ChatterBank0 min ago
Damien Hirst
30 Answers
does anyone have any thoughts on this artist and his work. I was watching
a piece on the news recently as he has a new exhibition on and wondered quite what to make of him.
a piece on the news recently as he has a new exhibition on and wondered quite what to make of him.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by emmie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.It IS art, just because some people don't ' get' it or like it doesn't make it not art. Picasso had the same reception, not many people would say that now. I personally am not a Tracy Emin fan, but I wouldn't dream of saying it's not art because that's like saying Cliff Richard isn't a singer, personally I hate him, but he does sing.
one of our local buildings has been painted with this rather strange design, not sure why, but it's an eyesore as all the other buildings, many quite old are red brick or portland stone, so this is now a jazzy green, orange, and other rainbow colours, which doesn't exactly fit in with the surrounding buildings at all. It's unlikely to be washed off either, so whilst i appreciate that the person involved must have thought it looks great, doesn't see that in five years or less will be like a tattoo that has faded to a blob.
well it's art to you then, sorry i can't see it. I quite like many modern artists, Dali, Picasso, they could actually paint. Many of their works were impressive and expressive. But i don't see that in Hirst, and the people who buy his works are fooled into paying out hundreds of thousands for something that could be cooked up, or not in an abattoir.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think Tracy Emin is terribly talented either - and as for the notorious pile of bricks? Art? Not in my opinion - and if that's rude, so be it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ngland-leeds-14954711
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ngland-leeds-14954711
Rotting animals, lists of previous lovers on scraps of paper etc. These things are not art. They are exactly what you see and no amount of prettily arranging them or claiming they are art make them so. They can be trying to shock or whatever, but why do we need to be shocked? OK just my opinion but I bet there are many that agree with me.
I don't think he's any good. He had a couple of interesting ideas early on, but has basically been taking the Fosters ever since.
To be fair to him he doesn't seem to pretend otherwise. He doesn't try to intellectualise much about himself. He just says, 'It's a a load different coloured spots that someone else painted for me and it's worth £1million' with a smug grin on his face.
If I'd made his money for those ideas I'd be wearing a smug grin too, so fair play to him.
Tracey Emin's different. She takes it seriously.
To be fair to him he doesn't seem to pretend otherwise. He doesn't try to intellectualise much about himself. He just says, 'It's a a load different coloured spots that someone else painted for me and it's worth £1million' with a smug grin on his face.
If I'd made his money for those ideas I'd be wearing a smug grin too, so fair play to him.
Tracey Emin's different. She takes it seriously.
I have to disagree slightly with 'art is in the eye of the beholder'. What is pushed at us as 'contemporary art' is in the eye of the art dealers - very rich and influential people. Once an artist like Hirst or Emin (or Lowry for that matter) has the patronage of an influential art dealer then the publicity machine swings into action on their behalf.
We think we're sophisticated enough to rail about manufactured boy-bands but fall every time for the overhyped Londoncentric 'arts' scene.
Nothing makes art desirable, and fashionable, as much as a high price tag.
At the same time, I believe art in the most genuine and hands-on sense has enormous social and personal benefit.
We think we're sophisticated enough to rail about manufactured boy-bands but fall every time for the overhyped Londoncentric 'arts' scene.
Nothing makes art desirable, and fashionable, as much as a high price tag.
At the same time, I believe art in the most genuine and hands-on sense has enormous social and personal benefit.
//What is pushed at us as 'contemporary art' is in the eye of the art dealers//
But that’s precisely the point. The public are gullible enough to be told what they should admire. Personally, I don’t fall for it, so I think art is in the eye of the beholder - well at least in the eye of this beholder, and it seems in Em10’s and Grasscarp’s eye too. I wouldn’t pay for a Tracy Emin, but I’d pay for a Dali.
Your story reminds me of a time when, as teenagers, a friend and I visited an art gallery – and there before us was a highly polished apple sitting on a plinth. The work was entitled ‘Apple’. Sad to say my friend picked it up, took a bite out of it, and put it back. I was flabbergasted – but I must admit I laughed!
But that’s precisely the point. The public are gullible enough to be told what they should admire. Personally, I don’t fall for it, so I think art is in the eye of the beholder - well at least in the eye of this beholder, and it seems in Em10’s and Grasscarp’s eye too. I wouldn’t pay for a Tracy Emin, but I’d pay for a Dali.
Your story reminds me of a time when, as teenagers, a friend and I visited an art gallery – and there before us was a highly polished apple sitting on a plinth. The work was entitled ‘Apple’. Sad to say my friend picked it up, took a bite out of it, and put it back. I was flabbergasted – but I must admit I laughed!