Damien Hirst Ch4

[Simon]

It's easy to fail to recognise what becomes accepted later as important art. And of course it's also easy to assume too readily that anything styled as 'art' that is also novel, shocking and scandalous is necessarily 'important art'. In the end history will decide... :

Aye, neatly put and no doubt true.

In the meantime the fun, such as it is, is surely to discuss and to register agreement or disagreement with the views of others without getting personally offensive and ad hominem

It is indeed. Unfortunately, those who dare to express doubt as to the validity of some more recent efforts in the various fields of art are all too often immediately vilified on here.

[jayne lee wilson]

But what about your responses to the images themselves? The dead animals floating in their glass caskets remain striking and provocative - of thought and feeling. That diamond-encrusted skull is vividly evocative of those human basics - love and death, money and fear. I'm sure I would shudder to be in the Butterfly room but it certainly wouldn't leave me unmoved. (Peacock butterflies often hibernate in my garage and I have to help them out of there in the early Spring; but they often don't last long if it's cold).

There may be no great depth to these death-obsessed creations but they do leave a striking imprint upon the visual imagination.
So What is Art, So What..?

[MrGongGong]

How wonderfully relative of you. Excellent non-answer.

Come on you can do better than that !

some questions then (with a nod to JC )

Is the nightingale in the Pines of Rome music ?
Was the nightingale singing the moment before the recording was started music ?
Is the wind machine in Sinfonia Antarctica music ?
Is the sound of the wind NOT in Sinfonia Antarctica music ?
If I "read" the score of Elgar's first Symphony and imagine the music , is that music even though no sounds are made ?
If it says in a score by a composer who's music you regard as great "break pane of glass with hammer" is that music ?
If it says in a score by a composer for whom you have nothing but contempt "break pane of glass with hammer" is that sound the same music (if it is music in the first place) ?

There's nothing shocking about Hirst's art in my view, in many ways it is very much in the tradition of art history (much like the Operas of Stockhausen are in music).

Talent and Skill are not the necessities for making something into Art (or music) from it being not Art. A very poor composition with no imagination is still music.

[Panjandrum]

Some good questions there GG, but then you go and spoil it by betraying your own value judgments in your last sentence.

Talent and Skill are not the necessities for making something into Art (or music) from it being not Art. A very poor composition with no imagination is still music.

The word "art" is of course derived from Latin artem (nom. ars) "work of art; practical skill; a business, craft." Therefore, a "work of art" cannot exist without there having been a measure of skill involved in its realisation.

Similarly "music" derives from L. musica, itself drawn from the Greek mousike or the muses, if you prefer. IOW, inspiration and technical skill are required. So, a "very poor composition" would not be music.

[MrGongGong]

Some good questions there GG, but then you go and spoil it by betraying your own value judgments in your last sentence.

The word "art" is of course derived from Latin artem (nom. ars) "work of art; practical skill; a business, craft." Therefore, a "work of art" cannot exist without there having been a measure of skill involved in its realisation.

Similarly "music" derives from L. musica, itself drawn from the Greek mousike or the muses, if you prefer. IOW, inspiration and technical skill are required. So, a "very poor composition" would not be music.

Using the origins of words to define what they mean has huge flaws ......... and anyone familiar with contemporary popular music will testify , "Bad Company" are also rather "good"

Your statement is also a "value judgement" even though (as with our resident "academic") it's cloaked in "logic".

So is a terrible performance of the Eroica still Beethoven ?
How bad does it have to be to become "Not-Beethoven" ?
The Portsmouth Sinfonia rendition of the 1812 Overture is still the 1812 overture or is it ?
And if it's not , what is it ?

There is, of course, considerable skill and talent in Hirst's work (even though i'm not a great fan myself),

If the technical skill of arranging thing physically is essential then Matisse's The Snail is either
a) Not a work of Art by Matisse as he didn't physically make it himself.
or
b) A work of Art by someone else who DID physically make it and it is in the Tate wrongly attributed to Matisse.

[Panjandrum]

Using the origins of words to define what they mean has huge flaws ......... and anyone familiar with contemporary popular music will testify , "Bad Company" are also rather "good"

Ah, the Humpty Dumpty approach to semantics! "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"

Of course, language changes over time, but to describe any form of sonic composition as "music" does require one to completely ignore the meaning of the word which has existed for c3,000 years.

So is a terrible performance of the Eroica still Beethoven ?
How bad does it have to be to become "Not-Beethoven" ?
The Portsmouth Sinfonia rendition of the 1812 Overture is still the 1812 overture or is it ?
And if it's not , what is it ?

