[DrBenway]

The NYT reports that Damien Hirst's two-day sale at Sotheby's has set, by a wide margin, a new record for an auction of the works of a single artist. The total for the auction was just over $200 million.

I cannot believe that there are that many rich, stupid, tasteless people walking around on this planet. His work is wafer thin conceptually, and his "technique," mostly contributed by his army of "assistants," has nothing to do with art.

We have reached a point where buyers enthusiastically line up to buy whatever the insiders who control the art world tell them to buy. Once an "artist" has been so annointed, literally anything that he does is immediately pronounced a masterpiece.

About a year ago, I went to an elaborately-staged exhibition at MOMA, built around the theme of perceptions of time. At this ridiculous excuse for a show, I saw, up close and personal, Jeff Koons's "sculpture" that consists of three basketballs floating in a fish tank of the sort that you can buy at any pet shop. Also on offer was Martin Creed's insultingly dumb "Lights Going On And Off." Yep, a bare gallery, with the cieling light fixture on a timer so that it switched on and off every few seconds (Get it? On? Then off? Get it?) This work of pure genius won the prestigious Turner prize in England a few years ago, so it must be brilliant, right?

Hirst trades in the same sort of swill: a dead fish floating in a tank of formaldehyde, a preserved calf in a vitrine, a platinum casting of a human skull encrusted with a couple of thousand diamonds. Well, O.K., that last one might be worth something if you melted it down, sold the platinum for scrap, and made jewelry out of the rocks.

Before the art police haul me away, let me point out that I like all sorts of challenging work, in art, music and literature. I will go to the mat to defend Jasper Johns, John Cage, Jackson Pollack, Yoko Ono, Laurie Anderson, etc., etc.

The problem is, art is no longer something that has any inherent aesthetic value; it's value is conferred on it by the gatekeeper critics, curators and collectors who play this foul game. And if you DARE to suggest that an annointed artist is a charlatan, well...you obviously are a philistine with no taste. No attempt is made to justify or explain why a floating dead fish is a work of art. It's art because those in the know say so. Now shut up and sign the check.

It should be manifestly obvious that if everything is art, then nothing is art.

 

[davidhunternyc]

This is kind of a funny post on a forum like this. I am a painter myself. I was at an opening of Larry Bell's not too long ago at Pace Gallery. Afterwards, there was a private dinner at the Lever House here in New York. I was kindly invited to the dinner and I was surrounded by many blue-chip artists from the gallery. I was pretty much ignored by these artists until Larry Bell stood up and pretty much told them what a great painter I am. Boy did things change. I went from pariah to the next hot thing. Anyway, the topic of conversation moved to a discussion of Matthew Barney's work. Now, all of a sudden, my opinions met something and I was pressured by these other artists to chime in. Hmmm, a discussion about a complicated topic while I'm eating my ravioli. Not my idea of a good time. So I responded by saying I found his work "problematic." Almost immediately I was shot down like a bird from the sky. How DARE I say his work is horrible, thin, and without merit. I didn't say these things. I said his work was problematic. How DARE I say his work was a problem. No I said problematic. This isn't a judgement. O.K. guys. End of discussion. My ravioli is getting cold.


prob·lem·at·ic (prŏb'lə-māt'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Posing a problem; difficult to solve: a repair that proved more problematic than first expected.
Open to doubt; debatable: "if you ever get married, which seems to me extremely problematic" (Oscar Wilde).
Not settled; unresolved or dubious: a problematic future.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is kind of a funny post on a forum like this. I am a painter myself. I was at an opening of Larry Bell's not too long ago at Pace Gallery. Afterwards, there was a private dinner at the Lever House here in New York. I was kindly invited to the dinner and I was surrounded by many blue-chip artists from the gallery. I was pretty much ignored by these artists until Larry Bell stood up and pretty much told them what a great painter I am. Boy did things change. I went from pariah to the next hot thing. Anyway, the topic of conversation moved to a discussion of Matthew Barney's work. Now, all of a sudden, my opinions met something and I was pressured by these other artists to chime in. Hmmm, a discussion about a complicated topic while I'm eating my ravioli. Not my idea of a good time. So I responded by saying I found his work "problematic." Almost immediately I was shot down like a bird from the sky. How DARE I say his work is horrible, thin, and without merit. I didn't say these things. I said his work was problematic. How DARE I say his work was a problem. No I said problematic. This isn't a judgement. O.K. guys. End of discussion. My ravioli is getting cold. prob·lem·at·ic (prŏb'lə-māt'ĭk) Pronunciation Key adj. Posing a problem; difficult to solve: a repair that proved more problematic than first expected. Open to doubt; debatable: "if you ever get married, which seems to me extremely problematic" (Oscar Wilde). Not settled; unresolved or dubious: a problematic future.

