Damien Hirst's Latest "Conceptual Bullshit"

[Momus]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070601/entertainment/entertainment_britain_art

I don't think it gets anymore decadent than that.

[Jason Rainville]

"I've stopped worrying about what art is. If it's in an art gallery on the wall or the floor, it's probably art."

Asked what his next work would be, he joked: "Two diamond skeletons shagging."

Death is a central theme in much of Hirst's work -- he once said that the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States were like a work of art, but later apologised.



What a talentless shlub of a human.

[Rhynome]

Shmok.



I think that pretty much sums him up. I can think of other words, but most them are a lot worse than shmok, so maybe I'd best not.


How much did that skull cost, I wonder? Couldn't the money have been put to better use? I don't necessarily mean Africa or the likes, but what about Art? He says he doesn't really care about what art is any more, fine then, don't show us this, but instead put the money towards funding other people's art. £112million (>$200mn) was 'diverted' *cough*stolen*cough* from the British Arts fund to go towards the Olympics. Why doesn't he do his bit to make up for all that lost money rather than making a waste of rare materials?

[DavePalumbo]

I was going to post a quote, but Rhineville got it first.

Whatever.

[Interceptor]

That's what this is!!!!????

I turned to BBC the other day, and the channel had nothing but that image of the skull on the an hour. dead silence. black background, just the disco skull. It creeped me out.

[nicolas]

I think its a dope piece!
I dont get the hate for all the modern art, if you dont like.... ignore it. What the hell is so difficult about that. If you dont like a product dont buy it! Dont open a thread or a blog about it..... :rolleyes:

[James Kei]

I'm with Nicolas.
How can you not love this?
http://www.boingboing.net/images/_images_2007_05_29_magazine_03matter450.1.jpg

[bunny]

What, I think it's pretty blingin'.
Damien Hirst = straight up gangsta. He'll fuck you up, freestyle!

[Rhynome]

Because to me the exact same thing could have been done with cardboard and some spray-paint. The fact that it's platinum and diamonds, oooh, means nothing to me. Well, it means, something, a waste of many.

The materials used in it don't make it mean anything more, they bring no greater artistic merit. It's nice to look at, agreed, but if it were Plastic I would think it less nice to look at, but that would be outweighed by the fact that it's art for aesthetics sake and not just high material value or some kind of showy, expensive attempt at the concept of something being grossly expensive and so invoking revulsion or controversy. That's not art, that's just revulsion, there's a difference.

To me, though, this is nice to look at, but not even that says it's art. It could just be a doodle. Doodles can be nice to look at and to me this piece is nothing more than a doodle that he put together. It communicates next to nothing.

[Staz Johnson]

I'm with Nicolas.
How can you not love this?
http://www.boingboing.net/images/_images_2007_05_29_magazine_03matter450.1.jpg


Ditto... I don't 'get' it ...but it looks mighty cool!

[sve]

he has high hopes, made by him skull in British Museum in London alongside an Aztec turquoise skull which inspired it. :) He probably needs something which can stand up to lost Aztec civilization :). 8,601 diamonds will do :)
I'm indifferent. maybe it looks great in real life. Smile is interesting and teeth.

[Costau D]

Maybe it's a metaphor. How modern rap/hip hop/pop music culture is degrading itself with people buying stupid crap studed with diamonds when the money could be used for something more useful other than bling. The Skull itself just symbolizes the death of modern culture as we know it.:dead: But hey at least the end of modern american culture will go out looking like a diamond studed turd... hahaha

I don't mean what I say, just an observation as a devils advocate.

[sve]

he is fascinated with death but still wants fame and people's love. ahahaha. sly fellow. I want to see if his dreams come true...
I went to art festival with friends in my city recently... and my friends who are not artists at all were very bitter about artwork being not about art but about selling.. Noone draws or paints just for the sake of drawing or painting, they said... Unfortunately i have to agree with them about this particular festival... it was like fishing hooks hanging from all sides waiting for fish... no feelings.
This skull is not bad I think because of the smile and the slight resemblance with fashion of 1920th, but I can't stop smiling about its selling patch :).

[Rhynome]

Maybe it's a metaphor. How modern rap/hip hop/pop music culture is degrading itself with people buying stupid crap studed with diamonds when the money could be used for something more useful other than bling. The Skull itself just symbolizes the death of modern culture as we know it.:dead: But hey at least the end of modern american culture will go out looking like a diamond studed turd... hahaha

I don't mean what I say, just an observation as a devils advocate.

Hm, maybe, but if that or anything like it is the case, seriously, who first thought that when they looked at it? The line between art and doodle can be pretty hard to find sometimes, and it is only a line that I put in place (I dunno what others use or say), but for me this is definitely on the doodle side.

[Costau D]

It's just an expensive Nic nac to me. Maybe he wants the reaction of how stupid it is to spend so much money on something, that doesnt mean anything. Gets people thinking, and feeling rightous about what is moraly right and wrong. Heh, I'm just an amateur animator and concept artist, what the hell do i know?

[Jason Rainville]

To me art = A skillful application of media with some thought behind it. His preserved shark and diamond encrusted skull MIGHT have an idea behind it (that's a stretch) but to me it just sounds like just another quick way to get attention without working hard at it or showing a skillful application (which in turn opens the door for other to forget about any technical skill and try to get a ride through the art world on ideas alone).

I fully excpect others to disagree with me, but to me it's not art, or at least art that doesn't require a lot of skill/work to explore...

[Rhynome]

Maybe he wants the reaction of how stupid it is to spend so much money on something, that doesnt mean anything. Gets people thinking, and feeling rightous about what is moraly right and wrong.

Ah yes, but the thing with that is... nah, I could do that by hitting an old lady with a stick, seriously, not art. If it was ever art (which maybe it was) then it's old now, gone out of fashion, no one cares about that as art. As the quote says...
...attempt at the concept of something being grossly expensive and so invoking revulsion or controversy. That's not art, that's just revulsion, there's a difference.

[JL.Alfaro]

Hey, My kids made something like that once, in third grade...what is this guy 8-9 yrs old? either that or hes a retard ( no offense to the mentally challenged) with too much money.

-JL

[Brendan N]

I'm with nicolas, if you don't like then move along.

Rhineville - Interesting definition, you've just thrown most of Africa and a lot of Surrealism and Dada out of the art world, plus a whole lot of other stuff. The boundaries of art is something not even experts can agree upon - I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss anything from the wide embrace of the term "art".

[Costau D]

To me art = A skillful application of media with some thought behind it. His preserved shark and diamond encrusted skull MIGHT have an idea behind it (that's a stretch) but to me it just sounds like just another quick way to get attention without working hard at it or showing a skillful application (which in turn opens the door for other to forget about any technical skill and try to get a ride through the art world on ideas alone).

I fully excpect others to disagree with me, but to me it's not art, or at least art that doesn't require a lot of skill/work to explore...

In his case, work smart not hard.

[Jason Rainville]

Even the 'primitive' but beautifully asbtracted forms in masks of affrica, stylized and warped reality of surrealism and design concepts of dada requires study, technical skill and thought. Constructivism is not simply the arbitrary placement of red rectanges, there's skill and thought behind it. There was an artist of the destijl movement (the name eludes me) that gradually refined and simplified his earlier realism into a collection of squares that at first very accurately resembled a tree, but became more and more abstract. His resulting constructed arrangements may have seemed so easy a child could do it, but his study and technical skill allowed him to create simple but breathtaking compositions that no one without his background could create.

I believe in the artistic validity of damn near every style of art, because you can trace the success in that field to technical skill and sound thought process. I don't see much of either in a diamond encrusted skull :shrug: one thing's for certain though, he is creating some dialogue...

[dfacto]

It's art, but it's pretty aimless either way.

And I think it's actually pretty hideous. Solid platinum cast with etching would be much cooler. But still a terrible use for that much cash.

Oh and nic, stand not between a man and his whining. :D

[Rhynome]

one thing's for certain though, he is creating some dialogue...

What if we stopped talking, then? What if we all just ignored the thread? Then the art in the dialogue would die, thus removing the art in the piece. Sure, that would be an interesting concept to play with, and it has been played with before (in fact, I feel it's getting a bit old), but the work in itself is not art and our reaction doesn't make it art. The skull on its own, even though swanky looking, doesn't really mean anything. Related to these points if any object that got people talking were art then what about archaeological artefacts? Or if someone stood in a public place and shouted offensive phrases. People would react, but that's nothing, it doesn't suddenly make it art, it's still someone standing up and shouting.

