving articles on it.
1
As a gardener, I am baffled...
7
Very interesting piece, however further proof some have more money than sense.
3
"A shiny stainless steel sculpture created by Jeff Koons in 1986, inspired by a child’s inflatable toy, sold at Christie’s on Wednesday night for $91.1 million..."
I think I'll buy the inflatable and save the rest of my money.
9
These kinds of stories are almost diagnostic in nature; a view into the culture of narcissism and smug stupidity that seems to be emblematic of our times. It's also troubling that the buyer is a family member with the Treasury Secretary, also a smug, possibly not competent, and self-satisfied type that will be the first to run for cover when this overheated economy crashes, making these kinds of dumb auction buys even more ridiculous.
It's no wonder that so many idealistic young people see so little hope and optimism in their futures, when they read stories like these. This kind of behavior is just part of a larger national pathology, and all of here really should do our part to encourage in our society more wisdom, kindness, and simplicity/renunciation, and less mindless consumerism and excess.
10
This is perfect example of "conspicuous consumption" the term introduced by Thorstein Veblen in “The Theory of the Leisure Class” published way back in 1899. I'll take Albrecht Durer's 1502 watercolor of a rabbit instead of Koons' rabbit.
20
As the rest of America and the billions of people around the world labor and sweat and pay for the toys of the rich, many of the rich elite gather to plunder the wealth of their productive labor and luxuriate in the spoils of the pain and suffering of others. Perhaps this is a world that deserves to continue its decline into global climatic oblivion.
10
This is why we can't raise taxes to have universal health care, maternity leave, or free college. If we did, then rich people would only be able to spend a couple dozen million of metal rabbit sculptures instead of $90 million, and nobody really wants that, do they?
37
"Critics pointed out that the “Rabbit” sculpture elegantly and enigmatically alludes to earlier pieces by such artists as Constantin Brancusi, Marcel Duchamp and Andy Warhol."
Not exactly. "It clumsily and blatantly alludes to a child's toy".
There. Fixed that for you. But I'd pay 9.1 for it. Just remove the zeros.
36
Just another example of people having too much money I enjoy Koons whimsical art but 91 million? I'm reminded of Nick Cage in the Ferrari dealership in Gone in 60 seconds.
5
Now there's $91 million that didn't trickle down.
49
Artists of the Renaissance had workshops where they would design the piece and their assistants would do most of the tedious work, with the master stepping in at various points. No one would argue though that it was essentially a work by the master. Koons has ideas, but almost every other aspect of the work is carried out by other hands. Technology had to be developed to create these stainless steel balloon sculptures that did not exist before, but not by Koons, by the firm he hired. This is the same modus operandi used by that other art world favorite Ai WeiWei; he has ideas which others carry to fruition. At what point does someone cease to be an artist and become merely a parasite of other people's skills?
16
$91.1 million too much...
I know a few organizations in this country that could benefit from such a generous amount.
14
@MB
My thoughts exactly. I wonder how much he has donated to deserving charities. Maybe that should be the story.
1
Koons' work is "cheap" schlock, not art. The fact that some idiot paid an unfathomable amount of money for it doesn't change anything. The emperor still has no clothes.
37
@West coast
I could not agree more. The hype, hysteria and delusion that have gripped the art-buying hedge-fund crowd are mindboggling. Future generations will look back on the this kind of frenzy with utter bewilderment--and also amusement that so many otherwise intelligent people could be taken in by such uninspired and frankly ugly kitsch. It brings to mind the tulip mania in 1630s Holland--except that at least tulips are intrinsically beautiful.
9
@West coast
Don't worry, this is not art, it's a commodity. It will be locked in a vault for several years and then flipped once again at auction for a sizable profit, probably without ever being looked at again by its owner. Do you think Steve Mnuchin's father actually cares one bit about this work's merits or lack thereof?
2
Silly rabbit, tricks are for Koons.
