@@xxxxxxxyyyyyyy let's be honest chris. This spoofer thinks in dollar signs. And Zaq isn't wrong, anything thoughtful or nice he makes is derivative of other people.
@@johnnytony593 because art is a means of communication, if you deprive yourself of the most common and easy way to express your ideas, you will have no alternative but to become good at art. Not saying this is accurate or realistic, but I think it's the point of the statement.
@@gettrivialstuffed4620: got the quotation, like being blind would make you a better musician or masseuse or food critic. But now I think the purpose of the quoter was to tell the artist to shut up, because his answers were making the art look lame and the artist a simpleton or a con man.
Exactly, good point, good question. It's like he stumbled into something that certain people found compelling and subsequently purchased it. For his part, it may have been something like "well, why not, just keep doing it." No need to be imaginative or creative really, or even skilled at art, but just keep doing what people liked and bought.
I don't think that Damien is a complete conman. He has some fabulous pieces. In my opinion, I don't necessarily think of his work as "art" but more as stories. He wants people to question why something is there, in a gallery. It makes you question what art is and makes you really think. That is the point. The reason why things like Mother and Child, Divided isn't in a scientific museum is because when you look at the inside of a cow, you think about how it works and the scientific aspects of it. When it is an art museum, you think of the beauty and the aesthetics. When something is dead, you think about is morally. Was the death justifiable? What was the cause and the price? What does it mean? Suddenly, you aren't just thinking about the stomach and what it does. It isn't just cool. It causes an internal war, is this art? Is Damien a conman? Does he just care about the money? Is this just bullshit or does it have a meaning behind it? Every piece is a story or a lesson and I think that that is what justifies Damien as an artist. Even the pieces that he did where he didn't really know what he was doing and he just did it, even after a piece is finished, you can look at something and come up with a story for it. Like the spot paintings. They look a bit psychedelic with all the colors. It makes me wonder if there was a method to the madness. He is creating something and that is the first step to art. Even bad art is still art.
That was well said!! Your comment is like a short essay about the whole topic and i love the rhetorical questions :D I think that Damien Hirst is an artist bc of all the things you pointed out (like the concept behind Mother and child ect.), but I also understand the critical responses to his work. The question for myself in the process of thinking about art is always if boundaries even exist. For me, Damien Hirst perfectly shows how to test them out and how to question traditional mindsets in art.
I think that if he thought of these as lessons or stories, he had plenty of time to tell us that during the interview. Most folks sell things or services or work for giant (mostly evil) corperations with making money as one of their motivations (if not the primary one), so we can't judge that too harshly
final thing....(and thanks for not minding that I bounce a couple of things off of your comments) .... storytelling is something that art CAN do, and you can use art to tell a story, and finding a story is one way to understand something. But if I tell you a story, I am not necessarily an artist, and even if I write a BOOK, it may be great art without telling a story. ... and on D.H; I love the novelty of his concepts: where else in life do you get to see the insides of a cow, or be next to a sliced shark body? I don't give him credit for great wisdom or aesthetic sense because he doesn't give them. I appreciate his putting the thing together, just as I appreciate the fishermen and the shops for displaying dozens of open bins of different fish for sale, or the administration of the Aquarium for the fish we get to see. All those are great. I am hugely ignorant about D.H. his thoughts and his aesthetics. I am curious about them, just as I am about my neighbor's, or The original question, though, was about your friends performance K.Kardashian's or DT's
"original about your friends performance" is a mistake, a text message accidentally interpolated lol .... so the end of that is any random person's opinions can be very interesting, and that's kind of how I feel about DHs meanings. since he is doing his stuff, I appreciate it, but I don't have much information or experience that would tell me that his action is more profound then the person at the aquarium who installed the beautiful tank that in-laws me to see the amazing live fish
I cant in all good conscience call this art...it can make you think: "Oh! well, that was interesting", but its not visceral or something ambivalent, its just quirkiness, but it has no conviction, its just: "Well, think what you want to think".
art is supposed to make you think and not see the same thing in an artwork as the creator wanted you to see. different interpretations of the same piece is what makes art exciting and mysterious! i also almost never call anything 'art'. i think everything is just creations and then some are exceptionally made that could be called art..but that again is quite subjective
@@harrygiles1779 Is it really interesting though? Anyone can literally do the same thing Hirst does, it's just coincidental or pure stupidity to find any meaning behind it. Well, a big part of the art world is a huge blur in itself so I guess it isn't particularly shocking that this kind of "art" is popular for the bourgeois. (especially when it's a great way to launder their money)
I don't think he has any really deep thought behind anything. I think he is a smart self promoter and businessman, but there's really no deep meaning here.
