Prove to me that Hirst's work is nothing more than simple

File: DHS76_771_0.jpg (28KB, 771x534px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 771x534px

His most famous work: 'The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living'.

File: DHS57963qR_771_0.jpg (63KB, 771x966px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 771x966px

'For the Love of God'

>>3119379
i mean... nobody on /ic/ likes damien hirst

File: cc43865704da62e127f3419618a234db--blue-painting-damien-hirst.jpg (101KB, 700x1073px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 700x1073px

Hirst attempting to paint

Skull (2008)

>>3119392
You could have told me that before I started this thread!

>>3119402
yeah, he's not very good, whatever dude.

>>3119404
lol. start a "Sargent is shit" thread you'll get a lot more (You)'s

>>3119379
I take it you intended to put a double negative in there?

>>3119406
>start a "Sargent is shit" thread

But he isn't.

I like iconoclasm and Hirst is a perfect example of someone who is a 'celebrity artist'. His work is kitsch re-representations of other artists work. He's an opportunist and it makes sense that he rose to fame in the era of Tony Blair and New Labour.

>>3119418
I did, but it was a bit clumsy of me.

>>3119379
To me this looks like some hideous deli meat in a heart mold

>>3119431
But you could imagine something similar on the keyring of some young chavy girl or hanging up on her wall next to posters of One Direction

>>3119450
It's still a cut above having a "Live, Laugh, Love" cursive decal on your wall

>>3119451
Dude, don't you think any serious artists work should be way above any of that?

>>3119427
Literally everyone knows this.

>>3119379
Yes?

>>3119392
He's my favourite artist.

>>3119458
>He's my favourite artist.

Why?

>>3119455
Well, yeah.

>>3119428
I ask, because you didn't and you should have.

You don't english very well, do you? Stick to drawing, imo.

Hirst also appeared in a pop song called 'Vindaloo' by a band called Fat Les.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaBdajHOsSM

>>3119466
>I ask, because you didn't and you should have.

I only said yes because you asked and shouldn't have.

File: IMG_3018.jpg (124KB, 750x819px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 750x819px

I'm not so hot on a lot of Hirst's work, but his current exhibition "Treasures from the Wreck of the Unbelievable" appeals to me a lot.

It taps into something archaic and mysterious and intriguing and beautiful.
I'll dump some of my favorite works from it

File: 287509.jpg (55KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 960x540px

Tracy Emin is of a similar vein... tacky and low level. This work can be found sprayed on a wall at your local council estate.

File: IMG_3019.jpg (160KB, 750x727px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 750x727px

>>3119472

File: IMG_3020.jpg (245KB, 750x704px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 750x704px

>>3119476

File: IMG_3021.jpg (224KB, 750x915px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 750x915px

>>3119478
>>3119478
I'd love to see pic related in person, but sadly I cannot fly to Venice on a whim

(btw I'm not OP I just accidentally kept that name from another thread)

>>3119462
I think the best art is the art that looks down on the viewer, and that holds real power over the viewer. (I think skyscrapers are the best artwork ever made by man)

"For the love of god" is worth more than a small country. And to create something so pointless but which still holds that kind of power, I just think it's the ultimate practical joke.

It's my B-day and I'm shitfaced, so I can't really form a concrete argument right now (sorry).
But it's like what my house doctor said before going to Dubai "I love what happens when people have too much money". It's like that.

>>3119472
>It taps into something archaic and mysterious and intriguing and beautiful.

And yet it looks like computer graphics from a Disney movie. He can't escape what he is, a big top showman.

>>3119489
>He can't escape what he is, a big top showman.
What's wrong with that?
There is no difference compared to Koons or Murakami.

Can someone explain his work? It just seems soulless and without meaning. As if they're just objects and he gives them "deep" titles to make it seem like art.

>>3119492
I agree on the Koons but I'm not familiar with Murakami.

File: c88a22836a39497f9386726c25486ae9[1].jpg (68KB, 500x699px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x699px

>>3119557
Takashi Murakami
He's the Nip version
He makes some amazing fuckhueg paintings
And some sculptures.

>>3119488
>I think the best art is the art that looks down on the viewer

You mean the quality of art is determined by how large it is? That seems pretty retarded.

>>3119593
No, I think that the ultimate value of a piece comes down to the power it holds over you.
The quality of the work can be one aspect that gives it that power. Like when you look at a Rembrandt or Caravaggio and feel properly taken back by the amount of skill needed to make it.
A sculpture that takes up physical space in a room gives it that power. Since it forces you to walk around it.

Size is another thing that can give it that power.

Like, what would leave the biggest mark on you? A 1km tall reproduction of Sonichu, or your go-to painting by one of the old masters?

Now this is all my personal opinion. But no painting have ever chocked me in the same way as when I first entered the St. Peter's Basilica, which wasn't even close to when I saw my first skyscrapers up close.

>>3119606
>when I saw my first skyscrapers up close
Do you have autism?

>>3119606
but its up to you to allow something to hold power over you
it doesnt mean the piece is powerful but whatever tickles your pickles

>>3119974
It’s what kids these days call BBC

>>3119492
>What's wrong with that?

I want more from art than just a spectacle tailored for the masses. Subtlety and restrain are far more beautiful.

File: richard_schmid.jpg (198KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1024x684px

>>3119606
I just roll my eyes when I see pretentious art, no matter how well it's made and most contemporary art is definitely NOT showing any skill in it.

Pretentious art is for artists who want to stay relevant at all costs. It's not just a matter of skill, even though I think artists' circles tend to worship skill a bit too much (and I'm with them), because of course, learning to paint or sculpt or whatever is only a tool.

Contemporary art pretty much thrives on the fact that you can't point out something wrong with it, you can't say "oh this is amateurish, there's a glaring mistake here" you can only say you don't like it. I used to think it ended there, with the artist having the perfect defense against that argument ("you're too stupid to understand it") but most of these artists are not content with that, they're also desperate for attention, they want others to look at their thing.

There's a humble quality in paintings made by real artists. I've never seen any of it in these guys' art. I would be more inclined to understand it, make an effort to it.

>>3119379
Do you mean 'anything more'? Because what you're asking is for people to disprove what you're claiming, which seems a bit much for a board with people asking for advice on the pencil drawings of Goku.