Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Factions That Endorse Violence Are… | The Republican Party Starts Falling… »

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Visual Art 'The Only Man to Ooze This Level of IROC-Z Axe Body Spray Level of Douchery': Damien Hirst, Of Course

Posted by Jen Graves on Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Before the holidays, the Los Angeles Times's Jori Finkel filed a great, comprehensive report on the 11-venue megashow of Damien Hirst's spot paintings taking place this month at every location of the Gagosian Gallery worldwide—from Athens to L.A. to Hong Kong.

Take "The Complete Spot Challenge," the gallery advertises: Visit all 300 paintings, which, all told, could potentially sell for $200 million, going by conservative estimates of past sales (unless the volume discourages buyers).

In the interview with Finkel, Hirst argues all sides: He says the paintings are simply lovable—that people can't resist colored polkadots, basically; he says he'd rather have created the postcard of the Mona Lisa than the painting itself; and he implies Gagosian is a money-grubbing hypocrite. It's a wild ride.

"Who knows what a market is?" he said. "You learn by doing, really. If I put a painting outside a bar at closing time, and it's still there in the morning, it's a crap painting. With spot paintings, wherever you leave them, people are going to take them out of the dumpsters. It's an intrinsic thing that has nothing to do with how many you make."

He went on to tell a somewhat cryptic story about Larry Gagosian, without commentary. "I remember Larry once phoned me up, and he said he was worried about my production. He said: You are making too many paintings. And then, at the end of the conversation, he said: We need more paintings." ...

He also made an argument in favor of ubiquity. "You also have to ask yourself as an artist, 'What would be more appealing … to have made the Mona Lisa painting itself or have made the merchandising possibilities — putting a postcard on everyone's walls all over the world? Both are brilliant, but in a way I would probably prefer the postcards — just to get my art out there."

Hennessy Youngman weighs in hilariously, of course (although his comment that your art is worth more if someone besides you makes it, while good for an easy laugh, is untrue and boring—and ridiculous coming from a guy who doesn't make objects).

So, Slog, a legally binding poll.

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

When I see a Hirst dot painting, I can only think of the past forty years of Australian Aboriginal dot paintings, which are imbued with 60,000 years of culture, and which thrum with an electric vitality and a way of seeing that is both the most ancient and the most modern of any art in the world today, and how Hirst lacks every single one of those qualities, or any others, and I want to burn down every gallery in the Western world. The man should be splayed on a spit. People who buy his art should be flayed.

Posted by Fnarf

on January 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I don't think I've ever seen a piece of his I've liked, but if nothing else he's a fascinating case study of success in the art world. It's as if— there's always going to be art investors, and SOMEONE has to be the contemporary superstar, so... it's this guy.

Posted by Dougsf on January 11, 2012 at 12:03 PM

IROC-Z

Italian Retard Out Cruising

I Reek Of Cologne.

Sorry, I grew up on long Island in the 90's.

Posted by Rotten666 on January 11, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I love me some hirst and u2. henessy is starting to seem contrived and labored and obvious; like a 3 yr old daily show skit. You idiots who talk shit about hirst are cut from the same cloth that talked shit about warhol back in the day. And yes; I'm aware that everything after hirsts early 90s breakthough is an unnecessary re-hash; but still.

Posted by bluer is better on January 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Having seen these stupid dots, it's obvious that the means by which the art world assesses the quality of a painting have absolutely nothing to do with the painting itself.

Posted by seandr on January 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM

They look like they came out of Ikea's discount bin of wall hangings.

Posted by nseattlite on January 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

i'd rather be damien hirst than yayoi kusama.

Posted by Max Solomon on January 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM

I hae one of his dot paintings as a screen saver. Seems perfectly suited to this purpose...

Posted by M. Wells on January 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Wonder Bread should sue his hack ass. Might save Hostess from bankruptcy.

Posted by DOUG.

on January 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

this reminds me of how much I miss my Camaro.

Posted by CATSPAW666 on January 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM

@9, or Twister.

Posted by Fnarf

on January 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Continuing affects of The Mona Lisa Curse; immoral & nauseating.

Posted by Ranchhand on January 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Aren't artists like Hirst to art what Britney Spears is to music or Stephanie Meyer is to writing? (And Gagosian is the Sony of the art world?) There isn't One Important Style of Fine Art, there are many genres and, as with music, the most popular and best-selling ones are usually the most vapid. Why is Art-with-a-capital-A held to loftier standards than other forms of culture? Art isn't ruined because an opportunist enters the picture and succeeds, nor is there need to panic or be offended by it.

Posted by mitten on January 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM

@4 Nah. Although I am none too fond of Warhol (I'll have to quote John Currin here - "Warhol was a genius but I don't like his art. It is the kind of art that advertises you know the doorman at the club") he certainly was not the complete jackass that Damien Hirst is.

So depressing how deeply ignorant so many of those with the will and funds to buy large amounts of art are.

Posted by Rhizome on January 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM

This reminds me of that video you posted a while back by the old foggy art critic that I enjoyed so much. This Hirst guy fits the phenomenon he described about needing large amounts of artistic product in order to have enough stock to create a market.

If there are only two paintings by an artist, no matter how good they are you will rarely have any bidding for the items to drive up their perceived value. If there are 500 paintings, then you can and will have regular auctions and trading of the works, thereby driving up the price.

With the support of some key galleries and critics and a couple of museums, an artist could plan to execute this level of scam right from the beginning. One key is the very thing that actually highlights the underlying lack of true value - like Warhol silk screens, the art must be able to be produced in large quantities fairly quickly.

Still, I love that sentence: "If I put a painting outside a bar at closing time, and it's still there in the morning, it's a crap painting," but it doesn't resonate much after the second reading. Even paint by numbers can be used to brighten up a garage used for storing garden tools and broken stereos.

Posted by cracked on January 11, 2012 at 1:52 PM

The first time I saw the shark piece at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (some long stupid name about death I don't remember) I gagged. My brother-in-law came into the room & told me his boss owns it!

Posted by Pmasp on January 11, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I saw Hirst on Charlie Rose last night, it was hard to listen to him talk.
The butterfly windows he did awhile back were ok- I'm surprised to see that he is still doing the same dot paintings!

Posted by Vade Mecum on January 13, 2012 at 3:11 PM