14
@Alex Cody
Best comment.
I find the sculpture whimsical if bland, and iconic in its own way (now even more-so for fetching such a ridiculous price), but the joke is on the buyer.
8
Taste?, Iconoclasm? about Art?
Wow!
all-the-way-to-the-bank
Yikes
3
This explains so much about Steve to me.
22
The horrors, the horrors...
4
A huge blow to the "the Government should wither away and let the rich people decide what to do with their money" advocates.
11
Wow. Where did the Treasury Secretary's daddy get all that extra cash?
21
Well, that's just nutty.
For that money, he coulda bought a whole bunch of Thomas Kinkade paintings.
20
A fool and his money are soon parted.
14
Jeff Koons is creative all right. He's been running a scam for years selling himself as an artist. He's become so accomplished at this con he's managed to turn the practice of fraud itself into an art. If anyone's having the proverbial last laugh over this $91 million sale it's likely Koons himself. Savoring the comedy of passing off the concept of a balloon bunny that's really not balloons as great art.
25
@Rose
I could not agree more. The hype, hysteria and delusion that have gripped the art-buying hedge-fund crowd are mindboggling. Future generations will look back on this kind of frenzy with utter bewilderment--and also amusement that so many otherwise intelligent people could be taken in by such uninspired and frankly ugly kitsch. It brings to mind the tulip mania in 1630s Holland--except that at least tulips are intrinsically beautiful.
8
@Rose
Well, that is part of the appeal of Koons: the flurries around his art becomes part of the story about the art itself. It's meta-commentary on the art business itself.
2
They should give some credit to the people who actually made it.
14
@Kevin Oh! So true. Fat chance.
It's just stunning how junk like that goofy rabbit fetches such prices in the art world. Talk about the herd mentality!
I have to go back and re-read Tom Wolfe's great book on the American art scene, "From Bauhaus to Our House"
I understand that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder but some things are just intrinsically worthless, just as other things are intrinsically beautiful. That rabbit is in the first category but that has nothing to so with its price, of course.
As Wolfe notes...well, just read the book.
7
@Bob Burns
I could not agree more. The hype, hysteria and delusion that have gripped the art-buying hedge-fund crowd are mindboggling. Future generations will look back on the this kind of frenzy with utter bewilderment--and also amusement that so many otherwise intelligent people could be taken in by such uninspired and frankly ugly kitsch. It brings to mind the tulip mania in 1630s Holland--except that at least tulips are intrinsically beautiful.
4
What this says to me is that money is somehow becoming worthless.
9
I recall back in the late 60s or so the first 'Million-Dollar painting' It was Rembrandt's 'Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer' - the Met had it roped off and assigned its own guard. It gave an aura to an already wonderful artwork by a first-rate artist. However, it was magnificent before they slapped that magical price tag on it.
Fast forward to our own idiotic time where a gift-shop balloon slapped together by a shameless hack sells for $91.1 million. We are through the Looking Glass, folks.
18
Here's an idea: let's make a perfect full size plastic replica, sell it for about $30-50. Make 100's of thousands and then all of us can have a cheap gee gaw to gaze at and reflect on the "value" of "art"
Of course Robert Mnuchin isn't buying art, it's just an "investment", a place to park money, a way to diversify his portfolio
9
What a perfect example of how to not make a difference on the planet.
29
It would have been worth it if it came with a box of Trix.
8
Nobody should ever mention Brancusi and Koons in the same sentence. I am so very glad he is not around to be insulted like that. Brancusi was a true artist who gave the world soaring (n pun intended) work - compare that to this ridiculous hack Koons.
However, Koons is exactly right for the SuperHero and comic book age - the moronic Age of Trump.
18
Having regular recourse to ArtNews to see what's going on, it's pretty clear that contemporary commercial art has been thoroughly Disnified. Visiting a gallery is like watching Saturday morning cartoons. This too, will pass.