@@somewhitekid1780 actually that's wrong. Generally accepted by most thinking people is the fact that great art inspires thought which in turn inspires emulation of style. The impact of a physical, metaphysical, or conceptual idea generally inspires an artist to create something which then inspires those looking at it to think about it, feel something towards it, then begin to emulate it because it forms a stylistic movement. No one is emulating Horst's language because there is no language to emulate. His ideas dont require any massive technical ability which couldn't be replicated so the physical limitations of another artist aren't an excuse for any kind of recreation. There is no language being used or created. Someone like Jeff Koons on the other hand has a language, or at very least a voice, regardless of whether anyone likes it. I'm not a fan myself but can see the difference between the two. You can't tell me the pharmacy installment is deep. Or the black dot made of all flies? Or the shark and cow? Francis Bacon may have shown some interest, but Bacon was also a pervert. Bacon does however have a very distinct language being emulated and further developed, even in other mediums like photography.
Captis Colorum im not going to write a whole essay explaining myself, all im going to say is, the reason you dont like hurst is because you have created your own version of what art is, i do think the cabinet and the shark and the cow have deep meanings, just once you cant see. It is a very self centred way to look at art, thinking if you dont get it, then its not real art, And in my opinion the art he has taken inspiration from was not stolen, its simply that, Inspiration.
@@somewhitekid1780 By that logic, anything is art. That chair you sat on yesterday: art. The shoes you wear on your feet: art. That McRib you ate an hour ago: art.
Tate : the exhibit set a low bar on his picture taken with a human head at the morgue. With a rotting animal head in a glass box. If someone feels like insulting, it would be a legit reaction, art or con job, and Hirst's labor would be complete.
i find it quite clever how Damien Hirst has been able to capitalize on the hype build around him. He doesn't give an answer to what he's asked, and only gives the main points of the work. The one that has talent here,is the team behind Damien Hirst.
As an artist, you don’t need to answer questions. When you do, you can answer them however you like. Art is formulated by interpretation by both the viewer and the creator. The original idea is irrelevant. A negative or positive response to the piece is synonymous with its interpretation and either one is, not only ok, but desired.
Damien Hirst is brilliant - his work provokes your perspective on the human condition and also instills a fascination with nature and our relationship with nature. Well, that's my opinion anyhow.
even if you dont like the spot paintings just think how much time is in creating the continuity between the spots hundreds and thousands of them to me it represents the endless chasing of the dragon his "art" is more a platform for stories and thought pieces more so than a literal interpretation sort of like francis bacon I'm not inspired by his "art" but more so in his way of not having something you can engross in and walk out of for example you can go see an edvard munchs work anyday and walk out and that painting is stuck in the frame and you only looked in for a brief few minutes but with his pieces it gives you the visual shock and awe but taps into something deeper and gives you something you can leave with it marks you and it defiles you and makes you think he is a visual story teller and the psychological punk middle finger to the art world he creates on top of pre existing ideas instead of painting a canvas white and saying theres something there he reverses it and this is why I like his pieces ! :D everyone have a nice day feel free too comment :D
it's empty, it has no meaning, but it is given by us as we like to tell to our selfs that there is something more in us than there actualy is. as we like to think that we are abowe those things.
He was on a BBC Radio 4 interview and said that he realised early on that if 2 rich people want the same piece of "art" then the value will increase and be higher. Total fraud, and laughing at all the idiots. Fair play.
Why is everyone so mad? You don't need to go to his shows, you don't need to give him your time. I like his work. Sure he's overpaid but he's not hurting anyone. If you think his thoughts are drivel just move on. The work was not made to please you
Overpaid.!!!!!... ....let me see where could the money be better spent ...hmmm . Its a name they are hanging on the wall...thats all. You can kid yourself all you like but you know the truth.