Hm, I've been making less and less sense recently.

[Jason Rainville]

What if we stopped talking, then? What if we all just ignored the thread? Then the art in the dialogue would die, thus removing the art in the piece. Sure, that would be an interesting concept to play with, and it has been played with before (in fact, I feel it's getting a bit old), but the work in itself is not art and our reaction doesn't make it art. The skull on its own, even though swanky looking, doesn't really mean anything. Related to these points if any object that got people talking were art then what about archaeological artefacts? Or if someone stood in a public place and shouted offensive phrases. People would react, but that's nothing, it doesn't suddenly make it art, it's still someone standing up and shouting.

Hm, I've been making less and less sense recently.

I never said that this dialogue was a good thing :p (nor did I say it made it art)

[el coro]

the fact that it has produced so much debate even on an obscure niche art forum like ca is proof that hes doing something right. i personally think its a cool fucking piece, and its obviously getting him lots of attention, so i would have to score this:
damien hirst= 1
conceptart.org haters who think drawing watered down derivitive shit for the entertainment industry is the highest eschelon of art= 0

but take heart, im sure all that laughing to the bank and recognition in the art world probably leaves him quite empty inside.
suck it up guys and realize that artistry can be more than drawing post apolacalyptic characters in dynamic positions with no reference. and your elitism is just as ignorant as theirs.-c36

[Rhynome]

I never said that this dialogue was a good thing :p (nor did I say it made it art)

I never said that you said that the dialogue made it good. Just giving what you said a colour, that's all. Saying something about it.

[Brendan N]

Even the 'primitive' but beautifully asbtracted forms in masks of affrica, stylized and warped reality of surrealism and design concepts of dada requires study, technical skill and thought.

No, not in spirit. If you're dismissing this, why aren't you dismissing Fountain, or Bicycle Wheel?

And why are you talking about Constructivism? - it's on the opposite side of the table from Dada and Surrealism.

The fact that you don't see anything doesn't mean there's nothing to be found. Hirst is a postmodern artist, and I suspect he subscribes to postmodern philosophy - including Barthes' writings on the author.

What about this?:
http://www.moma.org/images/collection/FullSizes/00043099.jpg



EDIT: Well said Mr Coro sir, there's much more to art than how cool it looks.

[Costau D]

I have to agree with coro on this one. Peoples anger towards artists like this, just shows that they are confused to the reason. Whther it was empty reason or not, for someone to get emotional and feel hatred towards different things just shows fear in something they dont understand. People are afraid of things that don't have a direct point involved, and it makes them question it. It's perfectly understandable. Everybody does it to some degree and about different things. At least this guy is making you think... Even if it is a cheesy attempt, and probably no complex thought behind it. Whatever it's doing it's working. Art doesnt always have to be on a canvas, or form something the mind is familiar with. It can also be something to manipulate social interaction and effect a society, subliminally or outright.

[Prometheus|ANJ]

I like it. Imagine having found it in an ancient Mayan tomb. That would've been... Whoa.

[joelhinxman]

he should slap a chain on it and sell it to fity......word

or mabey its the ultimate goth discoball cant decide

[Jason Rainville]

Bleh, I'd written out a long winded post, but I don't care anymore. Ima just say my views are my own and I'll stick by 'em :shrug:

[asoir]

i would've been fine by it if it wasn't for the quote. he truly is a cock muncher!

[Zaknafain]

conceptart.org artgestapo strikes again...
;)

[Dave Kendall]

It's a shiny skull I love it. I saw it on the news and just couldn't dislike it. I'm with Coro. I'm more intrigued by it's size. It's supposed to be an 18th century 34 year old adult. That's one tiny head. As others have pointed out he has just designed the ultimate goth disco accessory.

Let's cut the bullshit about building hospitals etc, when were converting far larger quantities of dollars and pounds into genuine death.

[Jason Manley]

the craftsmanship is nice...and the promotion he is getting is about as paris hilton as the art world gets. I am in agreement with coro on this one.

We need to do more to encourage art and work that is of personal nature that includes well thought subject matter and perhaps even some depth too. Obviously we value great drawing and painting skills around here, but coro is right, that this piece has more "artistry" than the latest space marine or post-apoc hero doing some phil hale pose in the finished section.

Personally, I think it is a cool piece. In blingbling-land, I would get it for the wall above my desk and keep it right next to the obsidian covered femur near a well sharpened machete with a sign that says "who's next?"

[fionkell]

the fact that it has produced so much debate even on an obscure niche art forum like ca is proof that hes doing something right. i personally think its a cool fucking piece, and its obviously getting him lots of attention, so i would have to score this:
damien hirst= 1
conceptart.org haters who think drawing watered down derivitive shit for the entertainment industry is the highest eschelon of art= 0

but take heart, im sure all that laughing to the bank and recognition in the art world probably leaves him quite empty inside.
suck it up guys and realize that artistry can be more than drawing post apolacalyptic characters in dynamic positions with no reference. and your elitism is just as ignorant as theirs.-c36

...I'm too lazy to count, but how many people got served?

[Jason Rainville]

...I'm too lazy to count, but how many people got served?


Even though I still don't "get" this skull, I think I'm in there :)

[jadefoodog]

I'm with Nicolas.
How can you not love this?
http://www.boingboing.net/images/_images_2007_05_29_magazine_03matter450.1.jpg

i can see ludacris with that as a necklace BLINGGGGGG!

[Eric Lofgren]

the fact that it has produced so much debate even on an obscure niche art forum like ca is proof that hes doing something right.

Debate about what? Whether it's art or not? How uninspired is that.



i personally think its a cool fucking piece,

That's it's kuul is hardly the issue.

[el coro]

Debate about what? Whether it's art or not? How uninspired is that.





That's it's kuul is hardly the issue.

lol. huh? :)

[Eric Lofgren]

lol. huh? :)

All it's done here is generate discussion about whether it's actual art or just bling. That seems very self defeating and useless to me. And one of the things about a lot of conceptual and installation art that's always bugged me. Discussion is one thing, veracity of intent is another.

I agree that it's cool. But the way I see it that might be the whole sum of it's parts :)

[Icon]

that's a shit load of diamonds....



awh fuck I forgot my life changing comment..oh well..
I like it. I'd love it in my room next to my starting collection of animal skulls! ;p

[sve]

That's the thing... the guy has his behind covered from all sides... don't see anything artistic in this, here you have Goth theme, don't care about Death, how about 8,601 diamonds, that's a serious stuff... don't give a damn about it... he mentions the inspiration was a historical treasure and it's a cast from 18th century's real person, still calm... his name comes forward...not some bum, we should pay attention... where to find a real impression in all this mess? I don't know...For me it is all Razzle Dazzle...

[el coro]

All it's done here is generate discussion about whether it's actual art or just bling. That seems very self defeating and useless to me. And one of the things about a lot of conceptual and installation art that's always bugged me. Discussion is one thing, veracity of intent is another.

I agree that it's cool. But the way I see it that might be the whole sum of it's parts :)

well if you take that argument, the discussion as to whether something is art or not has been debated over all kinds of art over the past few hundred years. so i guess that means most of all art discussion since the beginning of recorded history is useless to you. also, i feel that if a piece of art rallies people up enough to talk about its validity, its probably more successful in the bigger picture than a fantastically drawn (and probably in the grand scheme of things much more forgettable) barbarian with demon horns and fire on his tits.
im not saying that this is my cup of tea. but i do like some of Hirst's previous works, and think he does deserve his place as a legitimate artist. obviously my personal interest is more about drawing and painting. i can however respect, and am able to appreciate other disciplines and the people who create successful works within them.

and if you are going to take the notion that "all it is is a cool skull, and nothing more" than what the hell do you think a space marine with a gasmask killing hordes of bug aliens is? is a drawing of hellboy a more legitimate and evoacative piece than this? or is it just cool to you? i wonder what Hirst would think about most of the largely derivitive works posted here on ca.

all im trying to get at here is that its really easy to hate on mutherfuckers who are obviously doing work that gets attention. its a whole other thing to try to understand the work, and why it evokes that kind of response in people. i think theres something to learned in it. and who knows, it might make you a better artist to some capacity. or maybe not. i would however, rather keep an open mind for the potential of maybe deriving something positive out of it than discount it and say its stupid because hes famous and im not.-c36

[Brendan N]

conceptart.org artgestapo strikes again...
;)

haha, good way of putting it.



all im trying to get at here is that its really easy to hate on mutherfuckers who are obviously doing work that gets attention. its a whole other thing to try to understand the work, and why it evokes that kind of response in people. i think theres something to learned in it. and who knows, it might make you a better artist to some capacity. or maybe not. i would however, rather keep an open mind for the potential of maybe deriving something positive out of it than discount it and say its stupid because hes famous and im not.-c36

Exactly.

