Hirst admits to 'silly' artworks

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
yep... I'd agree with that.
embarrassing
I'd agree with that too. :p

But his Pharmacy restaurant in Notting Hill was cool as ***k!! ;) :D


Hirst's latest collection, a series of oil paintings called The Elusive Truth, have courted controversy because they were produced largely by his assistants.
It's always something that irks me when I've come across Art Directors and Creative Directors that decide to take all the credit for other peoples work.


"I don't like the idea that it has to be done by the artist, I think it's quite an old fashioned thing," he said.
In which case, wouldn't it be better if he created art under 'Damien Hirst and Associates' or 'The Damien Hirst Collective'?

Rinky dink link
 

Savage Henry

macrumors 65816
iGav said:
It's always something that irks me when I've come across Art Directors and Creative Directors that decide to take all the credit for other peoples work.

In which case, wouldn't it be better if he created art under 'Damien Hirst and Associates' or 'The Damien Hirst Collective'?
That's nothing new, warhol did it with his studio, The Factory. Many silkprints weren't even touched by his very fingers, but the works of art are still considered 'his'.

Is the Angel of the North Anthony Gormley's or the hundreds of people who help construct the sculpture? He couldn't physically do it himself, obviously, but the work surely is his.

Same for films: when the titles read "An Alan Smithee Production" I thinks it's a given that there may have been one or two other people involved in the making.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think it's so clear cut.
 
Comment

Mr. Durden

macrumors 6502a
Jan 13, 2005
716
0
Colorado
I think that is a very common practice, especially among artists. As long as the head artist oversees the production of the art, it can still be called a "insert famous artists name here".

Still, just because its common dosent mean its right. Sucks to be that un-named artist who actually created the work of art and to watch someone else bask in the glory. :mad:
 
Comment

puckhead193

macrumors G3
May 25, 2004
9,246
473
NY
i was at the muesem of fine arts in boston and they have an exibition of some of his work, his works did seem a bit odd. I mean i "painting" of dead flies..... although the butterfly thing was cool.
Hirst at MFA Boston
 
Comment

mcadam

macrumors 6502a
Apr 3, 2004
593
0
københavn
It is really funny he calls it "old fashioned" - as far as I know assistents have allways been used a lot. Since before the rennaisance I suppose. And have also always been quite embarassed about it I think, hehe.. and, to certain extent quite rightly so...

On the other hand, an artist like Rebecca Horn fx probably doesn't make any of her super nice mechanical sculptures herself and would never claim so either. It's the ideas for them that are important. Who physically produces them following her guidelines is irelevant. And in this sence Hirsts remark about "old fashioned" makes sense.

A
 
Comment

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,922
169
His 'Spin' works or whatever they were called, and the dots were surely a case of The Emperors New Clothes.
 
Comment

Jaffa Cake

macrumors Core
Aug 1, 2004
19,802
7
The City of Culture, Englandshire
Mr. Durden said:
I think that is a very common practice, especially among artists. As long as the head artist oversees the production of the art, it can still be called a "insert famous artists name here".
I was once told that towards the end of his life Salvador Dali used to entrust the production of his etchings to assistants, even going as far as signing and numbering blank sheets of paper for them to use. It was apparently quite common for some unscrupulous assistants to print their own work onto these sheets - so much so that there's apparently a bit of doubt over the authenticity of some of his later works.

Damien had better be careful... ;)
 
Comment

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,478
205
visiting from downstream
Jaffa Cake said:
I was once told that towards the end of his life Salvador Dali used to entrust the production of his etchings to assistants, even going as far as signing and numbering blank sheets of paper for them to use. It was apparently quite common for some unscrupulous assistants to print their own work onto these sheets - so much so that there's apparently a bit of doubt over the authenticity of some of his later works.

Damien had better be careful... ;)
Yup. While he was on his deathbed, certain individuals (you figure out who) had the dying Dali sign hundreds of sheets of blank paper, for use in creating "new" Dalis. Quite a few Dalis out there were produced after he died.

But it's not uncommon for an artist to have very little to do with a work of art that bears his name... take Chihuly, for example. Because of his physical disabilities (missing an eye, bum shoulder and knee), he can't actually blow glass anymore, and hasn't for many years now. But he does create paintings of what he wants the glass to look like, and then he supervises the glassblowing process, which actually requires many people to execute. So, you could say that they are interpreting his artistic vision... which is enough.

Since Hirst charges so much for his work, though, if I were going to be buying one, I'd be asking a lot of questions about the artistic process...
 
Comment

rainman::|:|

macrumors 603
Feb 2, 2002
5,438
2
iowa
Yeah, the line is blurry between original works and studio works... on a line of sculptures i'm working on right now, i've enlisted some help in the construction, does that mean the piece isn't entirely mine? I don't think so, I think vision is much more important than technicals. Look at the Great Masters, who have been shown, through brush-stroke analysis, to have authored only tiny parts of some masterpieces. Most artistic academia still regard these paintings as being attributed to the masters, not the apprentices who filled in so much of the surface.

i also think it's key to point out that art can be silly, deliberately or not, and still have merit or value... it doesn't mean it's worthless. Today we can look back at a lot of art and realize it's silliness. But it was important in it's own right...
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.