9
@J111111
Generally agree. I just went to the art market at Fort Mason, which had a wide range of "affordable" art from multiple galleries. So much of it was gimmicky. But there were still some standouts -- moments of the sublime among the average match-your-couch offerings and general schlock.
1
@J111111
Well, not all of Jeff Koons art could be said to be «disnified» though…
91 million for a stainless steel rabbit... obviously a
homage to the Trump tax cuts.
18
“There’s no accounting for taste,” said the lady as she kissed the really awful Jeff Zoons sculpture.
3
It takes a mental rabbit to buy a metal rabbit for $91.1 million.
10
Everything is so stupid. But it is nice to be reminded of the Mnuchin and his family’s ties to the worst of the contemporary art world, including daddy’s Koons of course but also the fact that Mnuchin himself was on MOCA’s board until it became a Trumpian embarrassment in 2016. My favorite tidbit is the time he “belatedly disclosed that his children own nearly $1 million in artwork.” Artists (not Koons so much) need to use what little leverage they have left to push back against art’s colonization by rich right wingers profiteering on this regime’s xenophobic nightmare and gleeful acceleration of the impending collapse of our biosphere (thank you Michael Rakowitz)
12
This piece reminds me of the parable 'The Emperor has No Clothes,' but in art.
I've been an avid museum visitor since I've been 8 years old and also collector and make art, and I wouldn't pay a dime for this silly piece of kitsch.
13
@Sasha Love
I could not agree more. The hype, hysteria and delusion that have gripped the art-buying hedge-fund crowd are mindboggling. Future generations will look back on the this kind of frenzy with utter bewilderment--and also amusement that so many otherwise intelligent people could be taken in by such uninspired and frankly ugly kitsch. It brings to mind the tulip mania in 1630s Holland--except that at least tulips are intrinsically beautiful.
Art is not subject to the whims of the broke masses. There are plenty of innocent-looking and mass-market friendly Keith Haring murals for the broke masses to enjoy. There are also free museums to attend. If art were to simply bow to the mewling of those who cannot afford the works, we'd be drowning in a sea of same-ness. Bland. Boring. Unoffensive trash.
These select artworks rise above the same-ness. They provoke us. Good art, above all else, should be provocative, and judging by how many people take a $90M price tag as an affront to their delicate sensibilities, I'd say these works are very provocative indeed.
10
@OnABicycleBuiltForTwo
Apologies from a member of the 'broken classes', but I could help noticing that The Emperor has no clothes.
13
@OnABicycleBuiltForTwo
You are reversing the meta-commentary that works by Koons are (arguably) trying to make. It is not the masses who are duped, but the art world itself.
7
Hey I never claimed I could afford a $90M sculpture, nor would I purchase one if I could. The whole "emperor not having any garments on" doesn't really apply here as art is wholly subjective. The emperor, in your example, objectively had no clothes on for all to see. I think what you're saying is, this piece is absurd and not art because of its absurdity. I think it's absurd too but for different reasons. When I look at this sculpture I immediately think of Duchamp's 'Fountain.' It is dadaist absurdity and I applaud it for that. It says, "I dare you to take me seriously" and I frankly do take it seriously. It's a statement to the world: Abandon your preconceived notions and follow me down the rabbit hole instead. Is that what Mnuchin thought when he signed the check? I doubt it. But this work is far more important as the fine art it is rather than who purchased it. I imagine he'll sell it one day and it will find a home where someone actually appreciates the artistic statement this sculpture makes.
I hope the winning bidder will consider loaning the piece to art museums. It's clearly a very provocative piece given the astounding price tag and is already generating a lot of discussion about what this means in the world.
1
Another proof of the 2nd Gilded Age we're currently living in. If private individuals can just drop $90 Million Dollars on a piece of "art", then that just shows that our taxes on the wealthy are not nearly high enough.