Also - let's not forget this is Conceptual artwork - which means the idea is far more important than the actual execution. As for meaning - that's more up to you than Hirst: it's postmodern so there is probably no single truth locked up here, and chances are neither does Hirst intend for only 1 possible interpretation.

[Mr. Visions]

"Oh for the love of God."

Indeed.

[Interceptor]

That skull is sweet. I hope lil' jon replaces his chalice with it.

[Hai]

I want to touch it.... I bet it feels nice. :)

[John]

I love it. Don't hate the player, baby.

[Idiot Apathy]

damien hirst= 1
conceptart.org haters who think drawing watered down derivitive shit for the entertainment industry is the highest eschelon of art= 0

Haven't read the rest of this uhm ... "stuff"
But Coro man, hahah fucking brilliant.

[Jason Manley]

haha, good way of putting it.




Exactly.

Also - let's not forget this is Conceptual artwork - which means the idea is far more important than the actual execution.


Not the case here...from the looks of the thing, execution was highly important. The craftwork is beautifully done.

[Jason Manley]

oh....and for once...a piece of conceptual art is actually worth the price on the wall. ;)

[Stark]

It's cool and different...wins my vote for that. Evocative and engaging, another vote. Skill level is meh and execution is meh. Now, if that was from his private collection...then yeah, I'd give him more props.

[Brendan N]

Not the case here...from the looks of the thing, execution was highly important. The craftwork is beautifully done.

I fully agree with you, it is beautifully done - but I think the execution is more supportive of the idea rather than being the main appeal. I don't think Hirst wants to brag with how cool it looks - the great execution is supporting the ideas behind the the piece, and without this solid execution it simply wouldn't have read the same way.

oh....and for once...a piece of conceptual art is actually worth the price on the wall.

Haha, I'm still wondering how much the diamonds actually contribute to the worth of this piece.

[AlexC]

(and probably in the grand scheme of things much more forgettable) barbarian with demon horns and fire on his tits.

Just trying to cash in on the latest fad

Who the hell wouldnt want a diamond encrusted skull?
Bring on the shagging skeletons!

[Eric Lofgren]

well if you take that argument, the discussion as to whether something is art or not has been debated over all kinds of art over the past few hundred years. so i guess that means most of all art discussion since the beginning of recorded history is useless to you.

Not at all. Despite my earlier grumbling, it's important to question. But for me, on the face of it, this piece of art hasn't done that. It looks cheap and gaudy and could be a plastic skull covered with rhinestones and glass beads for all I know. At first glance it looks like a morbid trinket. If that was his intent, then perhaps he has succeeded. And I would argue that the need for discussion on whether something is art or not has been more prevalant in just the last 50 + years or so.

also, i feel that if a piece of art rallies people up enough to talk about its validity, its probably more successful in the bigger picture than a fantastically drawn (and probably in the grand scheme of things much more forgettable) barbarian with demon horns and fire on his tits.

But that's just it. You could just as easily spark the same debate over that very painting of a barbarian (and any 1001 other things I could think of). The only thing keeping that from happening more often is pedigree. Unless the artist is a Frazetta.


all im trying to get at here is that its really easy to hate on mutherfuckers who are obviously doing work that gets attention. its a whole other thing to try to understand the work, and why it evokes that kind of response in people. i think theres something to learned in it. and who knows, it might make you a better artist to some capacity. or maybe not. i would however, rather keep an open mind for the potential of maybe deriving something positive out of it than discount it and say its stupid because hes famous and im not.-c36

I agree with you on this. But the way I see it, to the general population this skull will only generate oohs and ahhs over the applications, or admonations at the sheer waste and excess to create it. It's largely unapproacheable to the general public, who can only comment on what they see in front of them. They aren't privvy to the artist's motivations. There's no recognisable pipeline into the artist's intent and I think that is what many conceptual and installation artists need to take more into account. I'm not saying what they do is a waste of time. But they do seem to cater to a very select mentality. Where a broader appreciation of what they do and perhaps why, would be of more benefit to everyone and not just gallery owners and other artists.

[_Mario]

I like it and I think that it's too funny that there are just so many 'unique, like a snowflake,' egos here on conceptart.org who like to bitch about anything that is different from the norm and doesn't fit in their accepted definition of art.

In short: I agree with the "conceptart.org artgestapo" and el coro's 1:0 comment.

People are actually complaining about a skull on a site that is practically dedicated to the idea of drawing/painting skulls on armour, buildings, weapons and anything else (that has some space to hold one) just because it "looks cool".

This diamond skull is the conceptart.org patron saint. A symbol for the bling-bling and skulls that are expected in the entertainment industry. ;)

[squidmonk3j]

art is a dead metaphor. deal with it. hone your craft and let the post-modernists have their necrophiliac games. it's all sloppy seconds by now, anyway.

[stephen]

holyfuck that is cool!

[Marcatili]

Personally I think this is a great piece, as are a lot of Hirst's earlier works. Just on first look, other than it being a cool piece, it could easily be taken as a political comment on the diamond trade, for example- a contemporary, relevent issue.

I can't see how this is so inaccessible. To my way of thinking this is way more accessible to todays public than the majority of historical art. Its a recognizable object (a skull) embellished with other recognizable ojects (big fuckoff diamonds) I would think its more accessible than a Mondrian, a Rothko, a Frank Stella and probably more accessible than Botticelli's Primavera or any other allegorical painting to an uneducated viewer.

To those that debate whether this qualifies as art, go back to your history books and look up Duchamp. Wikipedia 'Readymades' perhaps. This piece has far more technical skill in its execution than Duchamp's Fountain, or Man Ray's 'Gift' but they have become part of the accepted art canon.

[wookiedabo]

tis preeeeeeeety fuckin schweet.... the fact that its immaculately crafted gives its the option of simply bein a ridiculously cool, if ludicrously expensive, piece of simple sculpture. im not to sure as to its conceptual value, i havent really heard hirst push any particular ideas he wanted to convey through this piece, i reckon hes probably just chuffed he could afford to make such a fantastical piece. It is most certainly art, it just seems that its not significant enough for certain people, which is a purely subjective matter. I sya enjoy it however.

[squidmonk3j]

wait...u guys think he actually crafted this himself? hirst uses assistents for the actual, physical realization of his "art". he "can't be arsed" to do the boring stuff.

[timpaatkins]

wait...u guys think he actually crafted this himself? hirst uses assistants for the actual, physical realization of his "art". he "can't be arsed" to do the boring stuff.

You mean like most professional painters have done throughout history? Including most if not all of the old masters, who all used assistants and interns/students (they didn't just clean the brushes and decorate sets ya know...)

[Jason Snair]

i think it's kinda cool. hell. if that was dug out of some aztec pyramid people would go crazy for it.

everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but i find it a little ironic for those that hate this piece and consider themselves "concept artists" because at some point I'm sure some of us have drawn skulls with diamonds on them.

but whatever, to each his own.

[squidmonk3j]

You mean like most professional painters have done throughout history? Including most if not all of the old masters, who all used assistants and interns/students (they didn't just clean the brushes and decorate sets ya know...)

yes, i'm aware of this. and, in my mind, this diminishes the effort, but not necessarily the result. i was just making this point clear.

the major difference is, in my opinion, that these works aren't attempts at art as much as (at best) attempts at art critique or commentary. i regard stuff like this as extrapolated tendencies of post-modernism, and generally find the works fairly meaningless beyond the almost solipsistic limits of the artist's vocabulary.

...and as such, not even bothering to do the actual work, is more akin to being an editor telling a staff writer to do a review of, for instance, a movie. which is fine, but no one would dream of calling said editor a movie maker based on his function.

at any rate, this has no impact whatsoever on my own attempts at "art". my interest (disdain) is only raised because it effects the world around me.

[Mr Man]

I think the idea is pretty neat, but the price is abit hefty. Saying that it is covered in diamonds...

[timpaatkins]

the major difference is, in my opinion, that these works aren't attempts at art as much as (at best) attempts at art critique or commentary. i regard stuff like this as extrapolated tendencies of post-modernism, and generally find the works fairly meaningless beyond the almost solipsistic limits of the artist's vocabulary.

