Damien Hirst

ronbyrne2005

Modern conman or artistic genius? Not an arty type myself but can't beleive the money this guy makes for his "modern art". And his glasses annoy me.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gdsgwbnOBD4BpzgNxqQLDdZm7Rqg

MagicMarker

If i record a record using a wooden spoon and used condom and it gets to number one, does that make me a conman? Or does it just prove people are gullible idiots?

Run_to_da_hills

He is not even dead yet.

Overheal

that can be arranged.

whiskeyman

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He is not even dead yet.

Overheal wrote: »

that can be arranged.

Once we get him, we'll slice him in half and plonk him in a tank full of formaldehyde and auction him off for millions.

Who's in with me?


:pac:

Canis Lupus

I guess it simply boils down to the fact that people bought his work.

Personally I think it's utter bollix both in terms of artisitc merit and the price. I could never sculpt David but it can't be that hard to throw a pig into some formaldehyde.

Setun

Away From the Flock is an interesting work, but the diamond encrusted skull etc. is self indulgent crap tbh. And if this Sotheby's auction goes wrong for him, he's finished. /EDIT the bolox has done well out of it. Wealthy bastard.

Silenceisbliss

right, thats in my new top three of rediculous art works.

at number one; in the metropolitan in NY, theres a massive blank canvas on display in one of the galleries on sale for something like ~3,5million dollars. A blank canvas. the title of the "art piece" is called "the power of imagination"........

at number two, the painting by WILLEM DE KOONING: "Woman III", selling for 140 million euro at auction...seriosly....google it and ul see what the hell it is...

this new one comes in at three.....

Setun

Willem de Kooning is a interesting painter imo, and at least he does the work himself. Hirst doesn't really have a hand in any of his art pieces except in terms of concept, which has been pointed out already as being self-indulgent and greedy.

WindSock

He's a one trick pony, as far as I'm concerned.

pickarooney

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

right, thats in my new top three of rediculous art works.

at number one; in the metropolitan in NY, theres a massive blank canvas on display in one of the galleries on sale for something like ~3,5million dollars. A blank canvas. the title of the "art piece" is called "the power of imagination"........

at number two, the painting by WILLEM DE KOONING: "Woman III", selling for 140 million euro at auction...seriosly....google it and ul see what the hell it is...

this new one comes in at three.....

The same price as Manchester City are rumoured to be offering for Cristiano Ronaldo. Which would you prefer so see hanging?

Silenceisbliss

pickarooney wrote: »

The same price as Manchester City are rumoured to be offering for Cristiano Ronaldo. Which would you prefer so see hanging?

I try to ignore soccer entirely. It's a past time that just falls outside of the realm of reality completely. what a waste of space, time, money, and energy.

as far as im concerend. soccer is just a dark place in my imagination

j-bone

Daddio wrote: »

Willem de Kooning is a interesting painter imo, and at least he does the work himself. Hirst doesn't really have a hand in any of his art pieces except in terms of concept, which has been pointed out already as being self-indulgent and greedy.

i know someone who worked 4 him awhile back,,,(if you can call collecting dead butterflies or arranging household utensils in a display case "work",,, )

Earthhorse

whiskeyman wrote: »

Once we get him, we'll slice him in half and plonk him in a tank full of formaldehyde and auction him off for millions.

Who's in with me?:

We can call it "The Impossibility of Art in the Mind of Someone Thinking".

Acacia

Most 'modern' art seems to be people drawing like a four-year-old ( i.e. scribbling in brightly-coloured crayons or throwing a bucket of paint on a blank canvas and saying it represents your 'inner torment') or or flinging random crap together and calling it a sculpture. Appeals to pretentious types with more money than sense.

Reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Homer becomes a modern artist-

"Your husband's work is what we call "outsider art." It could be by a mental patient, a hillbilly or a chimpanzee." :pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I guess it simply boils down to the fact that people bought his work.