27
Mr. Mnuchin is an art dealer, not an art collector; he wasn't bidding that kind of money to own the piece. Who knows, he may already have a buyer lined up, or may own other Koons' works, all of whose value just exploded. Yes, it's all finance, like father, like son......In spite of the great comments, here's an even more distressing thought -- at $91.1 million it may have been a bargain for all involved. Art and commerce too well and sadly mixed.
8
Art reflects the society from which it is produced and then resides. Here is a perfect example.
9
I love art of many kinds but I find it sickening that wealthy people spend these kinds of amounts on art when there are so many hungry and homeless people and so many issues that need to be resolved with funding.
I don't begrudge artists a living but these amounts of money have been way over the top.
15
I think this means that the price of those abstract paintings by Thai elephants just went up.
11
2 things to consider...
Is this really art? Conceptually it is a magnificent rendering, in monumental scale, of the kind of little kitch figurines found in card stores or novelty shops. Hyped up by the right people, in the right circles and a demand is created. See? Even the art world is rigged.
As for the buyer, just another example that some people have way too much money. Let's get them tax increases on the uber wealthy going already.
12
@Rick Blaine
Yes, it's art. Just like when Duchamp exhibited a bicycle seat on a pedestal in a gallery, oe when Warhol painted Campbell's coup cans.
3
@Rick Blaine
"monumental scale"
You may be thinking of Koons' balloon dogs. This piece is only about a meter high, like the Stonehenge replica in the movie Spinal Tap. One can only hope the buyer was similarly confused, and similarly disappointed on delivery.
4
@Alex Cody
Duchamp's bicycle wheel was art (the bicycle seat was Picasso's) because it added a new dimension to our understanding of what art is. Warhol didn't really advance the idea much further, and Koons is just a grifter.
9
This rabbit brings to mind Mark Twain's crack about Richard Wagner: "I have been told that Wagner's music is better than it sounds."
20
My first experience of this sort of madness, years ago, was when an “artist” put 3 Shop Vacs in clear plexiglass cubes, and stacked them vertically. The curator was serious about this, and estimated the worth (IIRC), at something between 30-60K. The rabbit takes it to grotesque heights. Think of the good all that economic power could accomplish.
10
"All wealth is guilty of someone's poverty.
Material opulence masks the mutilation of the soul."
Eduardo Galeano
Where would I have put that thing if I had purchased it for fifty dollars?Where would I have put the rest of the $ if I had it?
Into scholarships. Education is the best way out of poverty, after food security, shelter, medical and dental care.
9
@TME You've assuming the pie is always the same size. If an economy is growing, everyone gets wealthier, not just the rich. "Poor" people in the U.S. today live lifestyles of amazing luxury compared to the poor people of 200 years ago.
@Gerber
I agree that is what it is today. But even Galeano saw it. He said that if every country lived in our style of living the resources of the plant would be rapidly demolished, and that is what is happening now.
It is not just about the United States. The Industrial Revolution made life easier for many people. The tech revolution as well increased our standard of living. The whole world wants the same privilege and the earth's resources are not enough to sustain that.
The Pie is Shrinking. We have taken the gifts of the earth and are burning them, literally.
2
@TME What's needed, then, is an economic system that produces a reasonably pleasant standard of living for everyone on the planet, without mutilating the planet or people's souls. I'm not sure we should encourage people to stop striving to improve themselves.
It was purchased by an intelligent investor who likely believes that this artwork will appreciate in value and add diversification to his financial portfolio. This is a great example of the ultra wealthy living in a totally different universe. If his net worth is 50 billion then spending less than 2 percent on a somewhat speculative investment is reasonable even as it seems bizarre to the vast majority. Why some art goes for $91 another $91000 and a third $91, 000,000 is a beyond my understanding but I imagine those in the industry have an answer.
3
@"Why some art goes for $91 another $91000 and a third $91, 000,000 is a beyond my understanding but I imagine those in the industry have an answer."
I think those in the industry know how to con a sucker.