...and as such, not even bothering to do the actual work, is more akin to being an editor telling a staff writer to do a review of, for instance, a movie. which is fine, but no one would dream of calling said editor a movie maker based on his function.




Would they dream of say calling them an Art Director or Creative Director?

[squidmonk3j]

hm. interesting thought...:)

[ceberae]

Sell it on Ebay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[otis]

Sadly, for a community of people who claim to be artists, I'm suprised how many of you don't even know what true conceptual art is.
NEWS FLASH: Great art doesn't need "skill" or craftmanship. It helps, but is not required. Just like you don't need to be smart to make money.
This is exactly what conceptual art is about.

What is driving the popularity of this piece is the unexplainable facination people are having with it. Lovers, haters, or people who just don't "get it". Everyone is still talking about it. I bet Hirst doesn't even understand all the hype over it. That's why he is a succesfull conceptual artist!!!

So, as long as all the completely, ignorant, jelouse, envious, critical, frustrated, wana-be art critics keep ranting, debating and rationalizing their useless analytical hypothesis and opinions ....the value of this piece will keep growing.


Now that is genius. <3
That is Art.

Bravo!!

[Brendan N]

Sadly, for a community of people who claim to be concept artists, I'm suprised how many of you don't even know what true conceptual art is.
NEWS FLASH: Great art doesn't need "skill" or craftmanship. It helps, but is not required. Just like you don't need to be smart to make money.
This is exactly what conceptual art is about.

What is driving the popularity of this piece is the unexplainable facination people are having with it. Lovers, haters, or people who just don't "get it". Everyone is still talking about it. I bet Hirst doesn't even understand all the hype over it. That's why he is a succesfull conceptual artist!!!

So, as long as all the completely, ignorant, jelouse, envious, critical, frustrated, wana-be art critics keep ranting, debating and rationalizing their useless analytical hypothesis and opinions ....the value of this piece will keep growing.


Now that is genius. <3
That is Art.

Bravo!!

Thanks Otis for saying what I've been wanting to say more eloquently than I could have. It is also very important to understand there is a difference between concept art (as here on CA) and Conceptual art - don't get confused between the two.

[Jason Manley]

strangely, my feeling on the piece diminished once I read that it was not an actual head....but a cast. It should be a real head....bone...a true artifact....

[t11]

Am I alone in thinking this would make one bitchin' hood ornament? :teeth:

[squidmonk3j]

Sadly, for a community of people who claim to be artists, I'm suprised how many of you don't even know what true conceptual art is.
NEWS FLASH: Great art doesn't need "skill" or craftmanship. It helps, but is not required. Just like you don't need to be smart to make money.
This is exactly what conceptual art is about.

What is driving the popularity of this piece is the unexplainable facination people are having with it. Lovers, haters, or people who just don't "get it". Everyone is still talking about it. I bet Hirst doesn't even understand all the hype over it. That's why he is a succesfull conceptual artist!!!

So, as long as all the completely, ignorant, jelouse, envious, critical, frustrated, wana-be art critics keep ranting, debating and rationalizing their useless analytical hypothesis and opinions ....the value of this piece will keep growing.


Now that is genius. <3
That is Art.

Bravo!!

are you talking about damien hirst or the crowd over at deviantart?

[N D Hill]

The only thing elitism has ever done for any artist is cause them to shoot themselves in the foot. Modernists were guilty of the same sin when they responded to a bewildered public with the simple statement, "you just don't get it." In the end, all this kind of attitude does is overtly claim that the subjective is absolute and art has never had room for absolutes. I'm reminded of a great quote from DeKooning's artist statement. When the modernist crowd rejected his work and told him it was absurd to paint figurative images when modernism was the way of the future, he replied "it's absurd that I can't." The same principle applies in the reverse. It's like a plummer calling an automotive mechanic an asshole because he's not a plummer.

[Brett Bradford]

I think that piece is a grand artistic statement... probably the best made in the past 30 years IMO.

I think Hirst is an overrated hack, but to his credit, he really hit this piece out of the park. Absolutely brilliant and can be interpreted in so many ways. To me, the absolute genius of this work is that it is a symbol any human can identify with.... possibly the most powerful symbol of mankind (the skull). AND it uses only two materials in it's production that just happen to be the two most highly regarded materials to humans, in the following respect... We as humans give these materials to signify important spiritual events, yet we also hoard them to build empires and/or personal wealth.

So what you have is a work that could be twisted into a huge variety of analyses that could go both pro OR anti money/wealth/greed/consumerism or take on a more spiritual interpretation (the Aztek reference used the recent CNN.com article for example).

Rare that this powerful of a work comes along these days. I am completely taken with it's brilliance (and I'm not talking the diamonds).

http://a736.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/56/m_ece05e71c41c49120cb34a4e33b108a7.jpg

[timpaatkins]

strangely, my feeling on the piece diminished once I read that it was not an actual head....but a cast. It should be a real head....bone...a true artifact....

The teeth are still the real thing though.

[Jason Rainville]

Still, I think creating a hooplah =/= art. Stretch the defenition of art that much, and, well, 9/11 actually does fall under that umbrella (seems that may be his reason for stating it WAS earlier). The whole of deviantart meets that criteria of genious as well, as squid pointed out. If all he wanted was talk, he's going to get it from me. I realize the irony of damning his motives then giving him what he wants, but...

It's not so much that he didn't really work with it, that it's not an actual skull nor that it didn't take hard work to get where he is... it's that I don't see any discernable meaning coming from the artist. That's why I don't like conceptual art, it just feels to me that they're producing something odd, throwing it to the masses and seeing how they react. Like tossing a cat into a monkey cage and finding out if they cuddle or eat it. If that's art... maybe I'll go vandalize a famous building with beef. Not to make a statement about how rasied livestock contribute more to global warming than all the cars on the planet, not because we too are only smarter, more sophisticated animals and I don't want my brothers enslaved, and not because I want the desk jokeys inside to realize they too are cattle.... Just because. I'll do something random and see what happens. It's art...

I dunno. Like I said before, I don't dismiss art right off the bat because of its origin. I can respect abstraction etc that doesn't conform to norms or reality. But I respect it because at its origin there was a though, an idea to be imparted. If there ever was a part along his creative path he said "alright, I'm going to do ____ because of ____" and not just "ima make my employees put diamons on a skull cause that will rox" I'll eat my words (as I believe I've said before.)

And remember kiddies, I'm not out to shit on anyone's head over this or tell anyone they're wrong.

And here I was going to stay out of it.... blarg! :x

[otis]

Hey, Art is always influenced by culture. People are wired to be facinated with things our rational / ethical minds will never understand. It's this mystery that conceptual artist are trying to play with. Art is not always created to have a meaning or purpose. Bu it can have a profound meaning to it's audience!

Lets face it. Mankind has always been facinated with fame, fortune, death, and the unexplainable. Just becuase our rational brains don't like it or understand it, doesn't mean it holds no value.

See, people who hate work like this or get offended by it are only so becuase their rational brain doesn't know how to register or make sense of it. Then people get defensive, malicious, and frustrated. = ignorance.

Hirst is giving people somthing for their minds to chew on.

That's all. And boy are people eating it up! ;)

[Mr Man]

strangely, my feeling on the piece diminished once I read that it was not an actual head....but a cast. It should be a real head....bone...a true artifact....

Damn I agree with you there, not being a real skull does kill it abit. If im gonna pay millions I atleast want a real skull.

[evildisco]

You guys are too bitchy, even I can't hate that. It is actually a quite interesting piece of craftsmanship.

[Serpian]

I usually think that a piece made some special way is not "more" art than an equally good looking piece done "normally". But the fact that this skull is actually made of diamonds makes it SO, SO much cooler than if it were made of crystal glass. You don't look at the necklace made by some master jeweller in Swizerland or whatever, and say: "What, you think it's a great necklace just because it's diamonds??". That is one cool looking skull. I'd like to but it on the bonnet of my car! BLIIINGGGG

EDIT: But I don't think that just getting people to talk about it makes it art. It's sort of that philosofical question; if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? So, if this guy would make this piece, but before anybody can hear about it, he and the skull has a freak accident and are buried under miles of rock. (That's very probable!) If, theoretically, nobody would EVER find the skull again, until the universe implodes, would it still be art? Definately.

[Brendan N]

I think that piece is a grand artistic statement... probably the best made in the past 30 years IMO.

