1^ I find the obsessive shininess of Koons’ work the perfect metaphor for what irks me about it. Part of his enigma is an apparent desire to be a
great communicator, accompanied by a jarring openness to subjectivity. No work ever suggests itself to be a certain thing: satirical, sincere, political, inane. They’re totally opaque. Even beyond that they’re
reflective: they will only throw back a reflection of yourself at any attempt to look
into them. To be cynical, perhaps this metaphorical “shininess” plays a part in their lucrativeness—the kind of person to amass billions of dollars is the kind of person who likes to see themselves “reflected”. It’s such an apt metaphor it almost suggests a great big trick, a satirical commentary in the vein of his
idol, Duchamp. It would certainly explain the initials at the base of every work…
2^ The physicalist position on perception is that it is
just a brain process. If the brain process of seeing red is different from that of learning everything about it (as would seem intuitive), this is not an antiphysicalist scenario. In fact, it’s own creator
retracted it in 1998 despite it’s ongoing prevelance in contemporary philosphy. A brilliant analysis of what physicalist thinkers
really don’t account for can be found in Thomas Nagel’s
What Is It Like to Be a Bat?