Surely, the "artwork" here is the composition (i.e. the manuscript or authenticated score)? How well or badly it is realised in individual performances is irrelevant. As Schnabel said about his choice of repertoire, "music which is better than it could be performed", IOW that the music exists outside of any physical realisation.

There is, of course, considerable skill and talent in Hirst's work

In some works, more than others, IMO.

[MrGongGong]

Ah, the Humpty Dumpty approach to semantics! "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"

Of course, language changes over time, but to describe any form of sonic composition as "music" does require one to completely ignore the meaning of the word which has existed for c3,000 years.

.

Hardly Humpty Dumpty

And you are wrong about the second part.

A couple of years ago I met and did some work with Huun Huur Tu from Tuva. In their music (see http://books.google.co.uk/books/abou...d=a8B02Dl4_6cC) there are pieces for overtone singing in particular styles that they would describe as

"this is the music you sing when you find a river that makes a particular sound"
or
"this is what you sing when you find a cave with a particular echo"

Our conception of music in not necessarily universal. Other parts of the world have highly developed musics that are different and have existed far longer that our traditions (many of which are fairly recent in historical terms). Given that I find myself living in a world where I have always been exposed to musics from many places (hardly a new experience in music ........ Debussy, Mozart etc etc etc ) I would tend to include other ways of creating and performing music in my definition of music.
I guess the alternative to this is to include a phrase like "as we generally understand it to be in the western classical art music tradition" !

Having arguments as to what is or isn't music can be rather circular (hence Trevor Wisharts : On Sonic Art) and often end up with the daft insistence that one gets when one uses the word "gay".

[amateur51]

Hardly Humpty Dumpty

And you are wrong about the second part.

A couple of years ago I met and did some work with Huun Huur Tu from Tuva. In their music (see http://books.google.co.uk/books/abou...d=a8B02Dl4_6cC) there are pieces for overtone singing in particular styles that they would describe as

"this is the music you sing when you find a river that makes a particular sound"
or
"this is what you sing when you find a cave with a particular echo"

Our conception of music in not necessarily universal. Other parts of the world have highly developed musics that are different and have existed far longer that our traditions (many of which are fairly recent in historical terms). Given that I find myself living in a world where I have always been exposed to musics from many places (hardly a new experience in music ........ Debussy, Mozart etc etc etc ) I would tend to include other ways of creating and performing music in my definition of music.
I guess the alternative to this is to include a phrase like "as we generally understand it to be in the western classical art music tradition" !

Having arguments as to what is or isn't music can be rather circular (hence Trevor Wisharts : On Sonic Art) and often end up with the daft insistence that one gets when one uses the word "gay".

Interesting stuff as always, Mr GG - and as to the word "gay" it depends on whether you're Richard Littlejohn or Peter Tachell

[handsomefortune]

on daft insistencies i was only just thinking the same mr gonggong, it made me feel a bit queer to read your post.

'best bet' mrgonggong: keep context well out of any defence! otherwise you'll scare those with narrower, fixed definitions who are often reluctant, or simply refuse to learn anything new. particularly ideas that might challenge current perceptions. many may well prefer to accuse you of 'madness', or 'being bossy' than take anything in your post/s as remotely useful, as intended. i'd put a 10p bet, on the likeliehood of 'no serious analysis of your questions, specifically aiming to reflect the unique value, and importance of context, in any assumptions about visual art, or music'.

is there a link to the channel 4 programme under discussion? only the author of message 1 watched it apparently? tbh i don't think he was watching hirst, rather the 'sheer audacity' of noel fielding. but clearly there apparently 'needed' to be a distraction of some sort? in order to turn any issues into a a reflection of supposed 'generational divides', or friction about 'isms'.

There's nothing shocking about Hirst's art in my view,

what's actually shocking is the context of hirst's art market imo. satchi and hirst's 90s relationship rapidly produced inflated prices, values which unfortunately eventually affected the uk creative industries; as well as hard won values, and ethics in uk higher education.

therefore, the idea that anyone might 'like hirst's work', or the results of it, are perhaps beside the point?

especially as, though hirst might have successfully emulated US banks, in 'cutting out the middleman' and satchi charging 'muppets' extraordinary prices, the 'cash cow' is probably about to take a tumble, by the looks. in a sense, i hope it doesn't, precisely because of what's at stake, beyong satchi, and hirst.

whilst i don't worry as regards hirst, (or emin's) account, i do feel sympathetic towards other yba artists consistently overlooked. though it's cheering to see gillian wearing in the current whitechapel exhibition. i can now see why wearing had to be kept 'under wraps', as she makes work genuinely based on her own experiences of life, totally contradicting hirst's individual response to globalisation of markets.

