ART AND IDEAS

GREATNESS

the art of greatness in art is not what you think

By Devon Eckert

Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is often hailed as the greatest painting in the world, attracting 20,000 eager visitors every day. But if we look at the painting itself, it’s hard to argue that it’s objectively the greatest artwork ever created. In fact, the Mona Lisa is a technically proficient portrait, but not without its limitations. It’s not particularly large and quite pedestrian in its use of color, composition, and subject matter. Nothing sets it apart from countless other Renaissance works. So why has it become the most famous painting in the world?

The answer lies less in the painting itself and more with da Vinci. His fame didn’t come from his artistic genius—though that certainly played a part—but from the controversies and mystique surrounding his life and career. During his time, da Vinci was as much a public figure as he was an artist, often involved in disputes with patrons, political intrigue, and even accusations of pedophilia and sodomy. All of these elements contributed to the public’s interest.

The Mona Lisa’s fame was also boosted by dramatic events after its creation. In 1911, it was stolen from the Louvre, and the ensuing international media frenzy transformed the painting from a respected Renaissance work into a symbol of global cultural significance. It wasn’t the painting’s artistic qualities that made it famous, but the public fascination with the heist and Leonardo’s already controversial legacy that cemented its place in history. In reality, the Mona Lisa’s popularity has far more to do with the legend of da Vinci and an art-world heist than with its objective merits.

Section 2: Timeline

I believe that great art—whether it’s visual, musical, literary, theatrical, cinematic, or architectural—has its own timeline. Here's my theory: a piece of art emerges that is controversial and innovative. It gains attention because of this novelty, sparking discussions and a growing following. However, at this stage, it’s not yet "great" because greatness requires time. So, as time passes, artists take inspiration from that original work and then it becomes indispensable to our understanding of artistic culture and history. That’s when artists are considered great, while others, though noteworthy, don’t quite make it.

The great artists tend to get famous fast, creating works that are provocative enough to gain attention, but not yet considered great. Eventually, they produce a series of works widely regarded as their masterpieces, often building on their earlier controversies or creating new ones that are even more shocking. After this peak in fame, their notoriety begins to fade. While their pieces remain popular, they don't generate the same level of excitement as before. This gradual decline often marks the end of their time in the spotlight. Occasionally, they might have a resurgence, but these are usually brief, and they soon recede again.

No artist working in an old art style or movement is likely to be successful or well-known. Why is this? Because old ideas are predictable; they lack the element of surprise, and the novelty has worn off. The same goes for readymades or rehashed experiments. If the concept has been done, repeating it hardly adds anything to the conversation. In an age filled with information and technology, standing out is rare, but when it happens, it creates an undeniable shock.

Section 3: Duchamp

DuChamp

Marcel Duchamp's influence on the art world is a prime example of what makes an artist truly great. Greatness in art isn’t just about technical skill or the immediate impact of a piece; it’s about creating work that continues to resonate, provoke thought, and shape how we view art long after its creation. Duchamp's contributions, especially through works like Fountain, fundamentally altered the perception of what could be considered art. By presenting a simple urinal as a readymade artwork, he redefined the boundaries of art itself, encouraging viewers to see everyday objects through a new lens and questioning the role of the artist, intention, and originality.

This wasn’t just a momentary shock, but a transformative shift that laid the groundwork for entire movements, from conceptual art to modern installation practices. Duchamp’s work still challenges us to consider the nature and purpose of art in ways that remain relevant today. His impact isn’t merely about fame or financial success; it’s a lasting intellectual and cultural legacy that continues to inspire and shape new generations of artists and thinkers. While it’s difficult to imagine another artist achieving the same seismic shift Duchamp did, his work reminds us that greatness in art lies in its power to change perceptions and spark new ideas.

Section 4: Jeff Koons

The clown might be great

Jeff Koons is an artist whose career seems to thrive on constant reinvention. His frequent shifts in medium, style, and content give the impression that he’s not only searching for new ways to create art, but also perhaps more importantly, new ways to generate controversy. Koons intentionally moves from one provocative project to the next, as if his goal isn’t just to make art, but to make headlines. Each new project stirs public debate, and then, just as the dust settles, he’s on to the next thing. The art itself is secondary to the buzz it generates.

This pattern is evident in Koons' 1988 piece, Michael Jackson and Bubbles. The sculpture, a glossy porcelain and gold-gilded, nearly life-sized depiction of Jackson with his pet chimp Bubbles, has often been described as a gaudy imitation of mass-produced trinkets. It shows Jackson leaning back on a bed of flowers with Bubbles on his lap, both wearing matching faux-military outfits and is seen as the key work in Koons' Banality series—arguably the most famous in the collection, and possibly of Koons' entire career.

The Banality series is characterized by a kitsch aesthetic that Koons claims blurs the boundaries between high and low art. He forces audiences to question prevailing notions of taste and artistic value. Jackson was already an incredibly interesting figure by then. He was constantly getting plastic surgery, he had a pet chimp, he spread rumors about himself, and though he seemed to live his life in public he was an intensely private person. Five years later in 1993, Jackson was accused of sexually assaulting a child and the subsequent trial created a media sensation. You have to give it to Koons for choosing the right celebrity.

