Damien Hirst. Genius or Conman.

[peter]

My first reaction on seeing one of Hirsts 'Tank' pieces was "It's all wrong." The piece in question was the one of a dead pony foal placed in a tank of formalin with attached gilded horn and gilded hooves (ala Unicorn style).

Having spent much of my life around dead animals (20 years working in the veterinary profession) my immediate reaction to the piece was how clearly 'dead', how badly positioned, and how obviously contrived the whole thing was. After that, the more positive aspects of the beautifully heavy nature of the turquoise green tank with gold edges, the golden gilding of the horn and feet and the sureal aspect of this dead mythalogical beast began to make their presence felt. But I could not escape the shrivelled white eyes, the slight flakyness of the skin and hoof edges and the 'stary' coat that said without question "This is a dead animal hammed up for the show".

Damien Hirst is certainly the richest British Artist - quite possibly the worlds. His works have a theme of death running through them and are in a way comparable to the works of his Americam counterpart Jeff Koons ie Hirst does not do much of the work himself, seeing rather the art being in the conception than in the execution. When asked why he didn't do many of his famous 'spot paintings' himself, his answer was that he "couldn't be arsed". Also Hirsts works - or at least some of them - have that sort of 'novelty appeal' that you like - but are not quite comfortable that it's great art.

Hirst has a retrospective at the Tate, London (I think) at present and there is a good chance I'll go see for myself later in the year. Meanwhile the critics are fiercely divided by this 'enfent terrible' of the British art world. To some he is a conman whose antics have ripped away the last shreds of dignity from 'an emporer who has no clothes'. To others he is a ground breaking genius who has shaken a boring and complant art world by the scruff of it's wrinkly neck. I leave you with the words of critic Brian Sewell (not a fan of Hirsts) who has this to say

"Let's not fool oueselves, Hirst is a late 1980's product of Goldsmiths where 'wild theory, wilder ideas and art history of the most shallow and erratic kind' held sway.........Hirst is not so much an artist as a manufacturer of extravagent goods desirable to footballers wives and cupiditous collectors governed by envy and social inferiority rather than conniseurship. He is the darling of the hedge fund managers and pop-stars. To own a Hirst is to tell the world that your bath-taps are gilded and that your Rolls-Royce is pink."

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Based on the description you give, I would have to say "con man". I have seen artists who try to "make a statement" or put on an exhibition where you have to read the artist's statement about what the pieces are saying.

I can tell you what art like that is saying. It is saying "hey, look at me--I am a piece of crap".

Real art speaks for itself and needs no explanation. A truly inspired peice doesn't even need a title.

uninformed museum guest: "What is it?"
artist: "It is what it is."

note: I was involved with a gifted ceramic artist for a couple of years, so I got to see inside the world of visual artists for a while. Strangely, I still know how to throw clay, fire kilns, and formulate glazes...but I don't do anything with those skills. Maybe in the future that will change.

[Vraith]

Real art speaks for itself and needs no explanation. A truly inspired peice doesn't even need a title.

Nah...sometimes it does, cuz the title is part of the work [magritte "this is not a pipe" in the image, and IIR the translation correctly it is titled "the treachery of images".]...or Dali...the ultrafamous "soft watches"... these things may stand/have an impact without the title...but "The Persistence of Memory" isn't just a label/definition/naming "So and so the Third," it is part of the work itself.

Also, art may indeed speak for itself...but the speech is meaningless if everyone is deaf.

It may not need an explanation...but it DOES need a viewer with open awareness...actually what is really needed is two [at least] conflicting things [and I don't think this applies only to art, I think it applies to all of human existence and the troubles we have] enough knowledge/ground/judgment to perceive it in context, and enough ignorance/free-fall/passionate disinterest to let it explode your world.
[which conclusion is, I suspect, at least a close cousin of agreement with your point though not the path/technique that gets there].

ON TOPIC...I'm pretty sure this is the guy who did the cow-slice thing, and if it is he's done at least one freaking brilliant piece of work.

