there was a opening in florida last week... the art was pretty weak actually... mostly spongebob with the kaws x's... and smurf renditions as well... i did liek the smurf paintings... but it overall was pretty whack.

here's pics (pics are from ricekilla from the KR boards)

Is it a portfolio for a job application at NickToons?

exactly... his new stuff is not creative at all... nothing like the silkscreen busstops from 99... it just seems like he's bored, and brings something from the past, new by adding x's and bones... whats next.... ALF?

Fuck me, but I kind of like it...

so wack

the gargamel painting he did for Pharrell is dope, but all this stuff is todo basura

What's next? A KawSpongebob figure?

I kinda like the one where Poppa Smurf is pointing out to the other Smurfs which mushroom house Smurfette is masturbating in...

I'm fairly certain its a job application for Nick Toons.

If its not then perhaps he's managed to swindle the art world ... maybe its fine art now.

In the past Warhol would anoint up and coming artists, since his death its harder to know if dreck like this gets the fine art stamp of approval.

KAWS does seem to be heavily influenced by Lichtenstein and Warhol on these canvases (but in a derivitive way with no irony, statement, or humour).

I don't know if I agree that Lichtenstein and Warhol were being ironic - they both had a certain reverence for their subjects that would seem to preclude irony. I do agree about the statement and humor; in terms of both its presence in their work and the absence of either in Kaws'.

To me Kaws' newer work seems suffused with the sort of smirky, post-modern hipster irony that I hate so much. There's a big difference between clever commentary on iconography and appropriating it just to make a buck. (Not that Warhol was above making a buck, but you get my point . . .)

I don't see either of those guys in these paintings...I mean maybe Haring in that one triple eyeball spongebob, but these are well executed tracings with great colors and fantastic framing. If anything they are similar in the graphic design approach, but that's about it.

this is easily forgettable garbage...and I'm a big fan of Kaws. A vinyl Spongebob Companion would be more compelling a piece than these paintings.

i wish it was not all sponge bob (dig the smurfs).. regardless, wish i could see these pieces in person and see if there are any flaws. looks pretty damn clean for acrylic on canvas (i'm assuming that's the medium).. would have been cool if the dissected companion he has on his blog was in the show

anyone have a huge collection of kaws

the show in Miami sold out...so the people with money don't seem to think the paintings are "wack." I'm on the fence personally.

also, Lash, Kanye West is doing more than "speaking" about Kaws...there was just a whole issue of ID that was a huge rim job for Kaws, and Kanye basically only talked about Kaws in his section...so I think he's still part of the hype machine...it was only 2 months ago. the whole issue was about or done by Kaws...

and your point? Collectors often buy paintings as investments...Just because you have money doesn't mean you have taste either.

Having seen KAWS' work in person years ago I can say that it is flawless. From a technical standpoint he's great - I just think from a conceptual standpoint his work sucks these days.

no shit, sherlock. did you see the sentence I wrote after? I think that was caveat enough as to the taste question. It's all personal taste...I once saw a show where the only piece that had sold was a classic styrofoam Big Mac carton tacked to the wall...and it had sold for $250,000. so yes, selling has nothing to do with taste. But most of the deep pocketed people who buy for investment also buy things they like on some level.

thanks for taking me to "art world school" though.

I don't get it, you say something stupid, then get angry about it and say something stupid again

you're kidding, right?

I've dealt with hundreds of these wealthy collectors you seem to know so much about. that's all I was trying to point out...they saw some value, financial or aesthetic, in the work.

how is anything I said stupid? I'm not going to get pulled into a fight on here about something I've been involved in for almost 20 years. I was just laughing at how you were pointing out something that's obvious to most people in or out of the art world.

Why even bring this into the discussion then? I don't know you, I don't know what you've been doing for 20 years. BUT We all know that Kaws sells. It's a given. We're giving opinions about the artwork. I said what I did because you gave the typical riposte when people speak negatively about artwork. Who gives a shit about what sold? It all sells... Isn't THAT obvious too, Mr. 20 years?

guys, please! I know you both personally and it saddens me when my friends fight. Can't we all agree we are saying the same things in a different way?

yes. I don't know you M3K, and it's useless to get in to an internet battle. I wasn't trying to school you either.

the funny thing is that you're totally right Joel...I think we are saying the same general thing if you look at it. truce. (LS...bringing the love.)

though if everything sold I wouldn't be working in the gallery world, I'd be showing in it...and these days, far from everything sells - contrary to what it seems like from auction prices. (yech. my posts are starting to read like the teachers sound in Charlie Brown cartoons.)

Not to start an argument - but everything DOESN'T sell. I've gone to several "big name" shows where hardly anything has sold, and IMO it's because the work sucks and the audience realizes it and isn't willing to put out bucks just for the name.
I believe that KAWS had two paintings that were quite a departure from his normal style (one had a t-shirt, eyes, witch on broomstick, etc) that went unsold for quite a long time. And I had the unfortunate experience of seeing 15 or so Kimpson's paintings go unsold (I wish I could do that one over...I coulda done a winter in Whistler on less money ).

Jeez, Guys, I know not everything in a gallery sells. My point was that the fact that a piece sells is irrelevant to how good it is.

are we headed toward the "what is art" debate?