Personally I think it's utter bollix both in terms of artisitc merit and the price. I could never sculpt David but it can't be that hard to throw a pig into some formaldehyde.

So why the bloody hell didn't you do it first...??

stovelid

Don't know much about him, but I like some of the stuff: Virgin Mother, Away from the Flock, LSD, Saint Sebastian, Exquisite Pain...I just think they are visually interesting.

As for whether it's it's 'art' or not - I don't know, and I don't really care.

The prices are stupid though. The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe springs to mind.

brianthebard

Ugh I hate Hirst and post modernism in general, its become a celebration of the "artist" as celebrity, and the money they can create, its not about art at all. Oh Klimt, why did you have to die...

Quality

Interesting man, So young as well for such fame and wealth..

I am in love with his glouchestire home he bought.. Toddington Manor.. He bought it for a steal at 3million sterling.. It hasnt been lived in in 20 years. He is going to do it up as his family home and to enclose his art collection..

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08/ToddingtonES3008_243x175.jpg

ronbyrne2005

It seems like a commercial production line to him rather than a life's dedication or other nobly driven endeavour. He also seems to be giving a token few million to charity to placate the criticism. He is just an ultra commercialised brand now. What do those pieces tell us about him or society or anything? Maybe it's satirical , taking the piss our of modern society where everything is commercialised and packaged for consumers.

Spore

Sounds like a bubble... bit like the tuplip thing in Holland, some day someone's going to come along and see all this for what it is - a fad that's gone horribly out of control. If Hirst failed it would of been the bubble burst, but seems like there's still an appetite out there for ridiculously overpriced trashy 'art'

Daithi McGee

I would not be a fan of his work but that is not to say others do seem to find something to appreciate.

I am old fashioned when it come to art. I prefer Paul Klee etc.

run_Forrest_run

the latest auction of his 'works' grabbed my attention lately and then this article was even more interesting: Why I was banned from Damien Hirst’s £120m gamble


I'm no art expert but I think this guy is a total chancer. His prices are crazy and of course his latest auction did well because he has trapped so many 'specullectors' into buying his stuff so obviously they want to keep the bubble intact to avoid them losing all their money and investments in the future (just my little 'ol opinion!).

meditraitor

This is pretty much the same opinion all the peasants had of picasso in the earlier part of last century...............;)

DublinWriter

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

And his glasses annoy me.

I've a pair of his glasses - not the eye ones, but the half-pint Carlsberg glasses he designed with the polka-dot motif on the back.

I wonder how much they're worth now? Hmmm...

run_Forrest_run

meditraitor wrote: »

This is pretty much the same opinion all the peasants had of picasso in the earlier part of last century...............;)

was Picasso facing accusations claiming that his assistants were actually doing a lot of the design work on his pieces? <seriously, I don't know, I'm not up on all this art stuff!>

Well we are all pretty much peasants in the eyes of Hirst!

meditraitor

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

Well we are all pretty much peasants in the eyes of Hirst!

I read somewere he is a Billionaire, thats fnuking mental

Kold

There's actually a forum for this. Check Art and Architecture...

Acacia wrote: »

Most 'modern' art seems to be people drawing like a four-year-old ( i.e. scribbling in brightly-coloured crayons or throwing a bucket of paint on a blank canvas and saying it represents your 'inner torment') or or flinging random crap together and calling it a sculpture. Appeals to pretentious types with more money than sense.

Reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Homer becomes a modern artist-

"Your husband's work is what we call "outsider art." It could be by a mental patient, a hillbilly or a chimpanzee." :pac:

I see. And how often do you go to look at contemporary art?


Damien Hirst makes me smile, he p*sses so many people off and he almost revels in it. To say that anyone could throw a cow in a tank of formeldehyde will raise the question 'Why didn't anyone do it before?' Art since the start of the 20th century has been in constant flux as has everything else and this is a reaction. I'm not fond of Andy Warhol but I have to be amused at the way he just took art and made it his b*tch. Hirst is similar, he's a very intelligent man and through work and fortune made his living.

