Damien Hirst, you are on thin ice.

[Somnambulist]

I have just read this in the UK’s Daily Telegraph (did anyone see the interview on which the story is based?)

Damien Hirst said last night that the September 11 terrorists "need congratulating" for achieving "something which nobody would have ever thought possible".
The British artist also spoke out against any possible war as "probably the wrong thing to do", but described the image of the hijacked planes flying into the twin towers as "an art work in its own right".
Hirst told BBC News Online: "Of course, it's visually stunning.
"So on one level they kind of need congratulating, which a lot of people shy away from, which is a very dangerous thing."

I consider myself an artist (of sorts) and an art-lover, and this is my view.

Assuming they are reported correctly, I find Hirst’s comments utterly offensive. The suggestion that it would be possible to find any merit worthy of congratulations in deeds of the perpetrators of 9/11 is repulsive.

I watched CNN live one year ago and the images of the second plane smashing into the WTC and the collapse of the towers is indelibly etched in my mind. Visually arresting, yes. Shocking and stunning, yes. Unique, yes (let’s hope so, anyway). A work of art, NO. Neither was creating a mushroom cloud over Hiroshima.

Art certainly plays a role in recording our history, and can be instrumental in capturing public sentiment at an emotional time. Artwork that is derived from or inspired by those events can itself be shocking or harrowing but I cannot accept the acts themselves as being described as artistic.

Picasso’s Guernica is one of the greatest paintings of all time, but the Nazi obliteration of that Spanish town was an atrocity, not the 1930’s answer to pickled sheep, Mr Hirst.

Any thoughts, Dopers?

[hazel-rah]

If you live in a heavily mediated world, you have to accept that almost anything is going to be looked at or evaluated as a performance at some point. To a degree, the media and people who pay attention to media have some culpability here... not for the act itself, but for it being seen as a performance to be evaluated artistically.

Of course even artists live in the world, so personally as an artist I'm not sure it's worth being that insensitive to others just to have another artistic discussion. There are a lot of less offensive things to talk about, especially now.

-fh

[Coldfire]

BBC Online doesn't seem to have an interview among these lines. However, if he really said this, he's a bloody moron.

[Crusoe]

He did say it:

The Guardian: 9/11 wicked but a work of art, says Damien Hirst (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,790056,00.html)
"In an interview, Hirst told BBC News Online: "The thing about 9/11 is that it's kind of an artwork in its own right. It was wicked, but it was devised in this way for this kind of impact. It was devised visually."

Describing the image of the hijacked planes crashing into the twin towers as "visually stunning", he added: "You've got to hand it to them on some level because they've achieved something which nobody would have ever have thought possible, especially to a country as big as America."
I think hazel-rah has nailed it. He's not quite in the same reality as others and is making his point rather insensitively as a result.

[Go alien]

It's entirely apposite for Hirst. Remember, this twat thinks that cutting assorted animals in half, lengthways, and pickling them in formaldehyde is art. Anything that is visually revolting is art to him. I bet none of his family were killed on 9/11.

[WordMan]

Complex topic - I think hazel-rah nailed it in a key regard.

Hirst, regardless of intent, comes across as an insensitive moron. Even if he is trying to rise above the reality of the situation and comment on the "art" of the visuals, there is no way that a comment about this topic in this way could be handled way.

What is difficult and complex about it is the core of insight in what he is saying. Two nights ago, I was talking with my wife about the appropriateness of the media replaying footage from the day. In trying to describe my POV - which is that it should be played rarely and thoughtfully, so we remember and honor, and don't lose the importance or emotion of the tragedy - I myself said "it is like a key work of art or a song that brings back powerful memories from my past - I want to access that art or song consciously and re-live the emotions and memories, not have it blasted at me until it loses meaning."

The point is, obviously that I (and all of us) are aware of the visual impact of the footage. So the fact that Hirst seized upon its power should not be surprising - the insensitivity of what he said, and the attempt to applaud an evil act for its art-worthiness, however, could not be more wrong-headed.