Envy is really REALLY powerful, so that's one reason. Another is that we are taught: business good, sports good, war necessary. Countless millions are spent in marketing corporations, movies, media, celebrities, fashion. In that context, we don't begrudge individuals making tons of money, even though they are often not helping society, or their product is crap. Art we think of as unnecessary and not valuable, just as many think it's ok to destroy a mountain or poison an ecosystem to get some coal or gas, and to give a CEO a 15 million dollar raise (though I think a sculpture, or dandelion or kids art class is infinitely more valuable than a new app or color on my phone.) we hardly have any Arts creativity education and corporations are spending millions and millions of dollars marketing to us and changing our mindset, so some guy who earn his reputation the messing with the housing market and creating thousands of homeless people, is not ruined by this but made more successful and has an income in the tens of millions or more, and we don't pull him down, or a defense contractor makes a whole bunch of unbelievably expensive Jets which will not be used at all, and that was known before the government contract was signed and those hundreds of millions or billions we do not create a scandal about, or a sports figure urns tens of millions of dollars a year and the game doesn't have a lot of meaning 4 the Improvement of our minds or us the equitability of our society, or some of see celebrity performers who is appeal and space only on appearance or scandal rather than on Talent OR contribution we don't curse and gripe and swear about it, because we have been told these things are important and necessary. but when an artist, makes something that doesn't fit or idea of what art should be or what it should do, we are up in arms, because we've already been trained that artist not very important, it's a luxury item. But I would say that it is less a luxury item even if it consists only of sharks sod in half LOL less I'm a luxury, less harmful than our having to have every kind of melon in the store all year round, or 63 different kinds of soap to buy, or reality TV for our entertainment, or any number of things which are detrimental to our Spirits, bodies, happiness, Planet, Society. compare the harm induced, the money spent, the human suffering, the pollution and excessive use of limited resources..........
Gallagher is creeping and fawning well to the talent-challenged Hirst.. in fact that's half of how she became curator.. the other half of course being old school tie connections.
London Dada OMG tell us more... That circularity is how a lot of business things happened, and it's how a lot of Emperor's New Clothes situations happen..... I hope you respond with more if you have to go to the caissons it would save me some research time. I usually don't have notifications on because that allows me to not read nasty messages! Lol
ngl it's p obvious that Hirst is bullshitting most of this, especially with those spot paintings. But you have to admit that pieces like anarchy, black sun, and mother and child are such great ideas. He gets so much shit for being a conman [which he is] but he still makes great art like anyone else. The reason why he is so famous is that everyone overrates him. That's hardly his fault.
It's a bit sad that some people don't undersatnd artists. Art is art ,and nobody should judge other people,you like it or you don't I like his art .I think it,s cool &brave. Not everybody are so brave. If I would be so brave I would do even more choking art.
He just seems like an art school kid trying to be the next Jeff Koons. Clever but not yet all that interesting. What he says about his work is glib and trite. (One thing about many big collectors is they come from a wealthy background so they have almost no hands on practical experience. They've never stood next to a cow, or been in the ocean with a great white (or two at the same time). I remember having a conversation with an artist about his sculpture. It was really clear that the next step was to replace the hardware store sheaves (pulley wheels) with ones he made and that was his plan. A collector walked in; the aspect of the work he was most interested in? The hardware store sheaves. Maybe they just don't have any defenses to Hirst's games. The difference between Hirst and Koons is that Koons goes after the kitsch, does something that sounds stupid and trite; then you walk in the gallery - and it hits you over the head. Revenge of your aunt's Hummel collection. If you have a closed mind you'd never really 'get it.' I remember going to the Broad Foundation to photograph the first Balloon Dog - it was still all silver. I thought, yeah I know what a balloon dog is, they just made it bigger. Seeing if for the first time was like getting hit over the head. If it was 1/10th of 1% less perfect it might not work. I spent a couple of hours with it (2.5 minute exposures). Have I seen Hirst's work? Yes, but I don't remember exactly where (definitely the Tate Modern, anywhere else? Maybe) or which piece. Jeff Koons? I even remember the case with the vacuum cleaners. I don't think any Surrealist or Dadaist was ever as subversive as Koons.
