Damien Hirst

Kold · 17-09-2008 01:59PM

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 · 17-09-2008 02:16PM

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 · 17-09-2008 02:37PM

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 · 17-09-2008 02:51PM

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 · 17-09-2008 03:00PM

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 · 17-09-2008 03:17PM

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 · 17-09-2008 04:26PM

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 · 17-09-2008 05:22PM

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 · 17-09-2008 05:27PM

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 · 17-09-2008 11:16PM

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 · 18-09-2008 07:54AM

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 · 18-09-2008 09:28AM

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 · 18-09-2008 12:04PM

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.

Damien Hirst

Comments