Digital BW, The Print

So do you disagree with the notion that the concept alone can be the 
work?

I think Hirst was pretty new with a lot of his stuff, in medium and 
concept.  But as far as shocking, nothing is really shocking anymore.
The fact that he is nicely packaged and media friendly shouldn't take 
away from the work. I think they have had some good themes, that dig 
pretty deep, once you get over the controversial "wowzers, he did 
that!?" and "am I really seeing what I think I am" thoughts (I am 
thinking of the animals here). The controversial aspects attract media 
attention but in my opinion they aren't part of the meaning.

Speaking of pure shock, don't you think they are better than the guy 
who had his friend shoot him in the shoulder for his "performance" in a 
gallery? Or the woman who hung naked in grand central station and drew 
on the subway walls? These two are about the most famous performance 
artists.  We are beyond such shock now I think.

I found a funny quote about him;  "Sheep farmers like him too. He has 
been thanked for raising the profile of British lamb, and is said to be 
'a good judge of a sheep'."

all for now
-overnout,
mikeH

ps website about Damien Hirst=
http://dh.ryoshuu.com/

pps  I can say that I pretty much don't like his spin paintings. I want 
to believe that there is something more to them, but I haven't been let 
onto it so far. Their names are funny I guess.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> Mike - I half agree with you!
> 
> My background is in music - to me Schoenberg is standard repetoire and I can
> trace how things happen as they emerge . I realised in my last post I was
> coming off as a bit restrictive, but I firmly believe that if it is not 'in'
> the work, then it is not part of the work. All art IMO is a balance between
> a whole load o f factors, but I think there is a fundamental balance between
> concept and product. If I can't, as a skilled reader, 'see' in the work the
> concept, then it has failed and the concept stands 'in place of' the work as
> the defining force.
> I saw some of the kindof instruction-type work you described at the yoko ono
> show, and it is poor stuff IMO. Now this is a personal view, and I would
> take away anyone's right to make art in whatever way they choose, but when
> this is placed in hierarchies, as 'better/best' then it produces problems
> IMO. I don't think for e.g. that Hirst's work is that shocking or new, but
> he has become a major media presence because he is writable about.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the dicsussion!
> 
> Julian