[Khadaji]

Originally posted by Somnambulist
<SNIP>
Assuming they are reported correctly, I find Hirst’s comments utterly offensive. The suggestion that it would be possible to find any merit worthy of congratulations in deeds of the perpetrators of 9/11 is repulsive.

I watched CNN live one year ago and the images of the second plane smashing into the WTC and the collapse of the towers is indelibly etched in my mind. Visually arresting, yes. Shocking and stunning, yes. Unique, yes (let’s hope so, anyway). A work of art, NO. Neither was creating a mushroom cloud over Hiroshima.

Art certainly plays a role in recording our history, and can be instrumental in capturing public sentiment at an emotional time. Artwork that is derived from or inspired by those events can itself be shocking or harrowing but I cannot accept the acts themselves as being described as artistic.

Picasso’s Guernica is one of the greatest paintings of all time, but the Nazi obliteration of that Spanish town was an atrocity, not the 1930’s answer to pickled sheep, Mr Hirst.

Any thoughts, Dopers?
Well said. I'm sorry hazel-rah, but I don't accept nor will I that "almost anything is going to be looked at or evaluated as a performance at some point." This trivializes something that should not be trivialized. This was murder, plain and simple. To say it is a work of art does a disservice to everyone who lost their lives that day. There is no art in murdering people. Damien Hirst is a loser. To spend any time excusing him from his words, by claiming that the media and the people who watch are culpable encourages other losers to act as outrageously and allows them the opportunity to not accept responsiblity. You may say that we must accept these attitudes, but I will continue to hold each individual responsible for his repulsive comments and attitudes.

[Kyomara]

Feh. I think he's just being honest. As atrocious as September 11 was, I sometimes think about all the meticulous planning that went into such a terrible deed, and how in the end it all went exactly according to plan. I also agree that the attack was meant to work as a visual statement.

I have never personally felt that it is impossible or wrong to separate the emotion from a tragedy and look at it with a more practical eye, if only to change your viewpoint for a few moments. I'll grant that Hirst's comments weren't very classy, but I also think that his point is a valid one, and one that has occurred to me numerous times over the past year.

[Somnambulist]

You are correct; Hirst’s comments were not classy. In fact I am struggling to think of anything that has been said in the media, Western or Eastern, which is more disrespectful to those who died.

Originally posted by Kyomara
I have never personally felt that it is impossible or wrong to separate the emotion from a tragedy and look at it with a more practical eye, if only to change your viewpoint for a few moments.

This I agree with. The rest of what you have written, and the implication that my view is distorted by emotion, I do not.

To find something offensive and unacceptable does not require emotional obfuscation or imply a loss of perspective. Just because the events of September 11th were meticulously planned and clearly designed to achieve maximum exposure through world media does not make it a work of art. Every act of terrorism is intended to make a statement. That is the very essence of terrorism. When faced with military or political inferiority, terrorists resort to principally symbolic acts in order to disrupt and instil fear in the populace that they oppose but it is a political statement not an artistic one.

Terrorists are not artists. Mass murder is not art. Are suicide bombers the artists of the new millennium, with buses and cafes in Israel as their canvasses, and human body parts as their media? Who is it that has lost a sense of perspective here?

What is it that you admire? The ingenuity of the planning or that fact that they managed to pull it off from under our noses? Perhaps it was the audacity to target American icons of wealth and democracy and shake the sense of security of the Western world to the core? Or was it just that those big fireballs looked so cool on TV?

If 9/11 was such a visual and intellectual feast, what about an encore? Perhaps the vaporisation of Baghdad would make a more impressive statement for you? If we waited until the cameras were ready we could gasp and enjoy the show as 5 million people are simultaneously reduced to elementary particles…

I love art. I love creativity. I can see artistic value in works that I don't like or others consider bad taste. One of the appealing things about art is that the cutting edge is always shrouded in controversy. But the cutting edge still has a boundary and this is not a question of taste or controversy. All the works of art created since the dawn of humanity are not worth a single human life. If you have an argument that the wilful sacrifice of innocent human life can be in any way congratulated or considered within the artistic envelope I would like to hear it.

If you concede that Hirst's comments were not 'classy' but had occurred to you numerous times, please elaborate as to how you would express the viewpoint you share in a 'classy' (stylish and convincing) manner so that those of us with narrower perspectives may understand.