4
Say what you will about Jeff Koons and Robert Mnuchin and their money etc. Koon's sculpture "Puppy" now homed in Bilbao, Spain has probably given the world as many smiles as any other work of modern art. That is surely worth something.
2
@Carr Kleeb
I recall in the glorious summer of 2000 that that idiot thing took up most of Rockefeller Center. You couldn't get away from it. Still can't
5
@Carr Kleeb Maybe, but 91.1 MILLION somethings? I just bought a rookie baseball card for $30 (actually 5 of em) fully expecting that by the time my grandkids are grown up they'll be worth $30.1 ones..
1
This is a perfect example of why they needed a tax cut.
Perhaps it would be fitting that financial expressionist art , that was not even made by the 'artist' , should symbolize that ridiculous time between 2016 and 2020.
19
You've got to be kidding! I have a couple of forks perched on a platform if anyone is interested.
12
"The kingdoms of experience
In the precious wind they rot
While paupers change possessions
Each one wishing for what the other has got
And the princess and the prince
Discuss what's real and what is not
It doesn't matter inside the Gates of Eden"
Thanks to Bob Dylan
10
@mike hailstone
Dylan was so much smarter then.
He's dumber than that now.
@mike hailstone
"The empty-handed painter from your streets
Is marketing deluxe designer sheets"
And it isn’t even unique, being one of four. Koons has reason to laugh on his way to the bank.
16
@MJ2G He won't be getting any of that money - it all goes to the estate of the seller (minus Christie's fees). The bump he gets is in his reputation and future prices for his direct sales.
9
@MJ2G He doesnt make any money on the sale.
@Pamela Warner
I realized that after posting. In a way, that makes the art scene look even worse.
1
That’s a whole lotta health care coverage.
44
One immediately wonders what business the beneficiaries of the Newhouse estate might have before the US government.
12
The purchase price of the SS 3 foot rabbit shows everything that is wrong with tax sheltered LLC’s and private equity carried interest. I am tired of paying my fair share. The Mnuchin clan is not even the tip of the spear.
57
ridiculous......
23
Silly Rabbit, dumb Humans.
55
@Lewis Fordperfect description
1
I realized on viewing that silly thingy that the art world has nothing to do with art, or morality, and that Koon's genius lies exclusively in his skills at marketing himself. That anyone would throw away millions of dollars on something so ridiculous simply because it has a "name brand" attached to it reveals the deep stupidity of the purchaser, and the con game run by the sellers. It glaringly reveals that Robert Mnuchin is beyond depraved, as that money could have gone to countless wonderful, worthy causes..
78
@Ellen
Obscene as it may seem to outsiders its an art dealer making an investment that he believes will be profitable. If he bought 91 million worth of stocks Bonds gold etc it would be similar
You can get one on Amazon for around 30 bucks, and it... vibrates !!
75
Pulitzer winning NY Mag art critic (and great American) Jerry Saltz on this sale:
"The odious alchemy whereby a work of art is made to no-longer exist as it is turned into a number-price by idiotic white billionaires and all those suits who applaud as the feat accomplished.
"They pay in blood; but not their own."
https://www.instagram.com/p/BxgU9oHA5RQ/
47
@MM
"they pay in blood but not their own"
is from Bob Dylan's "Pay In Blood", - Tempest, 2012
9
Hard to say which is sillier, Koons’ rabbit or Saltz’s Pulitzer. This sort of fashionable sanctimony is his favorite pose.
I don't what is more disturbing; that a rabbit sculpture sold for over $90million or that the father of the U.S. Treasury Secretary purchased it.....truly a sign of the times.......
109
I thought Trump was against elites. My bad, should not have taken Hanity at his word.
3
@Susy The father of the US Treasury Secretary, Robert Mnuchin is an art dealer and was doing the bidding on behalf of a client.
2
@LT
Thank you for the useful correction. Like father, like son, who is likewise doing the bidding of his clients, whose wealth far exceeds his own measly $300M or so.
