Damien Hirst’s Shipwreck Fantasy Sinks in Venice
I subscribe to Hyperallergic.
2 days ago I found this article very intriguing - that I post it here is probably a indication that I am not a fan of Damien Hirst.
Damien Hirst: Mickey
VENICE — Damien Hirst’s Treasures from the Wreck of the Unbelievable is not an exhibition. It’s a showroom for oligarchs. Comprised of about 190 works, including gold, silver, bronze, and marble sculptures, the show is undoubtedly the most expensive artistic flop in living memory. ...................... READ MORE: Damien Hirst's Shipwreck Fantasy sinks in Venice
Damien Hirst: The Scull beneath the Skin
See the Hyperallergic article for many more images
There are two posts of mine that are related to the subject:
The Mona Lisa Curse by Robert Hughes
How the Fine Art Market is a Scam
Have you seen Jeff Koons' new series "Gazing Ball"?
A mindless rip off of Old Masters.
I got Koons out of my system - I wrote some blogs about his crap quite some time ago, so now I pay no attention.
Here is one of them:
https://artofthemystic.blogspot.co.at/2013/12/laokoon-anti-laokoon-and-anti-koons.html
might be an idea to re-post it, but it is quite dated by now.
OK, curiosity killed the cat and I followed your link. Not only is it a rip-off of old masters, but taking a leaf out of Marcel Duchamp's playbook - painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa., almost 100 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
The winds of change are blowing, these guys feel it, and they are desperately trying to stay relevant. However, mass produced product will not cut it in the end, because people year for the story of the real artist behind the creation, not a production manager.
@thermoplastic even if totally unsuccessful, what do you think he was trying to do? Let's apply a critical framework and some context and see what we can come up with! Great to see you posting about exhibitions and Contemporary Art.
I just seen this comment now, so I am answering late - probably neither you nor anyone else will read it, but writing this answer is, in a way, catharsis.
To your question: That's just it - he is wildly successful. What was he trying to do: make more money! I don't begrudge an artist for success and money, but he departed from creating art for the sake of art, to art for the sake of money. The art market is a strange place. While the majority of artists who are as good or even better than the darlings of the market, this is kept very exclusive to keep the value high. To elevate an artist into the stratosphere where only oligarchs can afford their work is obscene, to put it mildly. To collect any of these so called "Modern Masters", museums not as well funded would have to de-acquisition some of their (what I call) 'real' art by true masters, just to afford keeping up with the times (whatever that means).
I don't know where you stand as a curator, but I wish curators would buck that fashion trend and show what is really out there in the artworld. There are many very good artists out there that can't get displayed and recognized, since most curators play it safe and exhibit those from a very narrow field of the illustrious anointed. The scepticism that Robert Hughes expressed about him (and some others) and collectors like Mugrabi I found refreshing.