I think Hirst is an overrated hack, but to his credit, he really hit this piece out of the park. Absolutely brilliant and can be interpreted in so many ways. To me, the absolute genius of this work is that it is a symbol any human can identify with.... possibly the most powerful symbol of mankind (the skull). AND it uses only two materials in it's production that just happen to be the two most highly regarded materials to humans, in the following respect... We as humans give these materials to signify important spiritual events, yet we also hoard them to build empires and/or personal wealth.

So what you have is a work that could be twisted into a huge variety of
analyses that could go both pro OR anti money/wealth/greed/consumerism or take on a more spiritual interpretation (the Aztek reference used the recent CNN.com article for example).

Rare that this powerful of a work comes along these days. I am completely taken with it's brilliance (and I'm not talking the diamonds).

http://a736.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/56/m_ece05e71c41c49120cb34a4e33b108a7.jpg

I completely agree with you - especially on the interpretations and its cross-cultural value; I think it is one of the most meaning-rich pieces I have ever seen.



strangely, my feeling on the piece diminished once I read that it was not an actual head....but a cast. It should be a real head....bone...a true artifact....


Damn I agree with you there, not being a real skull does kill it abit. If im gonna pay millions I atleast want a real skull.


I think if Hirst wanted a real skull he'd probably have gotten one. I think the fact that it is a cast contributes considerably toward the possible meanings and interpretations.

[James Kei]

When I die, I wanna be stripped down to the bone and encrusted with diamonds. Full body.
That's how I roll. :devil:

[GriNGo]

i think it's cool because el coro said so :yayca:

[Arshes Nei]

You know that skull should have been a topic for the Daily Sketch Group.

"Man wearing Disco Skull trying to impress a date"

[Marcatili]

The inspiration:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/expat/aztecmask.jpg

[tensai]

shit - that one is very powerful. who did that?

(edit - nevermined, guess it's aztec...)

[blacky]

When I first heard of it, I was like meh, that sucks.
But now I actually kinda like it.

To be honest though, I consider this kristal-scull crafted by the Mayas
way more impressive. (It must have tacken generations of workers to polisch it with hair-bundles to get such a smooth survace, it is aslo said to predict the future and to store all of the human knowledge of ancient times, it aslo precisely depicts a female scull (prob. a priestess) and is cut out of a single piece of kristall.)

[Zaknafain]

When I first heard of it, I was like meh, that sucks.
But now I actually kinda like it.

To be honest though, I consider this kristal-scull crafted by the Mayas
way more impressive. (It must have tacken generations of workers to polisch it with hair-bundles to get such a smooth survace, it is aslo said to predict the future and to store all of the human knowledge of ancient times, it aslo precisely depicts a female scull (prob. a priestess) and is cut out of a single piece of kristall.)

wow... how big is that thing?

[fionkell]

Nice find Blacky! Ooh, refraction. I would like to stick that in front of some laser lights or strobes and just see how the light beams richochet crazily through it.

[Cthogua]

Nice find Blacky! Ooh, refraction. I would like to stick that in front of some laser lights or strobes and just see how the light beams richochet crazily through it.


Hehehe, of course it would turn out thats the method of unlocking its power, it then projects the face of Quetzoquatl on the wall and brings about the end of the world...of course you'd have to wait till Dec 21, 2012 for it to really work :devil:


But seriously, I think Damien Hirst's piece, which I just read is entitled "For the Love of God" is awesome. I love the conceptual juxtaposition of beauty and horror, and how the two, in this case can even be reversed depending on how you look at skulls and diamonds. Theres also an interesting play on humanity's desire for immortality. Isn't De Beer's slogan "Diamonds are forever" ? Did Damien intend for all this meaning...probably in a way. Not in the way you "mean" something you say. However I'm sure he was aware of the loaded conceptual quality of the skull, and of the materials he ended up replacing the actual skull with. Earlier in the thread someone said something to the effect of "it could be made out of cardboard and spray paint and be the same thing" ...and thats just being ignorant to where the artist is creating meaning. With conceptual art EVERYTHING holds meaning, especially the materials it was constructed from. That is typically one of the first places the artist's thoughts about the piece are hinted at. Materials are often chosen with a great amount of thought as to the potential "meanings" or qualities of it. A large golden clasp means something different that a big iron one. The beauty of visual and auditory art, "conceptual" or not, over written art is that it can transcend the typical linguistic bounds that come with verbally describing something. Where a sentance is only generally going to have a single or possibly a few interpretations, an image or object doesn't have to deal with absolute meanings. It can be a vast field of meanings that the viewer can explore. Sure its a little more mental work than being told flat out what something "means" but that also gives you a reason to continue looking and thinking about the piece. If its just one idea, than once you "get it" there's no reason to continue paying it any attention beyond purely academic study.

[otis]

What I love the most about this is that NOTHING IS ORIGINAL!!

I think that piece is a grand artistic statement... probably the best made in the past 30 years

30 years? So what? People have been making the same statement for centuries. LOL!

[0kelvin]

To be honest though, I consider this kristal-scull crafted by the Mayas way more impressive. (It must have tacken generations of workers to polisch it with hair-bundles to get such a smooth survace, it is aslo said to predict the future and to store all of the human knowledge of ancient times, it aslo precisely depicts a female scull (prob. a priestess) and is cut out of a single piece of kristall.)
Even more impressive is how the Mayans carved the skulls out of a type of crystal that doesn't exist in that part of the world and they had no access to. Also very mysterious is where they got the 19th century jeweller's equipment that have been shown to have been used in the carving of the skulls.


Eric

[dfacto]

Those other ones are way better than Hirst's.

The crystal one catches light in a fascinating way, and the stone plated one has the tribal art vibe along with the cool ballbearing eyes.

Hirst's looks like an overworked and overly perfect bling item. It has no soul in my opinion.

[Bradh898]

Not really my style of art, but i guess if you dont have any other way to spend your money you can glue diamonds to a cast of a skull. my little sister just uses glitter though, sorta a money saver...

[asoir]

Hehehe, of course it would turn out thats the method of unlocking its power, it then projects the face of Quetzoquatl on the wall and brings about the end of the world...of course you'd have to wait till Dec 21, 2012 for it to really work :devil:


But seriously, I think Damien Hirst's piece, which I just read is entitled "For the Love of God" is awesome. I love the conceptual juxtaposition of beauty and horror, and how the two, in this case can even be reversed depending on how you look at skulls and diamonds. Theres also an interesting play on humanity's desire for immortality. Isn't De Beer's slogan "Diamonds are forever" ? Did Damien intend for all this meaning...probably in a way. Not in the way you "mean" something you say. However I'm sure he was aware of the loaded conceptual quality of the skull, and of the materials he ended up replacing the actual skull with. Earlier in the thread someone said something to the effect of "it could be made out of cardboard and spray paint and be the same thing" ...and thats just being ignorant to where the artist is creating meaning. With conceptual art EVERYTHING holds meaning, especially the materials it was constructed from. That is typically one of the first places the artist's thoughts about the piece are hinted at. Materials are often chosen with a great amount of thought as to the potential "meanings" or qualities of it. A large golden clasp means something different that a big iron one. The beauty of visual and auditory art, "conceptual" or not, over written art is that it can transcend the typical linguistic bounds that come with verbally describing something. Where a sentance is only generally going to have a single or possibly a few interpretations, an image or object doesn't have to deal with absolute meanings. It can be a vast field of meanings that the viewer can explore. Sure its a little more mental work than being told flat out what something "means" but that also gives you a reason to continue looking and thinking about the piece. If its just one idea, than once you "get it" there's no reason to continue paying it any attention beyond purely academic study.

i've always loved your explanations, great post

[megas_imperius]

You know what would make this perfect?
One of those Master Chief replica helmets from the Legendary edition of Halo 3.
It's supposed to be a really small head, right?
Even if it's still too big, jut put the helmet right on there. Like a little hat. People will get the message anyway.

[s.ketch]

Needs spinners in its eyes.

[thundercake]

I like it, actually. I've hated most of his other works...they were just floating dead animals, I think...but this one I can at least partially relate to. Diamonds are associated with immortality in a way that rhinestones and other cheaper materials aren't. Skulls are symbols of mortality. Works for me.

As for not building it himself..

*cough*

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/images/Fountain_Stieglitz.jpg

[Snarfevs]

Ach I just scrolled down to see that expat beat me to it - conflict diamonds anyone? I think it's an excellent piece, both technically and semantically. To call this 'bullshit' is terribly knee-jerk. I would call it a poor investment considering that he conceivably could have gotten the message across a lot cheaper (or could he?) I would say that Hirst articulates simple messages in hideously extravagant manners. But at least he has a message!