2
Absurd, crazy, irrational, and Kafka-esque as these dollar amounts are -- I'm glad Rauschenberg is appearing amongst metal rabbits.
And Steven Mnuchin's father? Wow, ironic madness on financial steroids.
12
Why pull some kids out of poverty when you can own a stainless steel balloon animal I guess?
67
Totally bonkers. Modern art is an absolute fraud.
12
@Jon No, Just Koons and his ilk.
4
Like son, like father—idol worshippers.
52
And his son is in charge of the Treasury.....YIKES.
26
I love David Hockney's paintings, but why did a metallic energizer bunny top a bid for something of David Hockney's without first going through a metal grinder during the auction process.
Because it was already done by Banksy?
That's what I liked about Banksy. He's innovative. Jeff Koons should just work in a restaurant supply chain, making tableware.
5
What a waste of money. I could find you a similar looking helium balloon for $5 (I’d charge $10 to make a profit).
10
I have always found Koons work incredibly vacuous. That someone is daft enough to pay that obscene amount of money for such a work, reflects more about our society than the apparent talents of Mr Koons.
26
Insulting excess, but a garish reality check on wealth and conscience. Also, a summation of 'shiny objects' and the people who can't resist them.
24
If Elizabeth Warren becomes president, Mr. Mnuchin will have to pay a wealth tax on his "Rabbit" trinket. This is why I support Warren and her class warfare agenda.
62
Jeff Koons' faux art is nothing more than decorative accessories for the private jet set.
18
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people.
--- H.L. Mencken
Or the taste of rich art collectors.
29
The Mnuchin family has so much money it can blow the life earnings of scores of less fortunate Americans on a bauble. Louis XVI also thought the good times would never end.
40
This purchase kind of tells you where our treasury secretary comes from. His dad can afford to spend 90 million on a bauble. Many of our pols are just crazy rich, the rest are just rich. We wonder why they can’t relate. They are in a different world.
6
Art is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the beholder must be rich, bored and blind.
24
Just think what could be done to make the world a better place with $91 million.
It's not a stainless steel rabbit.
29
It figures that the person who bought a statue of a bunny rabbit for $91M has at least some connection to the Trump Administration . . .
49
Rich people sure do know how to throw money away.
10
The critical comments below on this prodigal use of money are wonderful as a waking up to this faux stock market of often ludicrous objects. The tide is turning. You can’t fake guitar playing or violin playing. Art can be faked thanks to the faux commentary written by fake pundits....for decades.
12
We. Need. Higher. Taxes. On. The. Rich.
75
@Anne
Amen
Is it "Show me the money," or "Show me the bunny the bunny," when you visit a Mnuchin? Or both?
6
To each his own, I guess. But at some point, someone must tell the emperor he has no clothes. And someone will be left holding a 91 million dollar piece os stainless steel.
16
"Let them eat cake." And... paper towels.
37
The price of everything and the value of nothing.....
12
So we have a president and a cabinet (including DeVos) who were raised on daddy's money, falsely claim their wealth as either self-earned or a result of God's favor. No wonder Trump and his gang are trying to dismantle safety nets. As my grandmother (who was a true socialist - she marched, she campaigned for Debs, she went on strike on the front lines) used to say about the rich and avarice: the more they have, the more they want.
62
Somehow this purchase is made all the more revolting coming from of the family of Trump's Sec of Treasury, who's ostensibly a public servant.
We get why the rich are behind it, but to all the lower-income people who continue to support this administration: what exactly are you thinking? How is a steel replica of an inflatable rabbit supposed to trickle down?
43
This kind of purchase is the best argument for a wealth tax.
90
No wonder (as if there ever was any) that the Trump Administration has showered the wealthy with tax cuts. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's father has a spare $91,100,000 to spend on a sculpture of a child's toy.
