Consumerism

The New vs. Boulevard des Capucines

Jeff Koons, New Hoover Convertibles Green, Blue, New Hoover Convertibles, Green, Blue Doubledecker, 1981–87. Four vacuum cleaners, acrylic, and fluorescent lights; 116 × 41 × 28 in. (294.6 × 104.1 × 71.1 cm). Whitney Museum of American Art. ©Jeff Koons. Image via whitney.org

Koons’ first exhibition, The New, was held in the New Museum’s storefront window on Fourteenth Street in New York City. The exhibition included a display of vacuum cleaners in acrylic cases illuminated by fluorescent lighting called New Hoover Convertibles Green, Blue, New Hoover Convertibles, Green, Blue Doubledecker, 1981-87. The idea behind this work was to capture the “essence of newness” that consumers crave. The vacuum cleaners are untouched and unused, they are pristine and virginal. Using them would ruin the artwork because they would no longer be new. The moment an object it used, it is forever tainted and can never revert back to its original state. Despite the fact that the vacuum cleaners are perfectly maintained in the acrylic chambers, inevitably they become outdated, as technological advancements lead to the constantly evolving “new and improved”. The moment an object is purchased and used, it has already become obsolete and is no longer the hottest commodity on the market, even if it remains the newest model, because it is now used. This work demonstrates the futility of our obsession with all things new because they will become obsolete sooner rather than later.

Claude MONET1840–1926 Boulevard des Capucines 1873 Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri Acquired through the Kenneth A. and Helen F. Spencer Acquisition Fund. Image via nga.gov.au

In his work, Boulevard des Capucines, an oil on canvas street scene of a Parisian boulevard painted from the aerial view of an apartment, Monet demonstrates the process of modernization through the activity that occurs in this open space. The boulevards are a product of modernization and produces modern activities, such as strolling about, shopping, and performing errands. In other words, the activities in this scene present the modern idea that one doesn’t need to have a completely regimented life and has time for leisurely activities. With the spark of the industrial revolution and the advancement of technology, manufacturing and work in general was more productive, therefore people had more time for leisure. That being said, it is the regimented life that allows people to have leisure time; it is a by-product of clock time, as opposed to diurnal time. People are modern in that they are no longer constricted by natural phenomenon, like seasons and weather, as harvesters and farmers were in the past, their lives are dictated by man-made, regimented clock time. The people in the scene who are casually walking about are the flaneurs, the typical cosmopolitan man, detached from the crowd, who has the means to walk around and relax instead of work 24/7.

The scene is typical of the impressionist tradition in that it shows an arrested moment of time, at a particular place, seen through the eyes of the artist and imparted in a way that is highly stylized. There are no heroic actors nor moments of tension, it is just a scene of people walking about through the boulevard through the eyes of Monet. Unlike Koons’ work, Monet’s is subjective in that not just any machine could capture this scene, it is his personal view of the particular scene at that particular time and it can never be mimicked, as Monet’s point of view is part of the content of the work. Koons’ work, on the other hand, is not subjective in the least. Anyone can produce Koons’ work, as it is merely assembling consumer goods on a fixture. Perhaps this is one of the statements that Koons’ is attempting to voice; that consumerism strips us of our individuality.

In both works, window shopping and the shop window itself are significant. Unlike the photographers of his time whose aim were to document the changing Paris with precise detail, Monet and the other impressionists did not have this same concern. While Monet doesn’t explicitly paint shop windows, we can speculate that the flaneurs are window shopping from the contemporary events of the time, such as the industrial revolution, which was the economic drive behind the emergence of commodities, shopping, department stores, and the flaneur himself. In a way, the people who visited Koons’ The New exhibition were performing the same action as the flaneurs. The flaneurs are not necessarily buying, they are simply consuming with their eyes. The idea of the flaneur observing from his apartment window is also pertinent to the idea of consuming with the eyes. The flaneur does not only observe, like the rhetorical figure on the righthand side of the painting watching the people in the boulevard, but he is seen. It is the idea that of seeing and being seen that is key. If you are being watched and consumed with the eyes, you are almost like a moving commodity, in a way. The man in the apartment observes the flaneurs, yet the flaneurs have agency as well in that they observe commodities through shop windows. When you window shop, you experience an object as you would only in the display of the museum, virginal and unused. The moment that the object is actually purchased, it is completely different than the object that was experienced through the glass case. Consuming with the eyes is actually different than consuming, because when one consumes with the eyes, they are experiencing that newness that Koons’ is trying to capture in “The New”. This newness is instantly gone the moment the object is taken off display and is claimed to serve a purpose.

This begs the question, is Koons able to remove the vacuum cleaners far enough from consumer eye in order to make a criticism? Is the museum window on 14th street, a major shopping street, the proper venue for Koons’ objective? I would argue that that is the whole point. Koons removes the vacuum cleaner from its traditional sphere enough to decouple it from its traditional meaning, but not enough to separate the consumer from his role as a window shopper. The visitor can’t help but view the vacuum as a commodity to be bought, yet this is necessary in order to capture the essence of the new, a feeling that can only be attached to a product of potential use. Because the vacuum cleaners are displayed in a way that look as if they were in a shop window, they evoke the same feelings that the viewer would experience if he/she was viewing an actual commodity on sale.

In addition, both works reflect the tie between consumerism and hegemony. The vacuum cleaners on display in The New series are all the same models in different colors, demonstrating that consumers become more similar as they begin to purchase the same items. They lose their individuality and slowly but surely become more and more homogenous. You lose your sense of identity behind these products and conform to mainstream society. Similarly, the flaneurs in Monet’s paintings are simply represented by black brush strokes; the flaneur is one in the crowd and doesn’t stand out in the image. The flaneur is anonymous and lacks individuality, an idea that goes along with Koons’ idea of the consumer. The air of detachment, evident from the rhetorical figure in Boulevard des Capucines watching the scene from his balcony, furthers the idea that commodities are interchangeable and individuality is not desired, as the flaneurs he is observing all mold into the idea of “the flaneur” in general, rather than being seen as individuals.