Him and Hirst

I’ve never really got Damien Hirst’s work. Years ago when he was emerging as a name, I went to the show at the Serpentine Gallery. The friend was with got very excited about the sheep in formaldehyde. I didn’t. But then I always disliked the pickled dissected rabbits and other things in the biology lab at school.

The children seem to love Hymn which is displayed outside Tate Modern. To me it just looks like an oversized teaching aid. Informative, but please explain the art.

Makes an interesting photo though.


24 thoughts on “Him and Hirst

  1. I don’t really care for it myself….perhaps it would look “alright” if located in the foyer of a teaching hospital for demonstration purposes but that’s about it. 😀


      • I would have to say IMHO the purpose of art is not to provide an interesting photograph. But we take interesting photos of art all the time. Creepy plastic torso thing there is not art IMHO, not art to me. I thought the carving on the public building was art and that the pictures you took of the carvings made very interesting photographs that I would never have seen. I consider photography an art.

  2. Reeeeally. This plastic thing says bloated and nauseating. And it’s superimposed on the soaring StP, of all things. Which expression is more inspiring: StP and all it’s been through, or this narcissistic disembodied enlarged unrecyclable — plastic thing. Symbol of our age. If you ask me. Nobody has. I’m saying anyway.

    I’m trying to imagine what an “artist’s statement” might explicate about this, so I might have at least some insight into what this guy would like us to hear. Sorry. “Artist’s statements” usually make things worse, in my experience.

    I’d rather see a tree. Or some object that takes the river, and StP’s, into consideration. Context, Hirst! Context!

  3. Must admit Hirst has always seemed over rated to me. I love Tracey Emin, and think there are layers to her work which will continue to fascinate for years, though I have heard and read very lacklustre reviews of her current exhibition.
    Your first paragraph made me laugh! And the last. 🙂

  4. hmmmm… me, too, I’m afraid. juxtaposition doesn’t always work. just sayin’.

    however, I AM intrigued by M. Hirst making a rather good living at his art. who’d he have to convince, to sell to, and HOW did he do it? Or did his “people” talk to their people?

    • He was an entrant terrible of the at world about twenty years ago. I feel his time has come and gone. For me, and as I say I have never got his work, the decorated skulls were when he tipped from edgy to kitsch, but maybe he would say he was being ironic. Saatchi bought his stuff.

  5. I went down to see the exhibition a couple of weeks’ ago and I reckon I would put about 25% of his stuff in the category ‘art’. I also found it ironic that photography inside the gallery was forbidden but one of the first things that you see is a picture of a young Hirst himself with the head from a dead body taken in a Leeds hospital. I’m sure that photography in the mortuary was banned…

    • Aha, an art perspective. Can you tell us about the 25%?
      Sure you are right about pix and the mortuary. And that photo sounds like something deliberately designed to shock. But unlike say, Duchamp, does it make us reassess our attitudes to art?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.