Sheesh. Can we all agree that the WEALTHY in this country should be targets of our wrath - not women, immigrants, minorities, LGBTQ, baby boomers, etc.?
121
@Marie S I can't agree for anyone else, Marie. But I certainly agree.
4
@Marie S
"Wrath" seems too strong a word. It's how one uses your money, not the fact that you have it, that makes them worthy of ire.
@Sean
Wrath is not too strong a word for me. Extreme wealth makes no sense when more than 1/8th of all Americans live below the (very extreme, not-even-survivable) poverty level. And millions more hover somewhere slightly above it.
We need tax policies that result in fewer people accumulating this kind of wealth in the first place. It's, quite simply, obscene. Truly, it's not "their money." That's MY opinion - and that of many others.
10
Us artists know that the division between "the Academy" and the "Salon de refuse" still exists. However today this Academy is marketed as edgy critique. Marshall Berman wrote about the immense creativity of the moneyed class in co-opting anything that critiques it. They have done this and more: they have turned it inside out by lauding it as critique. Ambitious artists play the game.
Sadly, those in the Salon de refuse seldom get the press or exposure required to show the world that an alternative to this Trumpian world of greed and deceit still exists. Nevertheless, we persist.
6
Despite my address, I'm well educated, literate and sophisticated. I'd pay about 200 hundred Dollars for this " Art ". After several glasses of Wine.
Seriously.
57
@Phyliss Dalmatian I wouldn't even pay that much.
17
@Phyliss Dalmatian My young grandson said it was "stupid" to build a rabbit out of steel. "How can you cuddle with that?"
9
The art business is a racket that has absolutely no logic to it. It's no different to the relationship that Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies have to legitimate investments.
I inherited a beautiful old painting that I had evaluated 20 or more years ago. 20 years ago this painting was valued at $32,000. Today, I had it valued and its value was now $5,000.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the painting that I inherited. And frankly it doesn't matter to me that its only valued at $5,000 vs $32,000. Either way, I wouldn't sell it.
However, I will say this: My painting IS legitimate art, painted by a talented artist, and his work resonates with me as much now, as when it was painted back in the 1800s.
Jeff Koons's 'Rabbit' is nothing more than commercial kitsch art that you might buy at some tourist trap souvenir shop.
A hundred years from now, people's jaws will drop at the stupidity and gullibility of those who paid a fortune for something that has no value to it.
But hey, that's the free market for you. You are free to overpay for anything you like.
Its not art, but it is commerce, an art-form that Jeff Koons truly excels at.
30
@Richard Gordon
It sounds like you're developing an understanding for what Koons is actually doing with his art. It's commentary on the art world.
1
Wow! $91.1 million is a lot of money! I should've became an artist (or a movie director, i.e. Avengers: Endgame).
1
A son of someone with so much money would never understand the struggles of salaried people. He should NOT be Treasury Secretary. That’s where all of our issues start and there’s no end to poverty and income inequality.
102
Sorry to all the above, but why it is okay to that a Da Vinci is worth 450 millons but this work can’t be 91 ?
With that argument all art would be worthless, and it is an special kind of product (because it involves a symbolic value) but it is a product at last, that respond to offer and demands of a market. This is not something of “America”, this is something that goes way back when emperors or the church endorsed artists to have sculptures or paintings by the great masters.
4
@Jules
DaVinci won't be making any more art.
7
@Jules: Because people get to draw their own conclusions about what constitutes art to them, and what its monetary worth should be?
You are right, though, in that this sort of valuation (and pumping up of same) has been going on long before now. And in the case of a great deal of it, "What goes up must come down," applies repeatedly. Tastes change, as does the evaluation of an artist's work in the grand scheme of things. (Sometimes, of course, what has long been down can also go up upon reevaluation).
