IdleRich
IdleRich
What do we think of this then?
http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/01/hirst_skull.jpg
http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/01/hirst_skull.jpg
It's a bit goth.
I think I read that it involves £12 million pounds worth of diamonds plus some platinum and paying someone to put it together - he's pricing it at £50 million pounds so from Hirst's point of view it seems like a good spend."I can think of considerably better ways of spending however much it cost to make."
He's always been a bit goth though hasn't he? Look it's a cow's head being eaten by flies - it's about DEATH you see."It's a bit goth."
I'd like to know if there is anything more to it than just sheer excess though, why is it called For The Love of God for instance?
.
He's always been a bit goth though hasn't he? Look it's a cow's head being eaten by flies - it's about DEATH you see.
In this new exhibition there are also things such as cows and sharks being sliced in different directions. What's the point of that then? Well, I can answer my own question, the only point is too make money by selling to people who want part of the Hirst brand but it's certainly not art.
.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear then. I certainly consider the dead sharks, racoon paws etc art (or that they at least can be art). What I don't consider art (or perhaps that's not quite right - what I consider pointless might be better) is simply riffing on the shark again by slicing it in a different direction purely to make money. I don't think that the new piece does anything that the old one doesn't, I don't see any point except to sell to someone who wants to buy something that is recognisably a DH.They are amazing to look at though. I don't think we should start on what is and isn't art because that can go on forever but I definitely consider the dead sharks and things 'art'.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear then. I certainly consider the dead sharks, racoon paws etc art (or that they at least can be art). What I don't consider art (or perhaps that's not quite right - what I consider pointless might be better) is simply riffing on the shark again by slicing it in a different direction purely to make money. I don't think that the new piece does anything that the old one doesn't, I don't see any point except to sell to someone who wants to buy something that is recognisably a DH.
"The wonder at the crystalline heart of this exhibition is not only a memento mori, a death's head. It is also a birth, as scary as shattering as the one TS Elliot's Magi witnessed: a birth like a death. What is being born, exactly? It might be the art of the 21st Century."
According to Jonathan Jones in the Guardian:
Blimey! He goes on to compare it to Les Damoiselles d'Avignon in terms of what it will do for art. I guess he's getting more from it than me.
Most unforgivingly of all I think it is an inert and utterly boring piece which, alas, seems entirely in keeping with Hirst's work in recent years.
To me, it looks like something Fifty Cent might have attached to the front of his stretch Humvee.
Well, I certainly think that that's what the sliced cows and sharks have become and of course the spot paintings were a deliberate example of that - at least this piece is a change of direction from all that although obviously it keeps with the death/skull etc theme. In fact I think that (although I assume he was joking) John Eden is right on the money with the goth thing, DH does seem as though he has the same childish kind of fascination with skulls and bloody syringes and stuff (they're cool right?) that leads moody teens to draw them on their pencil cases."it is a commodity, produced to order to satisfy the market's need for commodity exchange"
I don't really agree with that though. At the very least, as a decorative piece of art I find it striking and strangely visceral. Whether it goes beyond that I don't know (and knowing Hirst's track record I suspect not) but it has had some kind of immediate effect on me - I would actually like to see it propely I think."Most unforgivingly of all I think it is an inert and utterly boring piece"
It's like that bit in a Don DeLillo book where he is musing on the fact that he paid $100million (or whatever it was) for an appartment - not because of the value of the appartment but because of the number itself. The more you pay the more you have paid and the bigger statement you have made. You pay as much as you can purely to have paid that much."I find the £50 million price tag a touch irksome, simply because I think we're all expected to be awed by it"
Well, I certainly think that that's what the sliced cows and sharks have become and of course the spot paintings were a deliberate example of that - at least this piece is a change of direction from all that although obviously it keeps with the death/skull etc theme. I