[ussusimiel]

Yeah, this isn't an easy one to come down on one side or the other. The knee-jerk fine art conclusion would be a categoric, 'he's a con-man'. Maybe the idea of art as production rather than creation goes deeply against the aesthetic grain; the idea that the artist's human touch is essential to the communication involved.

In Hirst's case he didn't even make his more famous works himself. They are 'conceptual' from the start and 'productions' in the end. And it is from here that the true 'power' of his art stems (if you grant his art has any significance at all). Hirst is a post-modern artist and many post-modern artists are concerned with money and power and its effect on us as human beings. A common question that runs through some post-modern art is: How does the Capitalist mode of production affect our humanity?

So, how does his work affect us? One of his early pieces, 'A Thousand Years' (the one with the cow's head and flies) is an affecting and stimulating piece of work by any standards. Its grisly highlighting of death and the life cycle would be more than interesting enough in themselves, but the clinical setting, the use of technology to kill and the seeming futility of survival all raise this piece onto another level. A level where questions of science, meaning and God are posed. Genius, I don't know, art of the highest quality, definitely.

Take another piece, 'For the Love of God' (the skull made from 8,601 flawless diamonds for a purported cost of £14m). This seems like the crassest of vulgar indulgences until you dig a bit deeper into some of the potential significances that might adhere to it. It has reminiscences of the kinds of objects that the great kings and princes of wealthy feudal kingdoms of the past might have had made (does that remind you of some of the concentrations of individual wealth gathered today, Bill Gates et al?). That he chose a skull as the base of his shape has obvious implications re. wealth and power. And there is a fair chance that his whole purpose in making the skull was to generate a media flurry about it and in so doing create an art object that included the media speculation, commentary etc.

It is also worthwhile considering that his work maybe a constant critique of the kinds of people who have the wealth to buy such expensive artwork. Again, we are back to the money and power that drive our current social and economic world.

Whether he is a genius or con-man, he is definitely worth thinking and talking about. Thanks peter!

u.

[Avatar]

Agree with Vraith about titles.

About the artist...shrug...doesn't much do it for me. Like, I wouldn't have one in my living room, if you know what I mean.

--A

[peter]

That's the guy Vraith - "Mother and Child Divided" (the Cow piece) is in the retrospective I hope to see in London (though I was not aware that all of these tank pieces have to be re-made over and again as the cadavers decompose over time - obvious really).

The whole thing is problematic for me. (By the way this is hopefully a thread that will wander 'off topic' - it is in the digressions that I hope some interesting stuff will find it's way out.) Hirst is an artist I (irrationally) want to dislike - but can't quite manage it. One problem is that he doesn't seem to be a very 'nice bloke'. He pays his assistants shit, and sells their work as his own for shed-loads of money (He said recently "If you want a good spot painting buy one of Rachels - they're way better than any I ever did." {he only ever did five}. But Rachel's sell as Hirst's - for the same money). Now Hirst is by no means the first artist to use assistants - but to sell thier work at full price as his own, keep all the money and pay them crap - is that pushing it a bit? Sewell (the critic I quoted above) said that by Hirst's rationale there is nothing to stop any one of us painting our own 'Hirst' at any time.

And the diamond skull piece (For the Love of God 2007) - this was so well publicised in advance that there were buyers queing up round the block before it was even made. Again - perhaps there is nothing wrong with that - but somehow ........ (But the piece has undeniable 'impact' if in a gaudy sort of way.) But in fairness the 'niceness' or otherwise of an artist is not significant, and to allow it to influence your view of the work is to render your view meaningless.

No - the problem is deeper than that: not being able to define 'Art' itself with any degree of precision or clarity (like an eel in a bucket, every time you think you've got it nailed down it slips through your fingers and moves to somewhere else) it becomes almost impossible to define what is bad, mediocre, good or great Art. That it is a common belief that art should be immediately accesible to all comers is a strange notion to me. As a human activity that has developed over thousands of years I have no problem with the idea that a degree of 'work' on my own behalf will be required for me to fully acess the intended levels of meaning and significance of what I am seeing before me. I would not expect to walk into a final year university level maths class and understand the symbols chalked on the board in front of me - why then should I view art as being different.

