Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
With a capital F.
but I don't really want to get into the whole 'what constitutes art?' debate.
but that's an obscene amount of money!
'The skull, which was bought from a shop in Islington, north London, is thought to belong to a 35-year-old European who lived between 1720 and 1810.'
i love hirst.
And I like it. Much better than some of the shit he's done in the past
I kinda like it, I find it striking. But the expense is pretty grotesque.
i don't think there's anything grotesque about it.
the finished thing will be worth more than what was spent making it. possibly.
to have it made, all diamonds "ethically sourced" apparently...£36 million profits not bad for only coming up with the concept!
yeah he'll still make a mint on it.
is really confusing
I read about this the other day, and if memory serves there are £12m worth of diamonds, and he's looking to sell it for £50m. That's some profit
Imagine having that in your hallway though. Did you see that Banksy got voted the greatest living British artist on that ITV thing the other week?
But then, in the same poll, Robbie Williams was voted the second greatest living Briton, full stop. Apparently only the Queen is 'greater' than Robbie Williams
The general public - pretty amazing?
As in, that amazes me.
in that white cube exhibition is for sale.
Apparently it's nearly sold already:
it's free but you have to book tickets
and it's not diamonds at all.
I think that is the 'art' on display.
he gets other people to do his art?
rafael (sp?) and pretty much everyone ever.
I know loads of artists have done it, but it really pisses me off.
im glad i shoved loads of bits of paper with my ideas on into my art prep.
i'm just genuinely interested in how important ideas are. thats all really.
I mean, yeah, it's impressive to look at. And I suppose it's making some sort of statement, but I don't see it. I doesn't really mean anything to me. It's stunning but that's it, there's nothing beneath that.
Stunning is stunning
Art doesn't have to have meaning. In fact, attaching meaning to art is pretentious and de-arts the art
Personally I think it's pug ugly
"attaching meaning to art is pretentious and de-arts the art"...how exactly?
tagging some pseudo-intellectual bollocks onto something so it can appear more worthy or whatever is a pretense.
a really hard thing to know how to reply to, because art inherently has meaning: even if its intention is to be devoid of meaning, that in itself is a meaning. All art evolves in a context, and has a place within that context, that context forces a 'meaning' onto the art. Especially today when little art is non-conceptual, its pretty much impossible in my opinion to have art wihtout meaning.
obviously, 'meaning' is a pretty difficult word to be using in terms of art history though.
But even if we look back to something like 19th century french art when people like monet or cezanne were arguably painting in order to capture 'light effects,'you can see that eventhough there is no intended meaning like "this painting is about the inevitability of death," moving away from the accepted notions of the art of their time, and trying to paint without 'meaning' they give a new meaning to what art should be.
and hirst's skull is in a very long tradition of 'vanitas' art works, its meaning is implicit and unavoidable.
that's saying "it has a meaning" something i'd definitely agree with.
Just because that's how you view art, doesn't mean that's how I should. i understand what you mean, but that's not what art means to be.
Anyway, there are plenty more aesthetically pleasing pieces of art out there than that skull. Yeah, it's stunning, but it's also kind of vulgar.
'in fact' when discussing art? That's a bit ridiculous...
there's plenty beneath it if you want to add meanings, but the fact you've said it's stunning is surely enough?
i hate the idea art has to be aesthetically pleasing.