Damien Hirst

[Michael]

Apparently, British artist Damien Hirst has just set some impressive records with a massive sale of his art by auction at Southby's.

Apparently some of the most valuable pieces are animals in formaldehyde...

Now I can imagine someone paying $50 million for a Rembrandt or Van Gogh. But $20 million for a calf in formaldehyde?

Am I missing something here? (I admit I'm no fan of any contemporary or modern art).

Here's a link to some of his artwork...

Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/16/damien-hirst-auction-fetc_n_126993.html)

[Michael]

Here are a few recovered replies to this thread...

I don't see it either. The dissected angel is an interesting commentary but not terribly impressive unless it is truly carved/chiseled instead of cast. I suspect the latter given the smoothness of the lines. A calf in formaldehyde is just - well not that special considering I used to see bunches of these things in our lab at Mizzou everyday.

I've worked in that sector. Art is even more financial speculation than that whole mortgage business. Most of the buyers of modern art are completely clueless about the artistic value and merely gamble on the hype of a name.

The thing that gets me is this.

Grand master paintings and classical sculptures (for example) have been proven over a period of centuries that they are REALLY popular things. Lots of rich people will pay huge sums of money for these things and thousands of ordinary people will line up for hours in the rain just to see one of these masterpieces up close and in personal.

And I have absolutely no doubt at all that a hundred years from now, this will still be true. Love of classical scuptures or rennaissance paintings isn't going to go away. These are apparently timeless.

But seriously, who thinks that 100 years from now, ordinary people might line up for hours in the rain to get a glimpse of a glass box with a dead sheep suspended in formaldehyde?

Heck I'm hard pressed to imagine the owner of this artwork won't get laughed at 20 years from now when this particular artistic fashion passes.

I'm also troubled by the fact that this type of artwork doesn't seem to be a unique product of a particular human being's hands (the hallmark of great paintings and sculptures of the past). What's artistic about ordering a glass box from a manufacturer? Or ordering a shipment of formaldehyde from a chemist? Or taking delivery of a dead animal from the local stockyard? Anybody can do these things (but why anyone one would want to is beyond me).

In other words, Mr. Hirst's artwork doesn't look like serious art to me. It just looks like he's using common physical materials to display an idea (whatever that idea is). Anyone who likes that 'idea' can just copy it easily. There is nothing unique about it. Indeed, these artistic pieces can be duplicated endlessly and every copy is as original as the original.

Bizarre phenomena this is.

[dannydesiliva]

I do love that spin technique. If I had a spare $75k, I would own number 3 for sure. I assume there will be a run of lithographs after the skulls? I was surprised at the cost of his 'For the Love of God, Believe' print is. I guess since the edition was 1700, the cost is far less.

[Michael]

I can't imagine anyone spending $100,000 plus on a shark suspended in formaldehyde. :eek:

That's just weird. :shrug:

[Americano]

I can't imagine anyone spending $100,000 plus on a shark suspended in formaldehyde. :eek:

That's just weird. :shrug:

There are some very weird people out there.

[Americano]

Anyone know the expected duration of those pieces?

[The Drunk Girl]

Damn, if I would have known that I would have stole the two-headed cat and pig that we had in Bio Lab

[Michael]

Anyone know the expected duration of those pieces?

I remember the famous exhibition of the "dress" made out of slabs of beef was considered little more than a couple of days and was held to be a health hazzard. :shrug:

Shock value art-exhibits would likely have very limited time-date appeal regardless of the materials used I would think. Nothing is more boring now than what was presumed to be 'shocking' ten or twenty years ago. It all seems to have a certain 'fad of the week' atmosphere about it.

[andrew45611]

I do love that spin technique. If I had a spare $75k, I would own number 3 for sure. I assume there will be a run of lithographs after the skulls? I was surprised at the cost of his 'For the Love of God, Believe' print is. I guess since the edition was 1700, the cost is far less.

[Sucre]

I was just about to post a link in the thread "public funding of art" on Damien Hirst's masterpiece, to the love of god (There is still no satisfactory answer in the latter thread about the definition of art, in fact no answer at all ...)

http://www.fortheloveofgod.nl/

Why is this piece of art valuable ? Certainly because it is made of diamonds encrusted in the skull. The diamonds at least make the work valuable.

Costing 12 thousand pounds to produce, Damien Hirst said that it had been auctionned for 50 million pounds. It was not true of course but because we live in a capitalistic world which is clueless about art value, the legendary price became part of the work of art and the tale of the town.

Last but not least, Damien Hirst knows how to market himself : he wrote a book about the making of the encrusted skull. You can purchase this book for 20 dollars on amazon.com.

The title + the legendary price + the tale and the marketing.

Damien Hirst is an artist who knows how to make fun of the "bourgeois".

[Lily]

I was just about to post a link in the thread "public funding of art" on Damien Hirst's masterpiece, to the love of god (There is still no satisfactory answer in the latter thread about the definition of art, in fact no answer at all ...)

http://www.fortheloveofgod.nl/

Why is this piece of art valuable ? Certainly because it is made of diamonds encrusted in the skull. The diamonds at least make the work valuable.

Costing 12 thousand pounds to produce, Damien Hirst said that it had been auctionned for 50 million pounds. It was not true of course but because we live in a capitalistic world which is clueless about art value, the legendary price became part of the work of art and the tale of the town.

Last but not least, Damien Hirst knows how to market himself : he wrote a book about the making of the encrusted skull. You can purchase this book for 20 dollars on amazon.com.

The title + the legendary price + the tale and the marketing.

Damien Hirst is an artist who knows how to make fun of the "bourgeois".

Very interesting. Thought provoking, that's for sure. And that's one of my definitions of art.

[Michael]

Very interesting. Thought provoking, that's for sure. And that's one of my definitions of art.
I find that a view of oceans or lakes (or any large body of water) is thought provoking.

Does that mean the Altantic Ocean ought to be defined as art?

[Sucre]

Very interesting. Thought provoking, that's for sure. And that's one of my definitions of art.
Yes, this is provocative. And meant to be.

I too believe it to be one of the roles of artists to question engrained prejudices - This can only happen through provocation.

[Sucre]

I find that a view of oceans or lakes (or any large body of water) is thought provoking.

Does that mean the Altantic Ocean ought to be defined as art?
Art is thought provoking. It does not follows that everything that is thought provoking ist Art.