But still to some extent I do agree with Hashi. Great art very often does it seem speak for itself - and draw something out of oneself that one didn't know was there (I went to the Musee d'Orsay in Paris with no major enthusiasm, not being a great impressionist fan at the time and was literally staggered. That such light could be portrayed on a canvas.....). But does Hirst do this. The picture (photo) of him cheek to cheek with the severed head of a cadaver in an autopsy room grinning like a monkey, the dead and split bodies, the flys and stench - all are desighned to have 'clout' and yes they do - but great art, I don't know.

[sgt.null]

let's ask an artist...

thanks for asking...

hack and con man.

designed for shock and buzz.

[peter]

The definitive statement served up from the undisputed master of 'S&B'!

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Nah...sometimes it does, cuz the title is part of the work [magritte "this is not a pipe" in the image, and IIR the translation correctly it is titled "the treachery of images".]...or Dali...the ultrafamous "soft watches"... these things may stand/have an impact without the title...but "The Persistence of Memory" isn't just a label/definition/naming "So and so the Third," it is part of the work itself.

Fair enough...and I concur--some works have the title as part of the piece itself.

Note that "ceci n'est pas un pipe" is referenced often in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

[sgt.null]

The definitive statement served up from the undisputed master of 'S&B'!

my art always has a deeper meaning - usually several depths of meaning. even if you don't always get it.

i find Hirst to be cynical. I don't want hipster-hucksterism in my art.

[Avatar]

And the diamond skull piece (For the Love of God 2007) - this was so well publicised in advance that there were buyers queing up round the block before it was even made. Again - perhaps there is nothing wrong with that - but somehow ........ (But the piece has undeniable 'impact' if in a gaudy sort of way.) But in fairness the 'niceness' or otherwise of an artist is not significant, and to allow it to influence your view of the work is to render your view meaningless.

Yeah, I dunno about that. (The skull I would put in my living room btw.) The artist is integral to the art. His personality might not influence my opinion of his art, but it would probably influence my decision to support it. Knowing you might be getting one of his "assistants" works with his name on it certainly influences my opinion. And would make me question his work.

I mean, Dali sold signed blank canvases to students, but he was Dali...probably earned his chops by then. And probably crazy to boot.

--A

[peter]

My (one-time) brother in-law was an art college graduate who specialised in sculpture, and moved into renovating old properties which he saw as just sculpture of a different sort (and his work was undeniably beautiful in a 'housey' sort of way). Thus are the lines between 'art' and 'everything else' blurred. 'The Treachery of Images' would be recognisable as high quality work alone on the basis of the technical skill which is displayed in the rendition of the pipe, the pictures title gives it yet a further dimension and to study the background of the 'idea' will give yet further meaning again. Very often when we visit galleries to see the 'old masters' we are in awe of the painters genius in actualising his vision, but forget that there are likely to be as many layers of meaning in this reprasentative art (which not only are we not seeing, but are also unaware that they exist) as are to be found in later (modern) works. That we are not troubled by this is because we have a recognisable image before us on which to 'hang' our impressions and that we are only getting half the story does not concern us. Take away the luxury of recognisable forms and we begin to struggle. Is it art or not? What does it mean? Why can't I see anything I recognise. E H Gombrich once said that abstract art is like music without words and this resonates with me.

Similarly, in respect to the artist themselves. Time forgives all manner of sins in people who have exhibited greatness in one area or another and again when viewing the works of long dead artists it is often only the work that remains.