It's aggravating that this man is somehow worth 400 million dollars for easy artwork that has a price tag out of this world. But I *almost* respect the fact that he's able to scam museums and collectors millions of dollars of their money. *Almost.*
My name Is damion and I'm a artist this is the first damien I've found as a "artist" and I came in thinking I'd like him but at the end I came to the conclusion that I can't call a lot of this art the decomposing cow head and the split cows and the selfie with the human head and the giant black dot of decomposing flys the only thing I took from this good is "I dont think there are any answers only questions and we come up with answers" that's pretty damn philosophical
Art is really anything, I have a sense that most people in the comment section think a complex painting with lots of color and shading is the only “real” art. If people choose to like what he makes then that’s on them, not the creator.
I agree to an extent... but at the same time - killing things, for our frivilous use - food, clothing is completely part of humanity's global culture. Further from it being unnecessary it will increasingly become untenable for the growing global middleclass to consume animals like the west. We need a dialogue on this. It is an important issue. I say artists should have license to commentate on this issue, particularly on the ethics of it.
This guy's loaded in every sense of the word. What irritates me is all the gobbledygook illogical twaddle that artist come out with. They've got some ideas, about "art" and suddenly they're philosophers. The stuff you see here on this video, most of it is not the likes of Michelangelo, or Leonardo Da Vinci or Norman Rockwell would call art. And I'm with them. They all had the skill of a craftsman, and they could produce a good composition, that captured the moment, that special split second which captures our interest. Have a look at "Going and coming" by Norman Rockwell, or his kids playing golf, or the runaway, sat next to the policeman. You can tell INSTANTLY what is happening. That's what I call art. And because they've captured that particular moment it causes you the viewer to react. There's no hidden message, there's no I wonder what he's trying to say. It's there in front of you and you can understand it. Now, my next problem with this person, is he does not produce all the work himself. Naaah. Do you really think he caught all those flies and put them on a circular board and inch or two thick. ? The same with the dead cow and calf. Do you think he killed the calf and the cow and put them into the glass case ? Do you ? Did he catch the big shark with a fishing line. Did he land the shark and prepare it, so it could go into the glass case ? The spot paintings, the pharmacy cabinets full of surgical implements. He bought the stuff. He paid people to do the boring and tricky and skillful stuff. How much did he pay the men who actually did the dirty work for him ? Peanuts. Are they on commission if he ever sells any of his masterpieces ? Naaah Quite frankly as an artist myself I'd be embarrassed to admit that I had a hand in any of his stuff. I'd be frightened of the public thinking of me as a nutcase and a total fraud. This guy's from Leeds in the North of England and I suspect from a working class background. I would think that most of the generation in Leeds that he grew up with would NOT be impressed and their opinion would be unrepeatable in polite circles to put it mildly I somehow doubt, I may be wrong, but I suspect he's NEVER had a brush in his hand for a very long time. Would you trust him to paint your garden fence ? Would he be sticking dead flies on it after he'd painted it. You'd probably find a dead dog, or maybe a cat stuck on the fence. Just to give it that extra "something" Maybe cut the dead dog's head off and do a lap of honour with it. The words "stick" and "rectum" spring to mind. Can't think why, can you ? Kind regards to you all - Chris - Artist, Writer & Hypnotist WWW.100Temptations.com By the way, my works a lot cheaper.
This was probably the best exhibition I have ever seen. I don’t agree with lots of the comments below that don’t like his work. I think he’s right..an artist doesn’t think of what something means before they paint or create it otherwise it’s not really creative it’s just contrived.. so he’s guessing just like we are. He’s an amazing artist.
Because i don't agree, i'm not smart enough to understand..i think you are the one that lacks the intelligence and common sense if you don't grasp the basics !!!
This dude really just is the best scam artist in the world and rich, pretentious assholes just eat it up. Really gotta admire him for scamming them out of millions.
Nice to see an artist that's innovative and aesthetic but still down to earth and with a healthy sense of humour. It's unfortunately rare! People seem annoyed at how rich and famous he is, but that's not really down to him. It's weird how people insult art, like if can't explain your art, it's thoughtless, but if you can, it's design not art or it's pretentious propaganda. I just think it looks cool for my own reasons, he's being passive with explaining his interpretation of it, that's all.
Oh dear? Anyone can set up a pile of junk and call it art as long as you have a story that galleries know the rich will listen too and buy .......BUT it still junk ? sad to see such a well known gallery displaying this? when there are so many stunning pieces of art yet to be seen......so sad?