[Go alien]

Hirst's asinine statement demonstrates that morally, he is worthless.

His inability to see that the statement he made serves no purpose except to offend suggests he doesn't understand the concepts of grief, that he cannot relate to other people's feelings and that he doesn't care about other people.

He is a callous, unfeeling bastard, interested only in achieving notoriety for himself.

As I said, the man is worthless. Oh, and his "art" is crap to.

[Go alien]

[b]Kyomara[b/]

To parody.

“As atrocious as killing six million Jews was, I sometimes think about all the meticulous planning that went into such a terrible deed, and how in the end it all went exactly according to plan. I also agree that the Holocaust was meant to work as a visceral statement.

I have never personally felt that it is impossible or wrong to separate the emotion from the Holocaust and look at it with a more practical eye, if only to change your viewpoint for a few moments.”

Do you realise just how stupid you sound? The Holocaust as performance art? Join the human race.

[jjimm]

There's a relevant article here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,550914,00.html) by Mark Lawson. He too makes a shamefully tactless statement at one point ("terrorists are, at one level, an extreme kind of architecture critic"), but the rest of his article does address this issue well.

Having said that, Damien Hirst can go piss up a rope.

[The Great Unwashed]

Originally posted by Go alien
It's entirely apposite for Hirst. Remember, this twat thinks that cutting assorted animals in half, lengthways, and pickling them in formaldehyde is art. Anything that is visually revolting is art to him. I bet none of his family were killed on 9/11.

Well, I think what DH does is Art. Not everything he does is physically revolting. Moreover, what's so revolting about the insides of a cow anyhow? Most people eat them for fun.

Art is not only allowed to challenge taboos it is mandated to do so -- if you think art is fruit on silverware then you're necessarily not going to see eye-to-eye with DH, and his work may leave you horrified.

There are enough sacred cows in this world, let's not make anymore.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by The Great Unwashed
There are enough sacred cows in this world, let's not make anymore. Ironic choice of analogy...

Seriously though, I think horror of this magnitude is bound to become 'sacred': 9-11 is untouchable for the US, and most people in the UK, and will be for decades.

[Crusoe]

Mmm. It hasn't stopped Chris Morris allegedly being the mastermind behind a certain tasteless website with an 11 September theme that's doing the rounds.

[jjimm]

I was indeed going to mention that (that's why I said "most people in the UK"), but didn't think it was relevant, coz Morris doesn't present himself as an 'artist'. In fact I get the impression that he'd scorn Hirst.

[Go alien]

The Great Unwashed

I disagree with DH being an artist. This may be another thread, but my theory of art, FWIW, requires unique talent as well as good ideas. In other words, execution is as importent as inspiraiton. DH only has ideas. Skill in execution is irrelevant - I'm sure any abattoir could do as good a job. Same for Tracy Emin's bed. Apparently she is a very skilled draughtsman but she made her name with crap like her unmade bed. Good idea, guaranteed to make her name and fortune, but art?


jjim,

Morris is a satirist. And a very good one, who makes us uncomfortable by pointing out contradictions and stupidities in our lives. His classic was the Brass Eye program on paedophilia. Uncomfortable viewing but brilliant satire. Evoked exactly the hysterical response he was satirising.

[Aro]

Definition of Art : (By Baruch Spinoza (http://www.shah.it/define.htm) )

"...Any human creation which contains an idea
other than its utilitarian purpose..."

A creation is a sculpture, a dance, a play, whether an object, a representation, or just a pure act.

Of course, this is merely his opinion, his personal definition, but a definition still worth considering.