The problem is that once the recognisable 'skill' of an artist (re his technical ability in execution of his work) is removed, what is left to guide us as to whether the 'idea' suffices to qualify as great art (or even art alone), or to prevent us from being 'duped' into according work value that is in reality trash. Does an unmade bed become art just because the artist says it is so. (My bed remains unmade behind me - am I thus an artist also?). We must to some extent be guided by the 'experts' in this, but given the disagreement between them over a figure like Hirst one wonders if it might not be a case of the blind leading the blind!

(ps sorry if I got you pissed of with that one Sarge - I really was playing about and not making any reference to your work. I'm a for real paid up member of the 'Null Collective' I promise )

[sgt.null]

(ps sorry if I got you pissed of with that one Sarge - I really was playing about and not making any reference to your work. I'm a for real paid up member of the 'Null Collective' I promise )

was not pissed off. just believe thi sguy is a hack. when people in the masses say "that ain't art - any bloke could do that crap!" this is the sort of thing they are referencing.

i have been to many museums, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Austin - and I can tell you I have seen stuff that in no way qualifies as art. (a big canvas of blue with one red line for example) and it pisses me off that sort of trickery gets celebrated.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The trickery Sarge notes is why I say that real art speaks for itself.

[sgt.null]

The trickery Sarge notes is why I say that real art speaks for itself.

agreed, look at a Manet then look at a Hirst. and there were so many artists i could have picked.

[Vraith]

The trickery Sarge notes is why I say that real art speaks for itself.

agreed, look at a Manet then look at a Hirst. and there were so many artists i could have picked.

I don't know...there's something about the test of time in all of this. For instance, let's put in a "middle" thing...say Warhol. In his day, he was viewed like Hirst...lovers and haters, artist and fake. I, personally, think fake. In many...perhaps all...cases, I'm not sure an artist can really be judged until at least a generation after everyone who knew anyone who was alive at the same time is dead...especially for the visual arts.
And there's the other problem of time. Some things really ARE spectacular/meaningful, but only in the precise and particular context...other things somehow transcend that.
So, not to pick on the Brontes, but personally I find "Jane Eyre" only works as an example of the precise/particular kind...you kinda have to know a whole lot about the period to really appreciate it...yet "Wuthering Heights" isn't technically as "well written," but is much better at surviving the assault and battery of time...better art, in that sense.

[sgt.null]

Warhol admitted he was a huskster and a fame-whore.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

He was famous only because he got to hang out with other famous people.

I will agree with Vraith that the true test of art is the test of time. You have seen all those "music then and music now" comparisons, yes? Someone will post ridiculous lyrics by an older artist, juxtapose those with good lyrics from a modern artist, and use that one piece of data to "prove" that "today's music is better than older music". Any scientist will tell you that you cannot prove anything given only one data point.

Let us consider music from 1982 for a second. At a quick glance, I see names I would expect--Michael Jackson, Hall & Oates, Huey Lewis, etc. but I also see a couple of other people: Vangelis, Buckner and Garcia, Dan Fogelberg, and Juice Newton. When was the last time you heard any of those people? Have you heard of them at all? They were all in the top 45 hits of 1982 but now, a mere 30 years later, they aren't played on the radio. At all. They typically don't even make the playlist on Internet radio stations. Although the songs were good, they weren't good enough to stand the test of time.

I grant that the Internet allows for a type of immortality that didn't exist before, as this search result for "music of 1912" shows, but without the Internet no one would be listening to this music, usually because it has just been forgotten and the sheet music normally isn't readily available.

The life of visual arts is longer, of course, because of museums and books of prints, but no one fondly recalls huckster artists or maintains a love of their art through the years because after the "new" wears off the poor quality of the art can be seen for what it is.

[Avatar]

Coincidentally read this today:

Hand in hand with art's provocative aspect is the fact that the more people you can get to notice what you did, the better. Damien Hirst - perhaps one of the most well-known artists of our time - achieves his fame through selling dead animals in formaldehyde for a fortune. The price tag justifies the message: You people are willing to pay for this!

--A

[peter]

What makes Fountain (Duchamp 1917) better art than Anatomy of an Angel (Hirst 2008).