Technically, Kaws doesn't do anything any half competent artist could do.

So I guess people are buying into his message? So what is the message.... that consumerism has gone mad, and that a little branding turns the mundane into a hugely desirable item that people will fight over the privelege of paying thousands for. It's the artistic equivalent of walking round in huge Chanel sunglasses with a Louis Vuitton bag slung over your shoulder. IMO it's nothing more than art as a means of showing off how rich you are.

His ad disruptions were great, but now he's turned into exactly one of those brands that he was previously subverting.

Spending thousands on a handbag won't make your life any more fulfilled... and neither will spending thousands on a Kaws 'artwork'.

I think the product painting series is a pretty accurate comment on where we find ourselves at this point in art history
More about value and ownership than the love

Its warholian

The fact that it is expensive is because lots of people want them

Will it make you fulfilled? Maybe, maybe not, but its a picture after all and not a cure for baldness

And the technique point is without validation because most art discussed on this forum could be reproduced by any half decent A Level Art student

Money for nothing

sorry that's really not saying much at all,

Hate society not Kaws ....

If you are going to spend that kind of money for a Kaws, then why not throw in the extra cash for a Murakami?

Yeah but Kaws is definitely cheaper than Murakami, but you could get a minor murakami canvas for about the price of a big Kaws, personal decisions I guess. I'm not sure which I would choose, would depend on the paintings. I'm not a huge Kaws fan but there is something good going on with him. How good, I'm not sure, but it's stronger than the majority of work coming out of the streets.

I think the product paintings are kind of funny—they're making a jab at collectors and painting and how it's been commodified. Yet collectors still buy them. It reminds me of how (to paraphrase Dan Graham) Lichtenstein was taking cheap comics and putting it on canvas to destroy painting. Yet it didn't destroy painting, everyone loves and pays dearly for them, go figure?

Some interesting parallels between the conceptual artists (60s to 80s) who wanted to make work that was or would become worthless and used unstable cheap materials etc. And street artists who make ephemeral works, whose primary goal wasn't to make valuable paintings— although that seems to have changed, and is part of the problem with the scene. So I can see the point someone made about the ad disruptions vs. the gallery work. But this dichotomy is a problem for many artists in this genre, not just Kaws.

Ths show might be good to check out if you find these ideas interesting
www.seattleartmuseum.org/Exhibit/exhibitDetail.asp?eventID=13787
Target Practice: Painting Under Attack 1949–78

I've always thought of Kaws as an extension of Lichtenstein as well!

And thanks for that link... it's the first time I've seen a Nikki de Saint-Phalle that didn't make me want to throw up.

I think this was one of your best posts snausages. You managed to explain many of the questions not only on this thread, but several threads of the past week (not sure if this was intentional or not). First and foremost, you've managed to hit at the root of the inherent problem of the current state of the street art market. Secondly, you've managed to address the question of why spunk on a newspaper clipping or a pile of dirty diapers is considered art.

Im a fan of his overall body of work but he has been on this cartoon thing for far to long. His recent Sponge Bob canvas's had some elements of where I think we will see him go next (the geometric shapes and such).

I buy into the Kaws hype, I buy into the Murakami hype, then I buy into the brookness. However no greater joy comes from their work on my walls. This childlike behavior keeps me broke and stupid.. although happy.