[Hyskoa]

Shiny, but 0 artistic value.

[Mungus]

He could've used fake diamonds,
The piece would've looked pretty much the same and got the same message across, whatever that is....dirty diamonds, sierra leone, pointless bling materialism, etc etc.
I think it's nice, - maybe a rich art buyer can buy it from him for $1 and donate $50 million to a good cause.

On a similar note, I just caught a beeb interview with Tracey Emin, now that's talentless bullshit really striking it big.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6729747.stm
It's heartbreaking when such artists only confirm the stereotype, embarassing themselves with foundation-level reasonings or justifications, backed up with stunningly lacklustre "works of art". Add an Elton John for extra b'shit.

I'm going to build a guillotine, for arts sake.

[Molly]

...i wonder if you go to the gift shop after seeing this you can purchase a mini-pair of earrings and necklace to match? Its very Vivian Westwood-esque; all bling bling....he could sell it to some gangsta rappers....

[timpaatkins]

I like it, actually. I've hated most of his other works...they were just floating dead animals, I think...

As for not building it himself..

*cough*

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/images/Fountain_Stieglitz.jpg

I loved those dead/rotting animals, but here in NYC he has this baby (literally) in the Lever house courtyard. The black one is in england, 35 feet tall and completley cast in bronze. They are called "The Golden Child". I think its taller then the one in we have here. And the shark rocks.

149924149925149926

[TwelfthFaucet]

I think there can also be a reference drawn to Mexican Day of the Dead and their candy skulls.

Personally, the Aztec skulls are a lot more interesting to look at than the Disco Terminator skull.

[0kelvin]

I would call it a poor investment considering that he conceivably could have gotten the message across a lot cheaper (or could he?)
Cost of materials: $10-15 million
Selling price: $100 million

Sounds like a pretty good investment to me.


Eric

[Snarfevs]

Sounds like a pretty good investment to me.

touché, but you knew what i meant. An obscene investment of materials into a budget concept. No cognitive economy, if you will.

If on the other hand you treat what he does like any other business (which may be a fair call) then yes, you're right. Bit of a niche market though...

[That fat kid]

The gratuitous use of the word "Bling" makes this thread even more ridiculous.

[emily g]

Cost of materials: $10-15 million
Selling price: $100 million

Sounds like a pretty good investment to me.

Has someone actually bought it?
It won't be a good investment if it doesn't sell. :P

[tomwaits4noman]

latest news is that George Michael is planning on buying it
strange would have thought that it would more Ozzy's thing.

apparently it has a price tag of €50 million according to tabloids.

now I know we have divided opinions on it but I am wondering if Hirst made aan effort to tag a deep and meaning message on to the piece would there have been so much contraversy

something along the lines of

it is a representation of the evils of the diamond trade, the skull represents death and each diamond represents every person that is exploited or died as a result of the diamond trade.

Does art have to have a deep meaning can it not just be purely for aesthetic reasons?

[Brendan N]

Does art have to have a deep meaning can it not just be purely for aesthetic reasons?

Art is a language, what are you communicating?
Drawing pictures purely to look cool can be compared to making nonsensical noises that sound nice...

[tomwaits4noman]

which would explain why George Michael wants to buy it

[Cthogua]

now I know we have divided opinions on it but I am wondering if Hirst made aan effort to tag a deep and meaning message on to the piece would there have been so much contraversy

something along the lines of

it is a representation of the evils of the diamond trade, the skull represents death and each diamond represents every person that is exploited or died as a result of the diamond trade.

Does art have to have a deep meaning can it not just be purely for aesthetic reasons?

I would say Hirst did make an effort to "tag" meaing to the piece by creating out of the materials that he did, and by choosing the subject matter he did. Its not a diamond encrusted teddy bear, its not a diamond encrusted dildo, its a diamond encrusted skull. However as for attaching a single specific meaning like "This is about the evils of the diamond trade" I think it narrows the scope of the piece. If you come right out and tell people what to think about it, than all you are going to get is an acknowleging nod, and they'll walk on down the line to the next piece confident that they "solved" your piece. Alot of conceptual art is more about provoking questions than providing answers...you provide the "answer." The interpretation that you arrive at based on your knowledge, and whatever baggage you brought along is going to be far richer a thing, and the idea will linger with you longer than if you're just told what it "means." Phil Hale has a great painting that illustrates that point entitled "There is nothing here to tell you what to think of this." The line goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" well so, I think is "meaning". Art is a language, but not one that communicates in the same narrow, linear way that linguistic language does. Art communicates using "meaning rich" symbols, instead of "meaning specific" words. The symbols can mean many things, and even multiple things at the same time. I think the artist does what he/she can to communicate by creating the piece. Explainations should be left to the audience. There is too much concern about "what the artist ment by..." Who cares. What does it mean to you? Shouldn't your own thoughts about the piece be more relavent to you anyway? Also, this idea that art should some how be "decoded" or "solved" and that theres some great prize of meaning upon resolving it is silly. In the real world nothing is ever completely resolved and nothing ever has just one meaning. Meaning is something we assign the world, it is not an inherent quality.

[Momus]

I started a discussion! :)

[squidmonk3j]

momus - that makes you a Great Artist. you should totally sell this thread to an art gallery.

[Janshi]

Art is a language, what are you communicating?
Drawing pictures purely to look cool can be compared to making nonsensical noises that sound nice...

Don't abuse 'nonsensical noises that sound nice'. Think Lewis Carroll. Wonderful nonsense words like 'Jabberwocky', and similar nonsense verse that populate poetry. Its nonsense, its silly, and you love it because by god, what IS a jabberwocky? What is the vorpal in a vorpal sword? Why make something nonsense? What does it all mean? And more importantly, does it NEED to have meaning?
It seems to me that you have a very set definition for language, while holding art to be open by definition. If you think that a demon with huge flaming tits is pure nonsense that communicates nothing, fine. But if even one viewer thinks, 'Wow! Cool!' then the job's done - the artist has got to someone, at least.

As for the skull, I think its...meh. Damien Hirst has never been a favorite of mine. I think it would actually have made more of a statement if it HAD been encrusted with blood diamonds. I think my main objection to it is that if we didn't know it was an 18th century skull (cast), and that it wasn't diamonds (I mean, it could be pretty pieces of glass), then we wouldn't really have such a big debate over it. Its annoying that I need contextual background to make 'sense' of it. Its just me, but I prefer art to be self-contained, a beginning and an end in one single thing. Learning the contextual background is INTERESTING (Dali, Bosch, Picasso) but I feel that if I have to learn about the background before looking at the piece, that I have to know the materials utilised to understand the art, then I've been cheated and forced to look at the art in one, narrow-minded point of view.

[light]

It may not be good art but hey, it does what centuries of art have done, offered insight into the culture of the time. If a skull encrusted in diamonds isn't the perfect summary of this generation, I have no idea what is.

[Kittehness]

Very interesting. I'm not always a fan of conceptual art but I rather like this piece a lot. It shows a lot of layers to it - glorification of death, a contemporary culture's idea of a death mask or ritual object... made from sources known to be destructive (despite the fact his diamonds were "ethically" sourced) reference to 'bling' culture (again with the contemporary culture's ritual object)the way we express our decadence by encrusting normal stuff with gold and jewels (cellphones, cars, etc), and the everlasting idea of diamonds and the skull as something to hold the everlasting afterlife. I like stuff like this that plays into cultural and tribal aspects of humanity.

And I think both concept and conceptual art are very important in their own rights.






.......I wish I could afford to sculpt with platinum and diamonds >_>;

[Justin.]

If a skull encrusted in diamonds isn't the perfect summary of this generation, I have no idea what is.

A penis encrusted in diamonds? I dunno.

[Janshi]

A penis encrusted in diamonds? I dunno.

Funnily enough, I thought this too. I like the way you think ;)

[Brendan N]

Don't abuse 'nonsensical noises that sound nice'. Think Lewis Carroll. Wonderful nonsense words like 'Jabberwocky', and similar nonsense verse that populate poetry. Its nonsense, its silly, and you love it because by god, what IS a jabberwocky? What is the vorpal in a vorpal sword? Why make something nonsense? What does it all mean? And more importantly, does it NEED to have meaning?
It seems to me that you have a very set definition for language, while holding art to be open by definition. If you think that a demon with huge flaming tits is pure nonsense that communicates nothing, fine. But if even one viewer thinks, 'Wow! Cool!' then the job's done - the artist has got to someone, at least.