Say what you will but I think there's something quite awesome about being confronted with a shark, or seeing a sheep divided as if it were a diagram for an engine. As for the money, it's mainly paid for owning an important piece of art history.

PeakOutput

hirst is an awesome artist saw some of his pieces in berlin and in london im not an artist or anything of the sort but i know people very knowledgeable in the area and even by academics hirst is recognised as the greatest living artist and right up there with the dead ones,so its not all about the money, the chapmans are two others who make apparently visually crap art aswell but are really really successful

you cant really critisize hirst for following the lead of one of the most celebrated artists(andy warhol) of all time and having a factory like approach to constructing his art.

also if you ask 10 people who damien hirst is 8 of them wont have a clue so its hardly like he is being marketed and packaged to the mass's like a large multinational

Kold

PeakOutput wrote: »

the chapmans are two others who make apparently visually crap art aswell but are really really successful

The Chapmans are very gifted sculptors. I don't think they're visually crap at all.

djpbarry

PeakOutput wrote: »

...i know people very knowledgeable in the area and even by academics hirst is recognised as the greatest living artist and right up there with the dead ones...

Oh, people who know about art say his stuff is good? Oh, well then, he MUST be a genius so :rolleyes:.

There are people in the "art world" who think this kid is a genius - doesn't mean she is.

Kold

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh, people who know about art say his stuff is good? Oh, well then, he MUST be a genius so :rolleyes:.

There are people in the "art world" who think this kid is a genius - doesn't mean she is.

Different kettle of fish altogether.

ronbyrne2005

Kold wrote: »

There's actually a forum for this. Check Art and Architecture...



I see. And how often do you go to look at contemporary art?


Damien Hirst makes me smile, he p*sses so many people off and he almost revels in it. To say that anyone could throw a cow in a tank of formeldehyde will raise the question 'Why didn't anyone do it before?' Art since the start of the 20th century has been in constant flux as has everything else and this is a reaction. I'm not fond of Andy Warhol but I have to be amused at the way he just took art and made it his b*tch. Hirst is similar, he's a very intelligent man and through work and fortune made his living.

Say what you will but I think there's something quite awesome about being confronted with a shark, or seeing a sheep divided as if it were a diagram for an engine. As for the money, it's mainly paid for owning an important piece of art history.

Museums have been preserving specimens in jars of formeldehyde for centuries. He just jazzed it up a bit.

Kold

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Museums have been preserving specimens in jars of formeldehyde for centuries. He just jazzed it up a bit.

Duchamp? Don't wait for people to justify art to you. I'm just saying that half the people raging about contemporary art don't know anything about it. This is just like the Banksy thread, people who wouldn't click on the art forum feel that it's more than OK to slag art off because it's in After Hours so therefore snap judgments are the order of the day.

It's akin to me hearing the Black Eyed Peas and saying that music these days is sh*t. It's all about getting a simplistic tune and repeating the same 5 words over and over until kids are persuaded to be slutty.

MoominPapa

Some of his stuff is good but I just don't get why he is considered great. All this Ready Made or Found Art stuff that been around since 1917. Has he innovated or pushed the envelope? Is The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living more compelling than Piss Christ? Its just bigger really
BTW a lot of the buyers are apparently Russian oligarchs and we all know what great taste they have:pac:

djpbarry

Kold wrote: »

Different kettle of fish altogether.

I fail to see how throwing dead animals in formaldehyde can be considered art, in the same way as I fail to see how a 4-year-old's doodlings can be considered art.

Kold wrote: »

I'm just saying that half the people raging about contemporary art don't know anything about it.

I see; so if I knew anything about art I'd realise that "My Bed" is in fact a masterpiece?