[belladonna]

originally posted by Somnambulist
What is it that you admire? The ingenuity of the planning or that fact that they managed to pull it off from under our noses? Perhaps it was the audacity to target American icons of wealth and democracy and shake the sense of security of the Western world to the core? Or was it just that those big fireballs looked so cool on TV?
I admired it. Don't get me wrong, I wept as I watched the towers fall, and again last night as I saw a lot of the footage I'd missed last year. I was, and still am, horrified that innocent civilians had to die so that a group of fanatical hate-mongers could "make a point". But at the same time, yeah--I admired it. It was clever--incredibly so. It required planning and secrecy and cunning, and I was struck by the sheer amount of balls it must have took. I watched, transfixed, as the dust rumbled, and people ran; and though I wept, I'd be lying if I said I was not impressed. It takes a lot to shock America, and these men did it using a few suicidal volunteers, a handful of boxcutters, and our own fucking planes. If that isn't worthy of some type of grudging respect I don't know what is. Before everyone tells me what a sick fuck I am, let me clarify--I do not respect these men, or their actions, nor do I feel it is appropriate to treat it as if it were performance art, but at the same time I think we would be foolish to downplay the inherent visual and intellectual power of the event. I think it would be pointless to deny that, in this instance, the bad guys really had their shit together and managed to pull off their plans beyond their wildest expectations.
All the works of art created since the dawn of humanity are not worth a single human life.
That's a bold statement. I'd like to think that, if given the choice between dying to save art for all of humanity or surviving to live in an artless world, I wouldn't be the only one willing to make that sacrifice. Without the arts, what is the single human life really worth?

[Go alien]

Sorry, Belladonna, but you are talking crap. There is nothing to admire in 9/11. All it required was organisation and money, you know, the sort of organisation that any competent middle manager exhibits every day of his working life and the sort of money Saudi Arabia is alleged to have coughed up when threatened by Bin Laden. It required a soft target. Easy to find on internal US flights up until 9/11/2001. Note that in the fourth plane, once the passengers realised what was happening, they prevented it crashing on the White House. So the plan wasn't that good - disarmed and frightened passengers trashed one part of it despite starting at a huge disadvantage.

It's very easy for terrorists to kill innocent civilians. The IRA have been doing it for years in the UK, as have ETA in Spain.

It was not art, it was not admirable.

It was horrifying, it was mass murder.

[Somnambulist]

Originally posted by Aro
Definition of Art : (By Baruch Spinoza (http://www.shah.it/define.htm) )

"...Any human creation which contains an idea
other than its utilitarian purpose..."

A creation is a sculpture, a dance, a play, whether an object, a representation, or just a pure act.

Of course, this is merely his opinion, his personal definition, but a definition still worth considering.

This is one of the worst cites I have seen on SDMB.

I followed the link to the website and the second paragraph goes as follows:

No, Baruch Spinoza never gave his "definition" of Art, yet his way of thinking,
his theories, fully substantiate what I am about to say about my definition of Art.

OK, so whoever you are quoting Aro, it's not Baruch Spinoza.

It is in fact Shah Jahan. No, I've never heard of him either but let me save you the bother of trawling through his third-rate website, bad English and even worse philosophies by quoting from his 'Biography' page.

(speaking about himself) His works of "art" are products, advertising campaigns, company restructurings, labor agreements, acquisitions, and sales growths.


I'm sorry Aro but for the purposes of this discussion it is most certainly NOT a definition or art worth considering.

[everton]

As numerous disaster movies have proven, it’s perfectly possible to view the pictures of the WTC as art or even as an entertainment provided you remove them from the context of human suffering and devastation. That, of course, is the hard part and I can’t understand why would be so cold-blooded as to try. Somehow Hirst seems to have performed this trick in his own mind, and you have to assume he didn’t intend his remarks to sound as callous as they do. I hope for his sake they don’t get reported any further though.

It’s interesting that the Hiroshima bomb has been mentioned. Plenty of film accompanying the atomic weapons tests of the 1950s and '60s describe the mushroom clouds as “beautiful” as well as terrible. Again, this is perfectly easy to do if you remove them from the context of mass slaughter, and evidently the commentators of those films find that easier to do than I could.

Chris Morris, as usual, directs himself not to the subject itself but to the media’s reporting of it. I find myself broadly agreeing with him that the news media frequently take important stories and turn them into crass products of their own, complete with glossy pull-out supplements, special retrospectives and self-reverential summaries. There have been far too many of those produced for 9/11, and I think that’s perfectly valid material for satire – even more so because the central subject itself so deserves to be treated with sensitivity and honest sympathy.

