Gillie on 22/6/2006 at 14:04
Has Damien Hirst gone too far this time?
by CHARLOTTE GILL, Daily Mail
The rest of the article is run on the link.
Do you call this Art.Personally,I think It is sick.How can anyone think it is wonderful is beyond me.. :wot: :eww:
Inline Image:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y50/gillie6/sheep220606_228x305.jpg(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391913&in_page_id=1770)
For more than a decade, Damien Hirst has been pickling dead animals in the name of art.
And with private collectors snapping up each piece for vast sums, he apparently has little reason to look elsewhere for inspiration.
All of which might explain why his latest work seems so familiar - and, depending on your view of what constitutes art, reaches fresh heights of creativity or plumbs new depths of crudity.
In his new exhibition, he is displaying a shorn sheep enclosed in a tank of blue formaldehyde. It is sitting on a lavatory with a hypodermic syringe stuck in its leg and its mouth open in what looks like a scream of agony.
In another similar tank, a sheep hangs over a sink and in a third, the animal appears to be vomiting into a toilet bowl.
The exhibition also features an installation called A Thousand Years, in which maggots hatch and turn into flies and feed on a cow's head.
The works - unveiled on Tuesday night at a private showing at the Gagosian Gallery in London - were yesterday dismissed by some art critics as 'just another publicity stunt' and 'utterly insignificant'. Hirst made a brief appearance at the gallery before leaving to watch England's game against Sweden.
Myoldnamebroke on 22/6/2006 at 14:23
Yes
character limit
Spiders on 22/6/2006 at 14:24
I think Hirst's medium is horrific and entirely disgusting but I must, indeed, still call it art. I don't like the cadaverous pieces one bit, but I recognize that the works are still expressive and (at least) morbidly "artistic."
There has always been great deal of disturbing, yucky art out there. There was an artist (whose name eludes me) who created similar "sculptures" out of plasticized human corpses.
ignatios on 22/6/2006 at 14:27
I'm inclined to agree with 'utterly insignificant' but I'd still call it 'art'
Rogue Keeper on 22/6/2006 at 14:30
Perhaps future generations will appreciate demons of his disturbed and sensitive soul better!!!
ZylonBane on 22/6/2006 at 14:36
If this is art, then ANYTHING is art.
Thus the word becomes meaningless.
Myoldnamebroke on 22/6/2006 at 14:37
Quote Posted by Gillie
and, depending on your view of what constitutes art, reaches fresh heights of creativity or plumbs new depths of crudity.
In all seriousness, this is the telling bit. It's implying it can't be art if it isn't very good. No-one looks at a ugly, dull and untalented amatuer kickabout and says 'Is this football?'. Of course it's football, but that doesn't mean you have to value it the same as you would watching a top-quality match or a match that was significant to you personally.
Chimpy Chompy on 22/6/2006 at 14:59
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
If this is art, then ANYTHING is art.
Thus the word becomes meaningless.
Or subjective.
Agent Monkeysee on 22/6/2006 at 15:29
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
If this is art, then ANYTHING is art.
Thus the word becomes meaningless.
Your face is meaningless.
That sheep thing is cool I don't know what's up your guys' butts.
PigLick on 22/6/2006 at 15:33
that last sentence you wrote just there messes with my head.