Kold wrote: »

It's akin to me hearing the Black Eyed Peas and saying that music these days is sh*t. It's all about getting a simplistic tune and repeating the same 5 words over and over until kids are persuaded to be slutty.

That's pretty much it alright; you don't need a qualification in music production to realise that most chart music is utter ****e. In the same way, one does not need a degree in art to realise that “My Bed” is utter ****e.

Kold

djpbarry wrote: »

I fail to see how throwing dead animals in formaldehyde can be considered art, in the same way as I fail to see how a 4-year-old's doodlings can be considered art.

What else would a child's doodlings be called? They have art classes for 5 year olds you know. Don't be putting the term art on a pedestal.

djpbarry wrote: »

I see; so if I knew anything about art I'd realise that "My Bed" is in fact a masterpiece?
That's pretty much it alright; you don't need a qualification in music production to realise that most chart music is utter ****e. In the same way, one does not need a degree in art to realise that “My Bed” is utter ****e.

"My Bed" is utter ****e in your opinion. Why are you getting so worked up over the opinions of others? I'm no huge Emin fan but I can see why it would appeal. In the same way that walking into a person's room you are presented with a monument, Emin's room gives off the distinct feeling of 'her'. Now, in my opinion she's a c*nt, but at least she hasn't held back like so many pretentious self portraits.

Emin's art, like herself, is common. Surely that's to be admired? Hirst's installations are meant to appeal to the intellect, they're meant to give off a feeling. In my opinion it's very successful at that.

I think you just need to stop going into exhibitions expecting to be wowwed by brushstrokes. There are artists that do that but for the most, no one is particularly bothered. I can draw and paint pretty realistically but apart from the lack of market, I just don't want to do that. Art has progressed.

djpbarry

Kold wrote: »

What else would a child's doodlings be called?

Doodlings?

Kold wrote: »

Don't be putting the term art on a pedestal.

But the term 'art' implies elevated status; the use of skill to produce something aesthetically pleasing. Otherwise, you might as well use the terms 'art' and 'stuff' interchangeably.

Kold wrote: »

"My Bed" is utter ****e in your opinion.

Yes, it is.

Kold wrote: »

Why are you getting so worked up over the opinions of others?

I'm not. I did however take slight exception to your implication that one must be some kind of contemporary art expert in order to appreciate contemporary art. If that's not what you meant, then I apologise; perhaps you could clarify.

Kold wrote: »

In the same way that walking into a person's room you are presented with a monument...

No, I am presented with a room. That's not a glib response; I don't see someone's unhygienic mess as in anyway aesthetically pleasing or provocative. If I walked into a room and I saw dirty knickers and condoms on the floor, I'm very unlikely to scratch my chin in a contemplative manner and think "Hmmm.... I see what you've done here."

Kold wrote: »

Now, in my opinion she's a c*nt...

I'm not really concerned about personality; it's quite likely that if I met artists I admire I probably wouldn’t like them, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate their work.

Kold wrote: »

Emin's art, like herself, is common. Surely that's to be admired?

Why?

Kold wrote: »

I think you just need to stop going into exhibitions expecting to be wowwed by brushstrokes.

I don't know if it's intentional, but you have a knack of coming across as rather condescending.

Kold wrote: »

Art has progressed.

I'm not sure I would use the term "progressed"; changed would probably be a better description. It seems talent is no longer a requirement of the modern artist; many (most?) modern art pieces are purely conceptual.

Kold

djpbarry wrote: »

Doodlings?
But the term 'art' implies elevated status; the use of skill to produce something aesthetically pleasing. Otherwise, you might as well use the terms 'art' and 'stuff' interchangeably.

The term 'art' only refers to the work of an artist. You can argue it until the cows come home but there is no set definition for the word so why are you trying to impose one?

