Analysis Of Michael Jackson And Bubbles 1988 By Jeff Koons

Michael Jackson and Bubbles 1988 by Jeff Koons is without a doubt a controversial work of art that delves into popular culture in such a way that hegemonic readings of the sculpture are not possible. The image invokes oppositional readings by different viewers with such polarization that this masterpiece, if it can be called that, is referred to as both sublime and banal, as a valued work of art and as a kitschy commodity. This diversity in the assessed meaning of this work draws upon deeply rooted ideals and the viewer’s conceptual maps. As indicated by Hall, “Meaning depends on the relationship between things in the world - people, objects and events, real or fictional and the conceptual system, which can operate as mental representations
The sculpture’s material quality reflects that of other porcelain figurines of saints done in gold leaf and borrows the triangular composition of Michelangelo's Pietà. Being fabricated using a gold and white Rococo palette, the appropriation of styles, technique, composition and ideologies is evident in the massive sculpture that measures at almost six feet in width; however the connotation between the original inspiration and the new meaning is as Hall states not fixed and is open to viewer interpretation. Thus Jacksons enormous popularity and success as a pop-culture icon is characterized by overemphasizing the “King of Pop” by paralleling him with Christian icons turning him into a symbol of grandeur to be idolized. This is a potentially controversial appropriation of ideology which would draw parallels between Jackson’s significance and how people worshiped him as an
The viewer will either object, accept or negotiate their own unique interpretation of the work to come to their own conclusion. As each of us understands and interprets the world in unique ways, so will our conclusions on the intended meaning of this sculpture. The artist can only bring attention to such concepts through their efforts but the inevitable fact remains that the perceived meaning of their work is left to the mercy of the viewer’s interpretation, and meanings that are created by an individual may be accepted or opposed by others. Thus there is no absolute meaning, just the equanimity of the artists intent and the viewer’s reading of the embodied