sorry if someone’s already said this, couldn’t bothered to read the whole thread :hehe:
doesn’t the fact his pieces have created so much discussion, including this one, prove that it is ‘art’? art isn’t just about aesthetics. or even telling a story. it’s about provoking thought. if it does that then i suppose it achieves it’s objectives.
as for the value, as has been mentioned, that’s just an investment that could make or loose you money. my gf works in the art world and to quote her “the price of the work is based on the market value which is set by the galleries and dealers.” to me that sounds like football players in the transfer market, with teams like man city & chelsea willing to pay silly money. it raises the value of a player to a disproportionate level.
what’ll really piece you off is that damian hirst doesn’t actually make any of his own work :hehe:
No you’re mistaking excessive coverage for popularity…
The fact that something makes for a good headline means it gets covered, does not mean its art, it means its controversial. THere’s a difference. I know of plenty of good art that is similar, but never got coverage, so could therefore be argued to just be as the dissenters would say, “rubbish”, as it hasn’t generated the same level of discussion…
but could we say that art is something that provokes a reaction, whether it be a large or small one? in cases like this the price purely reflects the investment opportunity as opposed to how ‘good’ it is.
Self-interests and seeking profit is just mechanism to maintain this power relationship, in which the rich and privileged dominate through political, economic means, aesthetic and cultural means. Legitimate force, money, education system all play parts in this system of control. Modern arts shows one particular part of control.
The control is so comprehensive and total, sometimes people have the illusions that they are free to do what they like, e.g., to speculate and make a profit, without realizing they fall into some trap of big structure of control.:w00t:
The control is so comprehensive and total, sometimes people have the illusions that they are free to do what they like, e.g., to speculate and make a profit, without realizing they fall into some trap of big structure of control.:w00t:
[/quote]
Err, you can…
I know somebody that was at Goldsmiths with DH, he described him as a standup comedian. I think he is just a canny prankster who after being introduced to Marcel Duchamp saw a good conceptual opener to earn some notoriety & a pound or 2 by getting craftsmen to put together his ideas.
The original joke has come a long way since Duchamp submitted a urinal to an exhibition in 1917 in New York.
Art is by definintion subjective, so what floats someone’s boat will sink the next’s. What I obect to are the ‘experts’ who influence the value of art, usually because they are connected to the gallery/auction house/artist flogging it in the first place.
Art value is almost a self-fulfilling prophesy, because as every peice of art is unique paying a certain price for it defines its value and therefore investment potential. With a finite number of peices of ‘art’ in the world their intrinsic value can only increase during a bullish economy and decrease in a bear one.
The fact that some, including me, wouldn’t give you twopence for a cow preserved in formaldahyde whereas someone paid millions merely supports my proposition.
The risk to your investment in this tosh is that in the future Mr Hurst is exposed as a complete charlatan.
I was looking through the catalogues for this auction yesterday. (I happened to be at the printer who produced them). Didn’t see anything I fancied buying.
Very interesting topic this although none of the isses and discussion surrounding Hirsts work are new. I may well be mistaken but I think it was Warhol that said something along the lines of art is what you can get away with. Interestingly I dont think he ‘did’ a lot of ‘his’ work either.
Probably too busy being getting completely twatted and being a real artist
Not only did he not do his own art (which largely used appropriated images in the first place - retinted/overcoloured by him or his assistants), he called his workshop The Factory.But is it any different from the fact that sculptors don’t generally produce the displayed copies of their work? Rodin didn’t get 'imself down the foundry and actually cast The Kiss out of hot metal.Architects almost certainly can’t lay bricks or pour concrete.The bloke who designed trhe latest superbike didn’t put it together himself.Etc, etc