i also sympathise with current uk arts students, who have imo wrongly been encouraged to emulate hirst, as an expert 'curator and £ gambler' primarily. since neither options are even remotely achievable, or repeatable to new graduates, rich or poor. effectively, students are now paying £9,000 a year for 'good advice' from remaining tutors who may not have a job, or a fine art department very much longer. perhaps hirst didn't bargain on this net result? uk universities were absolutely stupid to force tutors to idolise hirst, simply in order to appear 'competitive' and 'modern'. but hirst could have thought about the longterm more, especially considering his tedious media appearances, usually banging on about 'my catholic upbringing'. though mysteriously, his anecdotes were stupendously irelevant to the content of his work imv. hirst's ramble kept the likes of mark lawson, on r4, happy though.

once critics etc have made their two penneth, in 'summing up' hirst's 'contribution' as either 'wonderful', or 'fraudulent, plageristic' etc, precisely where does this leave the rest of uk creative industries exactly? it's these 'criticisms' which i consider to be specifically relevant discussion, well beyond anyones, including my own taste, in hirst's 'curatorship', in rounding up predominant 20th c themes and 'selling them on'. imv this tactic mirrors the 'clusters of bad debt' sneaked into the US stock market which eventually caused the global financial crash. allegedly, this was due to californian maths/it students in silicon valley, realising that 'fraud was the way forward' as it suited their immediate needs. as well as those who conspired to create an inferior market, with 'the bright young things' obscuring any pitfalls. in retrospect, hirst and satchi are reminscent of myths circulated by mr alan greenberg, and his fantasies aided by the fiction, memory and 'objectivism' of ayn rand, about 'separate elite communties & economies'.

with these considerations in mind, perhaps the best hirst can do now, is 'go on, get on with it, hurry up and die'! (besides, he can always 'do' a lord lucan). not that he'll suffer that much negative impact from a slump himself of course, it's people who've invested everything in his stuff, which will take the brunt. having been widely encouraged to do so, by the likes of US import, mervyn hall, in view of 'the vulnerability of gold, silver prices, notes, and coins'. i guess diamonds will always hold their value mind you, and a minority with £38,000 spare, can buy a mass produced plastic skull from 'the tate' gift shop! you know, in 'the peoples' gallery, the one that hirst once claimed he'd never show his work in. good grief! even the numpty that is 'james bond' knew 'never to say never'!

[MrGongGong]

There's nothing shocking about Hirst's art in my view,

what's actually shocking is the context of hirst's art market imo. satchi and hirst's 90s relationship rapidly produced inflated prices, values which unfortunately eventually affected the uk creative industries; as well as hard won values, and ethics in uk higher education.

My degree is in music not art history
so my question is whether this is really new ?
hasn't art always been commodified ? When Diana and Actaeon was commissioned by Phillip II of Spain was he not wanting to have something that was equally a status object and of high value ?

[handsomefortune]

yes mr gonggong, (famous) art has always been commodified - but not as rapidly, nor on the scale recently 'achieved'.

post war, 'counter culture' began to express different interpretations of what visual art might be? and who it might specifically benefit? this approach to creativity threw new light, and contexts on art markets themselves. these critical ideas were absorbed by universities, communities, galleries generally, which newly emphasised a unique 'value' and 'context' for art to exist within. the art work of counter culture of yesterday, once officially valued at £00.00 at the time it was made, but of intellectual value to the maker, is often 'valuable' as time passes, to art/money markets, owned by eg the rothschilds etc but this process is not on a whim, isnt expected to create immediate dividends on investments...the rothchilds aren't that dim which is why they are rich.

as well as the speed of markets, scale counts for a lot: if your local branch of a small bank goes bust, it's bad for that small bank, and its customers. as with the global crash, the wider impact of 'blind' promotion, and investment has a more serious wide spread impact. which imv is what discussion should ideally be about, rather than 'likeing/hating hirst' which is beside the point imo.

[John Ward Moorhouse]

You perceive an insult where there was only an observation.

[John Ward Moorhouse]

You perceive an insult where only an observation was made. What has his attractiveness - or otherwise - to do with the job at which he failed so miserably? Why did his posture(ing) get in the way of programme's content. My point is that, with all the controversy about DH and his art, there was an opportunity lost.

[John Ward Moorhouse]

There's something wrong with my replies, they are going to another thread.

[Serial_Apologist]

on daft insistencies i was only just thinking the same mr gonggong, it made me feel a bit queer to read your post.

