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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
There’s a relevant article here 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.