Uh-oh, straw dog argument.

[pyrohex]

You guys are missing the mark - the real assholes here are the people buying the skull, buying the shark, and financing this stuff. Really, it's the art critics and their sheep that cause this. Hirst is just exploiting rich idiots.

[Janshi]

Uh-oh, straw dog argument.

Uh oh, throw-away thoughtless one-liner. You'll have to do better than that.

pyrohex: I agree. You have to admire Hirst really, for managing to pull this off. If it were me, I wouldn't give him the time of day. Scandal and outrageousness is only rewarded if people give a damn.

[sve]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Conjurer_Bosch.jpg

he didn't pull it off just yet though... 100 millions dollars seem to be not realistic.

[Brendan N]

Uh oh, throw-away thoughtless one-liner. You'll have to do better than that.

Nice try.

As for the skull, I think its...meh. Damien Hirst has never been a favorite of mine. I think it would actually have made more of a statement if it HAD been encrusted with blood diamonds. I think my main objection to it is that if we didn't know it was an 18th century skull (cast), and that it wasn't diamonds (I mean, it could be pretty pieces of glass), then we wouldn't really have such a big debate over it. Its annoying that I need contextual background to make 'sense' of it. Its just me, but I prefer art to be self-contained, a beginning and an end in one single thing. Learning the contextual background is INTERESTING (Dali, Bosch, Picasso) but I feel that if I have to learn about the background before looking at the piece, that I have to know the materials utilised to understand the art, then I've been cheated and forced to look at the art in one, narrow-minded point of view.

No, you'll need to do better. Start by reading Barthes' famous essay, The Death of the Author.

[pyrohex]

OUT COME THE EGOS AND THE GAME OF SNAPPY ONE-UP-MANSHIP!

And so, because I have to seem cool and unconcerned, instead of actually reading an essay, I decided to go to Wikipedia and have it distill the contents for me. Blah blah reader's interpretation blah conduit blah blah destination blah, whatever.

It's all rather pointless, isn't it? People begin these "debates" with their own conclusions already drawn. Everyone is too entrenched to be convinced by some debate among e-dentities, especially when people start getting emotional about it.

And therefore, MONKEYS!

[Janshi]

Pyro: Haha, it is true, but I can't resist; its like my genes demand it. And I wikipediaed it too. :D

Sve: Well, he's managed to get headlines, I assume that's on his goal to (art) WORLD DOMINATION!

And as for thee, Brendan

Nice try.

No, really. You can't simply state straw dog/man argument and think thats it. You should prove it. Its only fair. If you want, I'll state why I think there isn't an argument.

No, you'll need to do better. Start by reading Barthes' famous essay, The Death of the Author.

Um, read my argument carefully. I'm echoing Barthes. I stated that I found it annoying that I had to know the contextual information of the piece to understand the import as Hirst/the general audience's point of view, that I had to know the materials to appreciate the piece, or at least as the artist seemed to intend. I also stated that I prefered the pieces to be contained, with their own beginning, middle and end, rather than having to draw from other sources. Granted, I could simply see it as a skull with glittery all over it, but unfortunately my perception has already been biased with the knowledge of 8,601 diamonds (right?) and based off an Aztec skull-effigy-thing. The reason it has caused such hoo-ha is because of 8,601 diamonds which people think are either brilliant or a shoddy waste of money.
I actually agree with Barthes to a degree- more about the story, less about the storyteller. It's a flaw I think in modern literature critique. Though there should be context, still - otherwise we follow the road of some daft Folklorists, who have somehow got it into their heads that legends and fairytales are created from the dreams of human beings of the times and lack any single one author, to which I say, merde.

ANYWAY, its my opinion, so I don't quite see why you should critique my opinion. I haven't critiqued yours, only what I percieve as a bias against nonsensical noises.

[sve]

headlines can be bought :).

[Brendan N]

meh, just had good reply typed out when the power failed....

No, really. You can't simply state straw dog/man argument and think thats it. You should prove it. Its only fair. If you want, I'll state why I think there isn't an argument.

Alright, fair enough :).

It seems to me that you have a very set definition for language, while holding art to be open by definition.

No, I actually don't have a very fixed definition for a language. Typically I regard it as a system for communication, but that doesn't quite hold under critical scrutiny.

If you think that a demon with huge flaming tits is pure nonsense that communicates nothing, fine.

But I never said that, did I? And I never said nonsensical noises that sound nice are incapable of communicating. In fact, I'd rather argue that they are incapable of not communicating. I'm fully aware of Dada poetry and that jazz.


Um, read my argument carefully. I'm echoing Barthes. I stated that I found it annoying that I had to know the contextual information of the piece to understand the import as Hirst/the general audience's point of view, that I had to know the materials to appreciate the piece, or at least as the artist seemed to intend. I also stated that I prefered the pieces to be contained, with their own beginning, middle and end, rather than having to draw from other sources. Granted, I could simply see it as a skull with glittery all over it, but unfortunately my perception has already been biased with the knowledge of 8,601 diamonds (right?) and based off an Aztec skull-effigy-thing. The reason it has caused such hoo-ha is because of 8,601 diamonds which people think are either brilliant or a shoddy waste of money.
I actually agree with Barthes to a degree- more about the story, less about the storyteller. It's a flaw I think in modern literature critique. Though there should be context, still - otherwise we follow the road of some daft Folklorists, who have somehow got it into their heads that legends and fairytales are created from the dreams of human beings of the times and lack any single one author, to which I say, merde.

I actually think the daft Folklorists are on the right track, albeit by accident. But the tissue of quotes is a slightly other part of semiotics.

As for meaning contained - that's exactly what Barthes argues: meaning is never fully contained, it cannot be. Hirst's work is created and received within this post-structuralist environment, so the fact that you "needed" external knowledge to "discover" meaning really is beside the point - critically speaking an autonomous artwork is also a fallacy. What Barthes is arguing is that meaning lies in the destination, not the origin. The word 'tree' signifies a different picture in everyone's minds, and because of that, it's the reader that needs to create meaning. Hirst's work, being post modern, is (I think) best viewed from this stance. I don't think Hirst either expects nor hopes that the meaning the viewer creates should correlate with the meaning he pours into the vessel. I also believe that this piece's strength lies in the fact that it is so writerly, as opposed to readerly. That said, I'm not a huge Hirst-fan and I find the themes his pieces touch to be uninteresting for the most part.

I'm really not trying to criticize your opinion, just trying to point out the philosophical backdrop against which so much of post modernism is set. I'm not really sure how you're echoing Barthes either ... feel free to explain.

Lastly - don't use the Wiki to dig things like this up. Wiki lets you read a summary of the argument and not the argument. Meaning is thus further differed and it's hard to see where he is coming from. (and however contradictory this might seem with Barthes' ideas, I really don't think The Death of The Author is a satire of itself, however charming it might seem :D)

[Janshi]

No, I actually don't have a very fixed definition for a language. Typically I regard it as a system for communication, but that doesn't quite hold under critical scrutiny.

Fair enough.

But I never said that, did I? And I never said nonsensical noises that sound nice are incapable of communicating. In fact, I'd rather argue that they are incapable of not communicating. I'm fully aware of Dada poetry and that jazz.

No, you didn't. That last line was more a dig against coro than you, I should have made that clear. Sorry about that.

I actually think the daft Folklorists are on the right track, albeit by accident. But the tissue of quotes is a slightly other part of semiotics.

Lies! Lol. Look, it works like this. Dream logic is different from story-telling logic. It's entirely different. Dream logic is a seamless collection of images and characters and places that don't necessarily make any sense, and are often disjointed and appear without any meaning. It makes sense only in the dream. Whereas story-telling logic is entirely different. It makes sense to our conscious mind, it flows and works together. Characters do not change suddenly without motivations - they have motivations, no matter how crude they seem. Or not. But the ones that do work are the ones that become our fairy-tales and legends, the stuff that make up the mythology of our cultures. Even the wacky ones (Ananse stories are crazy.)

As for meaning contained - that's exactly what Barthes argues: meaning is never fully contained, it cannot be. Hirst's work is created and received within this post-structuralist environment, so the fact that you "needed" external knowledge to "discover" meaning really is beside the point - critically speaking an autonomous artwork is also a fallacy. What Barthes is arguing is that meaning lies in the destination, not the origin. The word 'tree' signifies a different picture in everyone's minds, and because of that, it's the reader that needs to create meaning. Hirst's work, being post modern, is (I think) best viewed from this stance. I don't think Hirst either expects nor hopes that the meaning the viewer creates should correlate with the meaning he pours into the vessel. I also believe that this piece's strength lies in the fact that it is so writerly, as opposed to readerly. That said, I'm not a huge Hirst-fan and I find the themes his pieces touch to be uninteresting for the most part.