2
I have to admit the art world is nuts, but as you can see it is a wise investment for those in the know. Of course it is a valuable lesson in the gap between the rich and hardly rich. Often these works sit in vaults where no one sees or loves them while they appreciate. How much does the artist get when a piece is re-sold? Perhaps it elevates the value of future works. In the 50's Rauschenberg sold work for $800. just to get by. What will his estate get? Personally I'd rather have a Rauschenberg that a steel rabbit.
4
This 1986 sculpture perfectly illustrates the arc from the 80's when hedge fund managers and real estate moguls (one who in now president) made America great by basing value on markets and using tax loopholes, not goods and services. So much puffery.
Today we live in a new gilded age defined by the idea of the %1, where this kind of art is about commerce and not about any spiritual or artistic value.There is no philanthropy associated with this kind of art, it is another investment to be made. Mr. Mnuchin has acquired the perfect trophy to represent his wealth, an over priced, hollow, shiny thing.
107
art is whatever you can get away with. Warhol quote, perhaps? I lose track. Matisse wasn't appreciated early in his career. especially by the French. maybe we just have to be patient. maybe. real patient.
1
Well Koons is way more kitschy than Hockney, so I guess this makes sense on some level.
13
@Liz Hockney is a truly great artist. His recent MOMA show of large landscape paintings was astounding on every level. My candidate for greatest living artist, Koons....well there you have it.
1
@PK agree Hockney is a great artist—my comment was not meant to disparage Hockney.
As for Koons... everyone has different taste I guess.
I believe that people can spend their money on whatever they want. But it sure reveals a lot about the person, doesn’t it?
79
@Concerned MD
"believe" being the key word here.
$91.1 million dollars for a piece of art. Really? And you write an entire article about it without giving a wink or nod to the absurdity of it. To be clear, we're talking about $91.1 million dollars. I get that art has a price. But really? Do we really think this is acceptable? If anything, this article and the price of this art is a classic real life example of the growing financial gap between rich and poor and social disconnect.
182
@Globe_Skipper
Why would NYT come out and call this 'absurd?'
They report the news, they don't tell you how to feel about the news.
If you're so desperate for others to paint emotional stories for you, turn on your television. That nonsense is on 24/7.
9
@BM
"They report the news, they don't tell you how to feel about the news."
On the contrary; the article is as packed with adjectives as a Danielle Steele novel. Some of the adjectives are attributed to named and unnamed critics, but others are NYT writer Scott Reyburn's own. His prose is as breathless as a J. Peterman catalog.
I'm not objecting to that per se--it's an Art & Design piece, not hard news. But perhaps Mr. Reyburn could have included a dissenting voice or 2, and distanced the NYT a bit from the direct hard-sell, if only to preserve the illusion of objectivity you yourself so cherish.
1
I agree with many of the posters here. Want a more durable legacy? Spend 91 million on education. Start with community colleges.
126
This is an obscenity. $91 million would support 182 students through medical school (at a half million dollars each). Which option benefits society more?
142
@Not so rich: Not that I don't disagree with your central premise, but 'twas ever thus. We don't get to determine how other people spend their money (however deserved or ill-gotten said money may be).
Commenter Concerned MD nailed it with, "I believe that people can spend their money on whatever they want. But it sure reveals a lot about the person, doesn’t it?"
4
@guyslp
Not so fast.
We DO get to set tax policy (and other legislation) that might result in fewer mega-millionaires and billionaires having the kind of ridiculous wealth to spend in this manner.
14
@Marie S: These two things are not in any way directly related.
And I agree with you that our tax system is horribly skewed in favor of "those that already have." But that has nothing, really, to do with anyone else having any say in whatever money that person retains and what they spend it on after legitimate and reasonable taxation occurs, which is the central point.
I refuse to mix apples (tax policy) and oranges (personal autonomy over how one spend's one's own money).
$91.1million to spend on stainless steel.
Kinda sums up our country and the world. The wealthy has more money to spend than stars in the universe, while millions struggle to survive everyday on a few dollars.
I'll skip the critique of "Rabbit" as important art worthy of the price.
149