Critics have had mixed reactions to the work. Some praise it for its bold commentary on celebrity culture and consumerism, seeing it as a clever exploration of how figures like Jackson are turned into both commodities and quasi-religious icons. Others like Jed Perl in The Cult of Jeff Koons are critical of Koons’ aesthetic philosophy: 

Koons is a recycler and regurgitator of the obvious, which he proceeds to aggrandize in the most obvious way imaginable, by producing oversized versions of cheap stuff in extremely expensive materials.

Many critics find Koon’s work lacking in depth and exploitative, but, more importantly, they agree that his work is controversial. Why it’s controversial, well, that’s another story; although, Koons might answer that his work is famous and that is the real subject of his work.

Whatever the case, Koons continues to push boundaries and ignite public outrage his Made in Heaven series (1989-1991), which features explicit images of him and his then-wife, porn star and Italian parliament member, Ilona Staller, engaging in graphic sexual acts. The series displays close-up, penetrative sex that leave little to the imagination. This sparked significant outrage, which is, of course, the point. Clearly stated in The Real Jeff Koons: Consumer Culture and the Grammar of Desire Katie Kresser says “It was as if the artist himself was simply trying to symbolize everything white, church-going, patriotic Americans hated to love."

Because of this almost perfect harmony between Koons’s hallmarks and middle-America’s taboos, Koons’s oeuvre became a go-to “ordinary-American” proof of the “suckiness” of modern art and the wickedness (or stupidity) of the cultural intelligentsia. He was a man for all seasons, or at least, a scapegoat for all seasons: a favorite target of curmudgeons everywhere. Even today, a quick Web search reveals loads of hostility: charges of sacrilege, poser-dom, and talentlessness. Similar to Koons' Michael Jackson and Bubbles, the controversy surrounding Made in Heaven was central to its purpose; if accusations of tastelessness were aimed at the latter, Koons' series pushed that concept to a whole other level. 

Section 5: Mapplethorpe vs. Koons

Robert Mapplethorpe, nothing like him

While both Koons and Mapplethorpe engaged with explicit imagery, their approaches diverged sharply in intent and impact. In Made in Heaven, Koons used explicit content to explore themes of love, desire, and the commodification of sex, setting his work against polished, romanticized backdrops. His approach challenged viewers to reconsider the aesthetics of pornography by re-contextualizing it within the art world. Mapplethorpe’s X Portfolio, by contrast, embraced the raw, unfiltered aspects of sexuality and identity, presenting subjects in stark, confrontational ways that emphasized both beauty and explicitness. He sought to provoke dialogue around society’s discomfort with queer sexuality and to question the boundaries between intimacy and art.

It caused a sensation

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, mainstream pornography was primarily mass-produced entertainment, designed for simple erotic appeal. Mapplethorpe’s work subverted this, creating a platform to address complex issues of identity, desire, and societal stigmatization, especially within queer communities. Koons, however, approached the subject differently—his work was less about challenging norms and more about rebranding pornography as art, seeking to legitimize it within a commercial and aesthetic framework. While Mapplethorpe’s work advocated for deeper societal reflection, Koons’s approach leaned toward blurring high art with pop culture appeal, often disregarding the cultural critique central to Mapplethorpe's vision.

Both artists sparked complex discussions in the art world, with critics divided over their provocative blending of high and low culture. Koons faced accusations of tastelessness and exploitation, while Mapplethorpe encountered censorship and outrage. In summary, while mainstream pornography focused on direct erotic stimulation, both Made in Heaven and X Portfolio re-contextualized explicit imagery to provoke deeper reflection on love, desire, and identity, contrasting the two both visually and conceptually. Their works underscore a commitment to pushing boundaries and challenging societal norms, making significant contributions to the discourse on art and sexuality. But more than anything else, these works made these artists famous, or at least on the way to lasting fame.

Section 6: What makes for great controversy?

The average time people look at a single piece of art is 27 seconds. In other words, the art needs to create a strong enough reaction for people to want to look more or to effectively tell the viewer everything it needs in that time. So, does art need to be controversial to be able to do this? In theory it does not. However, strong reactions come from something the viewer doesn't expect and being able to tell everything about a piece in 27 seconds means that the piece's idea wasn't that strong to begin with. Controversial art is able to do both of these at the same time which makes it so powerful. Being drawn in with the unexpected and staying longer to find out more.

A shocker

This requires the interplay of shock, simplicity, and the challenge to conventional definitions of art. Rather than relying solely on sensationalism, truly impactful art engages viewers by provoking critical thought and dialogue. This engagement often arises when artists present complex ideas through accessible means, allowing audiences to grapple with challenging concepts while sidestepping overt offensiveness or alienation. By balancing shock with clarity, artists can keep the viewer intrigued without overwhelming them, creating deeper conversations or experiences that linger and invite repeated reflection.

Ultimately, the most controversial pieces are those that transcend mere spectacle and challenge audiences to engage with deeper philosophical questions. By prompting reflection on the very essence of art and its societal implications, these works maintain their relevance and continue to inspire new conversations long after the initial shock has faded. This ongoing dialogue is what sustains the power of controversial art, ensuring it remains a vital part of the cultural landscape.

©Devon Eckert and the CCA Arts Review