Koons and Hirst (and many others) are a tool for the wealthy to make money. It's not about art, its about money. Do you like their artworks? Great! But do not forget that they are a tool for speculation. That is the main and only reason why they exist and not because of his supposedly genius ideas. Said this, let's talk about his ideas that you value so much. Do you want some of them free of cost? Here they are: 1) A gigantic pigeon in reflecting white ceramic to symbolize peace on earth. 2) A huge shit of the pigeon produced by the amount of shits all pigeons in the world shit in one day. 3) Gigantic transparent soup bubble confined in a gigantic glass cube. 4) Gigantic cat made out of cat hair balls. 5) Gigantic Mona Lisa in 3D made in Ice from the Antartica and place in Sahara desert. 6) A Gigantic floating plane made out of paper sheets. 7) A Gigantic candle light with the bible text written on its exterior surface. 8) Sequoia extracted from Californian Sequoia National Park planted on a gigantic pot in the middle of Sahara desert. 9) A gigantic container in glass keeping all the water a Sequoia consumes per year. And aside another glass container with the water a man consumes all his life. 10) A gigantic black pigeon in black reflectant steel. And all these ideas just in 5 minutes...imagine if I pour hours on it...Am I an art genius? Is Koons a genious artist or just happened to get the money to realise his ideas?...Answer: He-got-the-money. It is not a matter of talent in any way, it is just money.
As fair as I know, he doesn't kill the animals himself, so there's nothing cruel in him using them for art... but there is cruelty in the art itself, I agree.
i believe art must resonate even among stupid people and damien's art has perfected that it forces stupid people to make up excuses to like his art and how it gave them " a new perspective " on things
Think what its really about is the people who buy ...the art....tell me why do they buy it..? Another thought if all of his art vanished tomorrow ...I dont think the world bat an eyelid, ....of course the people who bought it would ...for a bit.
But the thing with Hirst is that he keeps me in a "drug induced" trance. He talks about his work, and he seems to be really passionate about everything that he does... Isn't that what all artists do? That is what drives the art market these days. But Hirst has been around a long time, so he has to be doing something right. Right?
Its funny how art did became a caricature of itself, and how dumbed down it actually sounds when they are talking about it. I made dis, go figure. Artists like him must laugh themselves to sleep every night:
I think hirst is a great conman for sucking in all these fools and taking their money !!! I think he knows the art world very well and played their game better than them !!!
Those 'artists' are sometimes part of a larger scheme of money laundering. The sad side of the story lies in those who are brainwashed into praising this as art.
i was thinking exactly the same ..like maourichio katelan ..he put a banana on a wall he called it art and cost it thousands of euros until another artist eat it.....anyway i prefer him instead of hirst... he didn t use animals...
THIS IS NOT AN ART! NATURE IS AN ART by itself! And stealing animals from the nature, killing them and calling your art... it is really disgusting and cruel.
If anyone else not famous made the same thing nobody would even care. Its not what you do its who you are that is only important for 99.9999% of people.
let's be honest, the work was seminal and shocking when it hit the scene. It got a lot of attention in a time where there was a spotlight on contemporary art in Britain. Right place, right time. And the right knowledge of how to market your art.
Although I don't necessarily 'like' some of his art, I think the exhibition was one of the most interesting I've been to. I think that he is very honest about the artworks in this video.
I get why you all think it's bollocks. But damiens pieces are unpredictable, scary, original and have a lot of work put into them. I have a lot of respect for him because of that.
Yes, I don't like much of his art (maybe I'm not clever enough/I'm too narrow-minded) but I agree with you - and he has done far more interesting and varied things than Jeff Koons!
In my opinion "A Thousand Years" is the best work that Hirst has ever, or will ever do in his entire life... A work that is about the life cycle of flies seems fitting for contemporary art art at the moment.
Love it, Hate it. D.H. spoiled celebrity/artist. When art is just a commodity, what is an artist? I am curious to see his stuff -- he's famous (we say to ourselves), so it must be good. I guess he is like a producer/director, but not. Maybe an artist lol. He has an idea, and he makes it happen. He may or may not have great skills and sensitivities to light, color, form, line, material... and he may or may not do all of the physical construction. You can see the "dead head" photo as a key.
Is that photo of DH with head a real dead person's head?! If it is somebody might be their child or family or know them, I wonder if they found a head of a person with no (known) friends or relatives?
Although some of this work is actually quite interesting, a huge portion of it just seems to embody the elitist pretentious taste in modern art these days.