[everton]

Somnambulist: It’s perfectly possible that “Shah Jahan” is a pseudonym stolen from the man who commissioned the Taj Mahal. The rest of the website is pretentious enough to suggest that to me anyway.

[Kyomara]

Originally posted by Somnambulist
This I agree with. The rest of what you have written, and the implication that my view is distorted by emotion, I do not.
It was not my intention to imply anything at all. I did not mean to suggest that your view is narrow or distorted, or that you had "lost perspective," only that other views, such as Hirst's, are just as valid.

"Art" is completely in the eye of the beholder. Hirst himself makes things which he intends to be art, but which others have dismissed as trash. Conversely, images and pop cultural themes originally intended as political or commercial statements have become works of art in their own right. Che Gueverra poster, anyone? An image's status as "art" often has little to do with the intent of its forger.

Are suicide bombers the artists of the new mellenium? I don't personally feel so, but someone else might. Calling something art does need not necessarily imply that you approve of it.

I disagree that "the cutting edge of art has a boundary." The boundaries exist in the viewer, not the work itself. Again, this is not to suggest that everyone needs to broaden their perspective so that they can see a terrorist act as a work of art, only that different people have different boundaries, and for some Hirst's statements are not so unacceptable.

I think the lack of class in Hirst's comments is due more to the venue he chose to express them in than to their actual content. An interview with the BBC that is going to be reduced to soundbites is not the best place to express controversial ideas if you care about your image in that sense (which, by the way, I don't think Hirst does).

[Kyomara]

Originally posted by Go alien
Kyomara, do you realise just how stupid you sound? The Holocaust as performance art? Join the human race.
I don't think I sound stupid. You might think I sound insensetive, but you don't know me. And that's not meant as some kind of self-righteous, head wagging posturing, but simply as a statement of fact: you don't know me. You have no idea how emotionally affected I may or may not have been by the attacks last year. You don't know whether I knew people in the towers that day.

Just because I find validity in Hirst's comments doesn't mean I didn't react emotionally to the attacks as well.

[Somnambulist]

Originally posted by Kyomara

It was not my intention to imply anything at all. I did not mean to suggest that your view is narrow or distorted, or that you had "lost perspective," only that other views, such as Hirst's, are just as valid.

"Art" is completely in the eye of the beholder. Hirst himself makes things which he intends to be art, but which others have dismissed as trash. Conversely, images and pop cultural themes originally intended as political or commercial statements have become works of art in their own right. Che Gueverra poster, anyone? An image's status as "art" often has little to do with the intent of its forger.

Are suicide bombers the artists of the new mellenium? I don't personally feel so, but someone else might. Calling something art does need not necessarily imply that you approve of it.

I disagree that "the cutting edge of art has a boundary." The boundaries exist in the viewer, not the work itself. Again, this is not to suggest that everyone needs to broaden their perspective so that they can see a terrorist act as a work of art, only that different people have different boundaries, and for some Hirst's statements are not so unacceptable.

I think the lack of class in Hirst's comments is due more to the venue he chose to express them in than to their actual content. An interview with the BBC that is going to be reduced to soundbites is not the best place to express controversial ideas if you care about your image in that sense (which, by the way, I don't think Hirst does).
Kyomara, thanks for your views which you deliver articulately and succinctly (much more so that Damien Hirst did in his ‘video essay’).

My apologies if I misinterpreted your previous post. I’m not sure what you intended to convey by starting your post with ‘Feh.’ but at first glance I took it to be an expression of dismissiveness or derision and perhaps I read more into the rest of what you wrote than was actually there.

I don’t disagree that imagery or themes derived from tragedy (or even of tragedy) can be viewed artistically. I could put a poster on my wall of a mushroom cloud, call it art and defend that statement. However, I maintain that the act of detonating a nuclear bomb and killing tens of thousands of innocent people has no inherent artistic merit.

When you propose to push the envelope and label something as art that would previously not warrant that label, then you run the risk of upsetting or offending those who don’t share your view. That in itself is not an issue when you are simply crossing boundaries of taste (such as pickling dissected animals) and upsetting the squeamish. It becomes an if you stretch the definition to mass murder and terrorism you risk offense to the victims of those atrocities. In a civilized society that can carry consequences, the least of which will be severe criticism on Internet message boards!