'best bet' mrgonggong: keep context well out of any defence! otherwise you'll scare those with narrower, fixed definitions who are often reluctant, or simply refuse to learn anything new. particularly ideas that might challenge current perceptions. many may well prefer to accuse you of 'madness', or 'being bossy' than take anything in your post/s as remotely useful, as intended. i'd put a 10p bet, on the likeliehood of 'no serious analysis of your questions, specifically aiming to reflect the unique value, and importance of context, in any assumptions about visual art, or music'.

is there a link to the channel 4 programme under discussion? only the author of message 1 watched it apparently? tbh i don't think he was watching hirst, rather the 'sheer audacity' of noel fielding. but clearly there apparently 'needed' to be a distraction of some sort? in order to turn any issues into a a reflection of supposed 'generational divides', or friction about 'isms'.

There's nothing shocking about Hirst's art in my view,

what's actually shocking is the context of hirst's art market imo. satchi and hirst's 90s relationship rapidly produced inflated prices, values which unfortunately eventually affected the uk creative industries; as well as hard won values, and ethics in uk higher education.

therefore, the idea that anyone might 'like hirst's work', or the results of it, are perhaps beside the point?

especially as, though hirst might have successfully emulated US banks, in 'cutting out the middleman' and satchi charging 'muppets' extraordinary prices, the 'cash cow' is probably about to take a tumble, by the looks. in a sense, i hope it doesn't, precisely because of what's at stake, beyong satchi, and hirst.

whilst i don't worry as regards hirst, (or emin's) account, i do feel sympathetic towards other yba artists consistently overlooked. though it's cheering to see gillian wearing in the current whitechapel exhibition. i can now see why wearing had to be kept 'under wraps', as she makes work genuinely based on her own experiences of life, totally contradicting hirst's individual response to globalisation of markets.

i also sympathise with current uk arts students, who have imo wrongly been encouraged to emulate hirst, as an expert 'curator and £ gambler' primarily. since neither options are even remotely achievable, or repeatable to new graduates, rich or poor. effectively, students are now paying £9,000 a year for 'good advice' from remaining tutors who may not have a job, or a fine art department very much longer. perhaps hirst didn't bargain on this net result? uk universities were absolutely stupid to force tutors to idolise hirst, simply in order to appear 'competitive' and 'modern'. but hirst could have thought about the longterm more, especially considering his tedious media appearances, usually banging on about 'my catholic upbringing'. though mysteriously, his anecdotes were stupendously irelevant to the content of his work imv. hirst's ramble kept the likes of mark lawson, on r4, happy though.

once critics etc have made their two penneth, in 'summing up' hirst's 'contribution' as either 'wonderful', or 'fraudulent, plageristic' etc, precisely where does this leave the rest of uk creative industries exactly? it's these 'criticisms' which i consider to be specifically relevant discussion, well beyond anyones, including my own taste, in hirst's 'curatorship', in rounding up predominant 20th c themes and 'selling them on'. imv this tactic mirrors the 'clusters of bad debt' sneaked into the US stock market which eventually caused the global financial crash. allegedly, this was due to californian maths/it students in silicon valley, realising that 'fraud was the way forward' as it suited their immediate needs. as well as those who conspired to create an inferior market, with 'the bright young things' obscuring any pitfalls. in retrospect, hirst and satchi are reminscent of myths circulated by mr alan greenberg, and his fantasies aided by the fiction, memory and 'objectivism' of ayn rand, about 'separate elite communties & economies'.

with these considerations in mind, perhaps the best hirst can do now, is 'go on, get on with it, hurry up and die'! (besides, he can always 'do' a lord lucan). not that he'll suffer that much negative impact from a slump himself of course, it's people who've invested everything in his stuff, which will take the brunt. having been widely encouraged to do so, by the likes of US import, mervyn hall, in view of 'the vulnerability of gold, silver prices, notes, and coins'. i guess diamonds will always hold their value mind you, and a minority with £38,000 spare, can buy a mass produced plastic skull from 'the tate' gift shop! you know, in 'the peoples' gallery, the one that hirst once claimed he'd never show his work in. good grief! even the numpty that is 'james bond' knew 'never to say never'!

Great bit of intellectual multiskilling went into this post imho, as always with hsf

What does however lead me to make judgement on Hirst is that, as compared with art of the past which has ineluctably acquired rarity value, Hirst's expresses *ab initio* not what art commentators infer in its subject matter, but the aesthetic denial of those making money out of it.

The fact that the latter more than includes Hirst himself does not make me like him.

Of working class background, Hirst seized the option of bamboozlement, dressed up as artistic avant-gardism, to detach himself from his community - something I would think no one of conscience from his part of the world should be allowed to get away with. But does he have one?