Contemporary art has long enjoyed exasperating public opinion, and there is perhaps no artist more capable of piling up infuriated column inches in the Daily Mail then the king of kitschy controversy himself; Jeff Koons. With the infamous egocentricity of the artist currently overtaking Edinburgh, (he is presently exhibiting in the Fruitmarket Gallery and due, in two months time, in the National Gallery of Modern Art), now is a good time to reflect on his latest antagonism-provoking venture.

Koons has based his entire career on appropriating widely familiar symbols of popular culture to his own ends. Copying, in other words. Albeit deliberately self-reflexive, ironic copying, which allegedly bears some cultural merit. However, in a gesture delightfully laden with arrogant hypocrisy, Koons is now taking legal action against a San Francisco store for selling coloured plastic bookends in the shape of balloon dogs, which bear a resemblance to one of his past sculptures. Copying, in other words. Albeit non-artistic, purely market-driven copying, which allegedly is illegal infringement requiring suing.

The frankly preposterous concept which Koons is suggesting is that, since he once made a sculpture out of an iconic quotidian object, he is now legally entitled to all its re-appearances in the market. Cultural critics on this blogosphere have literally been choking with delighted outrage at this risible arrogance. Where, even, to begin? The irony works on so many levels, the action of hijacking popular culture was one of the foundational principle of Postmodernism. To suddenly dispute against a small-scale business for alleged plagiarism when you built a career out of self-conscious plagiarism is such a gloriously controversial issue that we can only ask; is he for real?

That’s the thing with Koons; it’s never entirely clear where sincerity ends and satire begins in his practice. One of his principle career-boosting strategies has been to repeatedly hijack the media on his blazoning quest for self-promotion. Generating piles of free publicity by scandalously offending conservative opinion has been a highly effective tactic for him, and thus we can question whether to take this latest act at face value. Is it possible he is genuinely incensed by a perceived copyright transgression? Or is this a reflexive commentary on the convoluted issue of cultural ‘ownership’? Or is it simply a wind-up?

Koons himself has always been an enigma when it comes to artistic intention. Critics have long remainec unresolved as to whether history has given him far too much credit for being clever. On the one hand, one cannot doubt the impact of Koon’s legacy on contemporary art, on the other, all efforts to intellectualise his work ring somehow hollow. Is he really a Postmodern genius cannily manipulating publicity and pushing the watershed of contemporary art? Or is he simply a ludicrously lucky guy whose overbearingly magnified egoism has propelled to fame? Either way, whether it’s a genuine action or not, the balloon dog copyright case makes strikingly clear how dubiously fine the line between intelligence and imbecility really is.

 Originally published 18th January 2011