What I am really having problems digesting is that not only does Damien Hirst challenge us to view the acts of 9/11 artistically but also he urges us to ‘congratulate’ the perpetrators on their achievements. He even goes so far as to suggest that ‘if we shy away from doing so…that’s dangerous.’ But he doesn’t really support these outlandish statements.

If you hold such an extreme radical view you need to have a convincing argument to back it up or it can be dismissed as meaningless (or perhaps as the statements of someone just being contrary for the sake of bolstering their reputation for controversy).

Yours is the best argument that I have read here for accepting other people’s views of what can be considered as art. I fully accept that I cannot prescribe another person to share my point of view. I also concede that there are those for whom the artistic envelope encompasses acts of terrorism. Damien Hirst is one of them. But for me to consider this point of view valid it must have some rationale. In the end it has to comply with some kind of reasonable definition of the word ‘art’ to have any useful meaning, otherwise use a different word.

I am fully at liberty, for my own purposes, to rewrite the entry for ‘artist’ in the dictionary thus:

art·ist Pronunciation Key (ärtst)
n.
1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
3. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.
4. Mass-murdering terrorist.

But if I cannot convince anyone else to subscribe to my definition then A) I am going to encounter communication problems and B) what exactly is the point of such a futile exercise?

Terrorist acts and human suffering are not works of art. That is my opinion and is most likely to remain so. I will continue to state it as fact until someone can offer a convincing argument that a contrary view is valid.

[Kyomara]

Originally posted by Somnambulist
But he doesn’t really support these outlandish statements.

Not necessarily so. We're dealing with a soundbite here. Not one of us has heard or had a complete discussion with Hirst on this topic. Given more space, he might prevent his views much more articulately. And for all we know, he did, but his comments got edited.

The "feh" in my first post was just meant to be a hand wave--expressing that I didn't really think Hirst's comments were all that shocking. Sorry if it seemed like a dismissal of you personally.

Saying that the terrorists "need congratulating" is an unfortunate choice of words. I'd like to think that Hirst didn't actually mean the men deserve some sort of pat on the back for their hard work, but rather that it is alright to marvel at the way the plan was carried out.

I don't personally feel the need to redefine the meaning of the word "artist." It means one thing to me and another thing to you, and to be blunt, as long as one person's definition doesn't negate the enjoyment or appreciation of the other I could care less whether people agree with my personal definition. For me, art is what I say it is, and for you it is what you say it is. I feel no need to force you to agree with me.

[Somnambulist]

Actually I have seen the entire 'video essay' and personally I found Hirst rather inarticulate, bordering on the flippant (that might just be his natural style), and his views lacking thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2002/september_11_one_year_on/2229628.stm

For the most part I agree with you, Kyomara. It really is irrelevant what you or I feel our personal definition of ‘art’ or ‘artist’ is, except, as you point out when it negates another person’s enjoyment/appreciation. The whole point of this thread is that by defining the acts of 9/11 as a work of art and applauding the perpetrators Damien Hirst has caused significant offense. He has achieved fame (or at least notoriety) through his art and by default is a voice for artists and the art world, which I think he has discredited. If you do not care that his views cause offense then that is fine. Personally I think he is out of line and would either like to hear him retract his statements and apologise or hear an argument that convinces me what he has said was acceptable. Does that sound reasonable?

[furr]

ive heard alot of people talking about the footage of the plane banking and crashing into the towers in a purely art/film/visual way. maybe its the fact im not from the US and i can easily distance myself from the event, but i do on a purely visual level find the footage of the crash to be extremely well shot. if that squence had been in a movie it would have been praised.

but its not a movie, so rightly poeple get emotional over it. which is fair enough. but that doesnt negate the purely visual aspect. for me that footage is amazing.

but thats not quite what hirst is saying is it. hes praising the whole event as art. not just the subsquent footage.

was the attack clever, cunning and impressive considering they took on one of the most technologically and security advanced nations in the world? yes.

was it art?..... no.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Somnambulist

This is one of the worst cites I have seen on SDMB.