I'm really not trying to criticize your opinion, just trying to point out the philosophical backdrop against which so much of post modernism is set. I'm not really sure how you're echoing Barthes either ... feel free to explain.

Yes, sorry, I didn't make it clear. My bad.
I did read the essay (actually, skim. I'm technically at the office so...lol, I'll make a more thorough readthrough soon). What I meant by a piece being its beginning and its end is that I don't have to draw on what I know of the materials and author to understand it. The piece is the blank map where the viewer will construct their own meaning - I know that, and I agree with it. I just prefer not knowing that there are 8,601 diamonds attached to a plastic skull cast of an 18th century body that is itself based off of a Aztec effigy. It colours my view and necessarily attaches me to the creator's vision, rather than my own. If I didn't know it was diamonds, not just pretty glass, or the cast of an 18th century skull, perhaps my view wouldn't be changed - but I feel cheated. Its a personal fault, but I can't disassociate myself from the contextual information. For example, my readings of Byron are now always tinged by the background research I conducted for an Italian culture paper - I'll look at it and in the back of my mind the questions will arise, is he referring to a male or female lover? Is this a representation of his dramatic personae that he constructed, or a more intimate point of view? Etc, etc.

I hope I made myself clear.

Alright, fair enough .

Do you want me to say it out, or...?

[Brendan N]

No problems, Janshi, see where you are coming from :).

As for Dream-logic vs Storytelling-logic - well that's an entirely different story altogether haha I was just talking about the main idea. Understand what you're saying though.

Regarding the external knowledge - interesting point you make and incentive to much speculation. To interpret, some measure of external knowledge is necessary, and I think - unfortunately - we'll have to take the good with the bad. I've tried to forget notions of Shakespeare similar to those of Lord Byron - I honestly enjoy Macbeth and in fact most of his work.

Sorry for any misunderstandings :), and no, no need to say it out lol.

[Janshi]

Good, 'cause the thought of writing it out tires me.

No man, it is I who should apologise. Escalated things needlessly there, my bad.

I like Shakespeare quite a lot. For a long time I thought he was overhyped but then I started reading some of his stuff and I was blown away. Even with our over-analysis in English class he's still up there in the rankings.

[Blue]

What a glorious waste of money. The same thing could have been done with glass a tin.

I actually think i would respect it more if it was glass and tin, go figure.

[fixx]

It would indeed have been better if the skull had been a real skull. I feel just a little cheated. But only a little.

What it reminds me though of is the incessant need to pretty up our corpses before burial: formaldehyde, nice clothes, make-up, making them like living dolls, just sleeping. That, and the whole thing about The one with the most toyes when he dies wins.

But it could have a million and one interpretations, and Hirst probably thought them out before hand.

[DeadlyFreeze]

Just caught this one over at woostercollective.com, spoon full of dada for hirst.

Placed outside of the White Cube Gallery Masons yard at 3.30 am on Sunday night in response to the Damien Hirst's "For The Love of God" diamond skull exhibition.

The "For the Love of God" prank was created using 6522 Swarovski crystals
and took Laura, the artist, a month to create.

[dkounios]

I'm with Nicolas.
How can you not love this?
http://www.boingboing.net/images/_images_2007_05_29_magazine_03matter450.1.jpg



Pimpin Skeletor.

"neeaaaaaaaa"

[asoir]

Just caught this one over at woostercollective.com, spoon full of dada for hirst.

Placed outside of the White Cube Gallery Masons yard at 3.30 am on Sunday night in response to the Damien Hirst's "For The Love of God" diamond skull exhibition.

The "For the Love of God" prank was created using 6522 Swarovski crystals
and took Laura, the artist, a month to create.

now THATS art!

[wesburt]

don't know if this has been posted or not, but here's a very cool "making of" documentation....

http://www.supertouchblog.com/2007/07/21/techniquethe-making-of-damien-hirsts-diamond-skull/

(hirst fronted $28 million of the costs!)

[Julie G]

I'm not one for modern/post-modern art in general and hated this at first, but I got to think about a little more. First of all - look he's smiling at us! Who couldn't love disco skull's sweet face!

Ahem, all joking aside I find the title to be the most interesting part. It references the original practice of a lot of the tribes of sacrifice and burial. But the cast was of an 18th century European who may have explored the land for riches and may have converted natives 'for the glory of god' It just kind of seems like a generic reason they could use for doing anything questionable. In a way I kind of see this as sacrificing humanity for the love of riches, which can certainly be seen as gods. Thusly it was created to look like a human sacrifice where the importance was on losing humanity rather than life.

But I'm really not sure. I'm just a history dork, so I guess I'll try to focus there and not bring it up with modern pieces.

'Twas brilling...

[life on the sofa]

wow some pretty hardcore debating in here....


dare i say BANKSY?

lol

[kev ferrara]

Well, I think Bentley & Skinner did a good job setting the diamonds and it looks like Hirst was pretty much hands off for most of the time. I'd like to see the original drawing that Hirst gave them to work from, assuming Hirst can draw.

At this point my opinion is that Hirst's marketing concept was a very good one, he has indeed created an obscenity that rises above all the current obscenities. And the execution by Bently & Skinner is as flawless as the diamonds they used.

I find skulls cool to look at. Great jewelers deserve credit for their craftsmanship. Its a pretty object. But since I'm not interested in the hysteria created by transcendent obscenity, this is just "hey it looks cool"!

But so does a skull without bling on it.

Or a skull painted day glo green. Or a skull made out of uranium 238. Or a skull 4 nanometers wide. Or a skull hologram. Or a skull made out of transparent plexiglass that has fire coursing through it. Or a neon skull. Or a skull made out of the whites of eyeballs. Or a skull chipped out of Michaelangelo's David's left leg. Or skull made out of meat. Or a skull made out of lava that is never allowed to cool. Or a skull made out of shit. Or a skull made from college class rings. Or a skull that is actually an improvised explosive device. Or a clear glass skull filled to bursting with live maggots. Or a skull made from coagulated blood. Or a skull made from the frozen tears of crack babies. Or a skull made from molded cocaine. Or a skull made from...

Shall I go on? Anybody want to add more "thought provoking" ideas here?

Sorry, not impressed with "thought provoking".

I'm jealous of Hirst's bank account. That is all.

kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

[Ian Miles]

I hate this times when having and idea, but not being capable of doing it, is celebrated

The guy can´t draw but he´s considered an artist? sure
His crap getting so much publicity due mass media 4 free, because he wanted to mess up a skull? no problem
Hirsch being a billionarie as an artist who can´t make art? you bet

Sometimes I wonder if I´m very, very stupid.

[Hyskoa]

Another thread necro?

[KarylGilbertson]

EDIT: right you are hyskoa... how the eff does this keep happening!

[Don-key]

the fact that it has produced so much debate even on an obscure niche art forum like ca is proof that hes doing something right. i personally think its a cool fucking piece, and its obviously getting him lots of attention, so i would have to score this:
damien hirst= 1
conceptart.org haters who think drawing watered down derivitive shit for the entertainment industry is the highest eschelon of art= 0

but take heart, im sure all that laughing to the bank and recognition in the art world probably leaves him quite empty inside.
suck it up guys and realize that artistry can be more than drawing post apolacalyptic characters in dynamic positions with no reference. and your elitism is just as ignorant as theirs.-c36


THANKYOU!! bout time someone with weight to his name spoke some truth.
nicely said bro





The guy can´t draw but he´s considered an artist?

Sometimes I wonder if I´m very, very stupid.



if you think drawing makes you an artist, then you may well be.

[Interceptor]

I hate this times when having and idea, but not being capable of doing it, is celebrated

The guy can´t draw but he´s considered an artist? sure
His crap getting so much publicity due mass media 4 free, because he wanted to mess up a skull? no problem
Hirsch being a billionarie as an artist who can´t make art? you bet

Sometimes I wonder if I´m very, very stupid.

So because Martin Scorsese can't draw he's not an artist, then?

[daestwen]

Ooookay, sorry guys, but I don't see the point in necroing this thread. Clooooosed. You can pm me if you REALLY REALLY need to add something to this conversation. :P