Wow. It was brave of you not to just give some non-commital response in a setting like that. To be honest, I'm expecting the same sort of hostile response to this poll that you got to your opinion, but we'll see.

My dilemma in framing this discussion is that I don't want to seem closed-minded or resistant to new ideas. I just get very suspicious of art that has to be explained, or requires the imprimatur of the cognescenti in order to be considered legitimate.

 

[shigzeo]

i am not an artist nor am i a visionary in any real sense, but i voted the first one for this reason: his work will matter no matter that i or anyone else here may really care for it.

if visionary can be defined by as many synonyms as it has, i would choose idealistic for him as an artist. his ideals like anyone's may not line up with... etc., but they certainly cast a shadow. if he has been popular for 20 plus years, he has definately created a formula. fermaldihyde, mayonaise, anything is fine as far as it preserves his own sense of idealism.

what he is making now to some will be truly art. to others cast rubbish. however, he is following an artistic dream. he looks much bigger than the stereotypical introvert artist (simon pegg's Bryan from 'spaced') or the sheep mentioned in the reply to this thread.

his work will matter and has to matter as anything that has that much money thrown at it today will leave some sort of precedence on the market, the trade, the season of popularity of a certain form. he certainly has imitators, has copiers and probably as many enemies.

indeed: he will remain material for long.

 

[rds]

I think those two options are a little extreme. You need a third one like 'He ain't no Picasso'.
But of the two options I'm definitely going 'con artist'. Lol

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think those two options are a little extreme. You need a third one like 'He ain't no Picasso'. But of the two options I'm definitely going 'con artist'. Lol

I agree with you that the choices are extreme; but I think polemics can be useful because they goad people into responding (Manipulative, me? Nah).

Funny that you should mention Picasso. Aparantly, the previous record for an auction of a single artist's work was set at a sale of Picasso's work sometime in the 90s. I find that to be sad and ironic.

 

[FalconP]

Hirst has a large oeuvre, some are indeed con jobs (the dot paintings with pharmaceutical titles are not even done by Hirst himself, but by a crew of underlings). I do however found installations like A Thousand Years and Apostles powerfully evocative, gruesome they may be.

And certainly most of his works fall squarely within "problem piece" -- they provoke, but without allowing the viewer to come to a satisfactory resolution. Some of these are simply lacking in artistic ideas (like his "embalmed animal" pieces); while others are, I think, based on wrong premises (such as the installation Pharmacy.) But all in all, I think what Hirst is doing now is not much more outrageous than the Conceptual Art/ Fluxus movement of the 60s. One may of course take issue about killing animals for the sake of "art", especially if one chooses to ignore the fact that skins, feathers, ivory and pearls have been used in art since time immemorial.

 

[chadbang]

The longer the title of an art piece, the less true artistic merit it possess, in my experience. 'The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.' Yeah, go Damien. I think he made a name for himself on shock value, rather than artistic value. And as in ANY field (art, film, writing, acting, fashion, politics...) MAKING A NAME FOR YOURSELF is where fame and hence perceived value comes from. And making a name for yourself through shock value is the lowest form of all in my opinion. That makes Damien Hirst in the art world (where shock value proliferates e.g. the nut who defaced the "Pieta" becoming a successful gallery owner), the artistic equivalent of Paris Hilton, Andy Dick and Rush Limbaugh, in my book.