On reflection, I think you could be right. What an e-jit I am. Oh, for a post-delete button. :smack:

It was too much of a drive-by posting.
I quickly tried to pul a quote from somewhere to (attempt to) add credience to what I was thinking about the negativity stated about the value of art in this thread. It totally backfired as I picked a stupid page to link to.

Apologises to all who read this drivel.
::head hangs in shame::

[Steve Wright]

Whatever one's opinions of Hirst as an artist (personally, I don't think much of him), you have to remember that he's also a professional self-publicist and controversialist. He likes to shock people, and stir up reactions, and get his name in the papers. This is just another example of him doing exactly that.

Put simply: Hirst is a troll, let's not feed him.

[belladonna]

originally posted by Go alien
Sorry, Belladonna...
That's all right GoA--you don't apologize for your opinion, and I won't apologize for mine. Sound fair?

bella

[Somnambulist]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2268307.stm

[Kyomara]

Doh! My last reply to this thread got ate in the crash.

Basically I said that yes, Somnambulist, you sound like a reasonable man, your opinion sounds reasonable. However, I don't personally wish for Hirst to apologize, and if he did, it would have to be one of the most insincere apologies ever.

Say what you will about the man, but you certainly can't call him insincere.

[Somnambulist]

Now that he has apologised, do you think his retraction was insincere, genuine or simply an attempt to perpetuate media exposure?

[Crusoe]

I think it's genuine. Reminding people you said idiotic things isn't good publicity; and I'm not sure he's got any work to publicise at the moment.

[Kyomara]

Double doh! I didn't even bother to check your link before I posted last, assuming it was a link to the original interview.

Hmm. No, I don't think it's likely that the apology was too sincere. Although, as is often the case with this kind of apology, it's a bit tricky isn't it? They never apologize for what they did, just for the fact that what they did offended someone.

So maybe just the part about not meaning any offense was sincere? I don't know. Sorry to cop out like that, but it's Friday night and my head is 100% fried. Maybe I'll try again Monday.

[astro]

Originally posted by Kyomara

It was not my intention to imply anything at all. I did not mean to suggest that your view is narrow or distorted, or that you had "lost perspective," only that other views, such as Hirst's, are just as valid.

"Art" is completely in the eye of the beholder. Hirst himself makes things which he intends to be art, but which others have dismissed as trash. Conversely, images and pop cultural themes originally intended as political or commercial statements have become works of art in their own right. Che Gueverra poster, anyone? An image's status as "art" often has little to do with the intent of its forger.

Are suicide bombers the artists of the new mellenium? I don't personally feel so, but someone else might. Calling something art does need not necessarily imply that you approve of it.

I disagree that "the cutting edge of art has a boundary." The boundaries exist in the viewer, not the work itself. Again, this is not to suggest that everyone needs to broaden their perspective so that they can see a terrorist act as a work of art, only that different people have different boundaries, and for some Hirst's statements are not so unacceptable.


IMO your perspective on this issue is far too facile. If everything (to someone) is art then applying an aesthetic criteria becomes meaningless and art is simply some mundane, ontological gestalt. Without a contextual esthetic standard of some kind the notion of something being "art" becomes somewhat pointless, revolving about an "art is everything, art is nothing" black hole of context.

[Kyomara]

Originally posted by astro
IMO your perspective on this issue is far too facile. If everything (to someone) is art then applying an aesthetic criteria becomes meaningless and art is simply some mundane, ontological gestalt. Without a contextual esthetic standard of some kind the notion of something being "art" becomes somewhat pointless, revolving about an "art is everything, art is nothing" black hole of context.
Sounds like you're catching on.
:D

[Dr_Paprika]

Shocking the bourgoisie has been a mainstay of modern artists for almost a century. I don't really see why any topic should be artistically sancrosanct and untouchable, including the Holocaust and September 11th. Hirst is a gifted artist, no doubt, but his comments were stupid and callous. But somewhat true, nonetheless. I believe he did issue an apology for his comments soon after making them, and rightfully so.