And by no means is most of the art produced purely conceptual. Someone who studies art is more likely to appreciate certain parts of art, yes. It's the same with anything, the more you know, the more rounded the opinion. The funny thing about it though is that we could argue this for an age and neither of us would agree? Why? I don't really care if you get it or not and you will just want to win this argument.

cornbb

The stupidity in Modern Art doesn't lie with the artists, it lies with the tossers who are prepared to pay obscene amounts of money for it. The monetary value (or perceived value) of a piece of art rarely has nothing to do with how good it is, how enjoyable it is, or how valid the artist's ideas are. I don't get Damien Hirst's work, I'm not a fan of his, but live and let live.

Ignore the media hype around certain pieces of art and the ridiculous prices paid for them. Read about the ideas behind them and the processes that were used to make them instead, then they can be far more appealling. Thats where the true value of art lies.

Btw I think the definition of "art" is open to interpretation, but my own definition would go along the lines of "an original creation that has some aesthetic or innovative value"

Acacia

Kold wrote: »

There's actually a forum for this. Check Art and Architecture...



I see. And how often do you go to look at contemporary art?


Damien Hirst makes me smile, he p*sses so many people off and he almost revels in it. To say that anyone could throw a cow in a tank of formeldehyde will raise the question 'Why didn't anyone do it before?' Art since the start of the 20th century has been in constant flux as has everything else and this is a reaction. I'm not fond of Andy Warhol but I have to be amused at the way he just took art and made it his b*tch. Hirst is similar, he's a very intelligent man and through work and fortune made his living.

Say what you will but I think there's something quite awesome about being confronted with a shark, or seeing a sheep divided as if it were a diagram for an engine. As for the money, it's mainly paid for owning an important piece of art history.

I don't go to look at contemporary art particularly often. I prefer older art such as Vermeer (my favorite artist) or Brueghel, so if I want to look at art, off I head to the National Art Museum in Dublin. I'm not trained academically in art (which is why I wouldn't comment in the Art forum here), but my friend is an art student and she doesn't think much of contemporary art herself. She also describes paying huge amounts of money for a piece as 'turning art into a whore'.:pac:

Sorry if I offended you. My post was meant to be taken in jest (hence the Simpsons quote), this is After Hours after all. I appreciate that everyone has different tastes in art, as in other things, and if you enjoy Hirst's work, more power to you. Though I do find it immoral to paying huge amounts of money for a piece of art ( even one I like). But I also find it immoral to pay huge amounts of money for a handbag or a car.

Ozziej

Hirst is laughing all the way to the bank. Whats he going to pickle next, an anteater and call it "Bemused in a trailerpark in Butlins". As for his skull.....like something a third world dictator would commission. He bought his own skull in a consortuim.
http://artobserved.com/damien-hirsts-diamond-encrusted-skull-sale-raises-questions/
I don't believe his art will age well. Mind you Warhol's factory produced alot of ****e too in fairness. Marilyn and beans his legacy. And there is debate all the time over whether great masters did the work or their proteges. Mind you at least we can tell from brushstrokes. Hirst could have a team of ompa loompas in the Tate producing all his masterpieces for all we know.

That said modern art is as worthy as ancient, its all about taste.

pickarooney

For someone so avant garde, he uses curiously conservative means for distributing his art. Surely someone really pushing the envelope would be giving away his pieces with 6 tokens from packets of Coco Pops or sinking them in a lead-lined bag into the Thames for someone who really wants them to dredge up. By making art for billionaires, he's just pandering to the whims of a few fools, not changing the world's view of itself in any way.

Kold

pickarooney wrote: »

For someone so avant garde, he uses curiously conservative means for distributing his art. Surely someone really pushing the envelope would be giving away his pieces with 6 tokens from packets of Coco Pops or sinking them in a lead-lined bag into the Thames for someone who really wants them to dredge up. By making art for billionaires, he's just pandering to the whims of a few fools, not changing the world's view of itself in any way.

Well the YBAs aren't really considered all that cutting edge anymore. This is where a lot of more modern artists come in ie. Banksy.