 

[melomaniac]

sadly, contemporary art is too often too easy to criticize - too hard to appreciate - and too expensive even for major institutions (who increasingly rely on superwealthy donors to even pretend to be in the market with private collectors)...

 

[Luminette]

I'm not going to call any of it nothing.

But that article covers some intensely ridiculous stuff and reflects on some really ugly, vain and classist arsecrap manifested in the guise of art ( art as a concept that posesses any depth - I am not attempting to define art here)

Idk. I don't feel like putting any effort into detailing just how disgusting and ridiculous all of that is - and I would advise anyone that this is a community of music lovers to begin with, so it would not be such a wise idea to think perhaps that any thinking this to be stupid just

"don't get it"

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalconP /img/forum/go_quote.gif But all in all, I think what Hirst is doing now is not much more outrageous than the Conceptual Art/ Fluxus movement of the 60s.

That's an interesting comparison, since the fluxus artists certainly provoked howls of outrage in the 50s and 60s. But I think the substance in their work was obvious, and their basic artistic ability was in most cases beyond dispute.

I've been to LaMonte Young and Marion Zazeela's "Dream House" installation a number of times, and I find it indescribably beautiful. It delighted me from the first moment I reached the top of the stairs, and each return trip has shown me something new about this deceptively simple work.

I've never seen anything by Hirst that had that impact on me (although I certainly have seen a relatively small assortment of his works). Like most current art, his pieces seem like impoverished, shallow puns to me. There is nothing more to it than that; once you get the joke, that's all folks. His relentless celebrity mongering and the constant emphasis on the absurd valuation of his stuff only adds to my feeling that this guy is a massive fraud.

 

[LostOne.TR]

I caught a exhibition at the Mori Art Museum, in Roppongi Hills, this summer called "History in the making: A retrospective of the Turner Prize"

There was a lot of stuff I did not get in there. Including stuff like that cow, and not sure if there were other animals. I remember it was like 2 pieces, and you can walk through the center to see the insides of the animal. Also caught the room with the light turning on and off. There was like.. an indentation into the wall at some point. Don't remember much, but I think the shadows maybe help emphasize some contrast.

All in all, I came out understanding the stuff for the Turner Prize, ain't really for my tastes.

 

[Barock]

Seems that modern 'art' and Brit-art in particular is all about clever-clever ideas rather than actual talent. There's another exhibition in England depicting two lightswitches, meant to represent our dependance on technology. Style over substance or something like that. Doesn't make it not art in some higher sense maybe, but still a load of juvenile sixth-form/art school nonsense IMO. Give me Rembrandt anyday.

 

[Lazarus Short]

"Modern Art" has nearly become an oxymoron. I remember that some years ago, a poet won a prize for this poem:

lighght

and then there was that memorable (for some reason) poem by Richard Brautigan:

Negative Clank

He'd sell a rat's a**hole to a blindman for a wedding ring.

I have written better than that, but am not one of the anointed literati.

Laz

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barock /img/forum/go_quote.gif Seems that modern 'art' and Brit-art in particular is all about clever-clever ideas rather than actual talent. There's another exhibition in England depicting two lightswitches, meant to represent our dependance on technology. Style over substance or something like that. Doesn't make it not art in some higher sense maybe, but still a load of juvenile sixth-form/art school nonsense IMO. Give me Rembrandt anyday.

To me, if a work can be summed up in one sentence that provides a complete grasp of the entire work without the need to actually experience the work, it ain't art. Viewing that witlessly stupid "On and Off" piece offers absolutely nothing that you couldn't get from a one sentence description of it. That's just crap.

The only thing that Hirst's work seems to offer beyond a one-sentence concept is shock value. You can generate a similar degree of shock value by disrobing at rush hour on a commuter train. That's not art. In the 70s it was called streaking. Nobody called streakers artists.

I think that the art world has cowed the public (and a lot of moronic rich people) into pretty much eating what is put in front of them. Nobody wants to be considered dense or unhip, which is the penalty for daring to question any of this garbage.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have written better than that, but am not one of the anointed literati.

Exactly. If you are a member of the club, anything, anything you do is art. If you are not a member of the club, nothing you do is art, no matter what it is.