Spot the artwork

The Duke of Edinburgh asked a mobility scooterist if he’d knocked anyone over that morning – that was the headline and the story but a bigger story was concealed in the text:

In the grounds was a contemporary artwork by Damien Hirst – a Mini covered in coloured spots.

Hang on – this was meant to be art in the six decades of the Queen’s reign.  This was the Best of British?  Hockney perhaps but Hirst?   Who the hell picked him? Same people who picked Tracey Vermin?

And seriously, a description of this “art”, of which Hirst’s NY toddlers drawing was one:

The real crux [is] the collision of the specific and the general here. That collision is not between artworks of different sizes, colors, and dates, but between one person—the artist—and society. The cold and cavernous room, with its hysterical shifts in scale and color, only demonstrated the former’s failure to master the latter. Allover abstraction is fundamentally monotonous. As Greenberg saw the painting he championed, the lack of a center, corners, and figure/ground relations embodied capitalism’s hyper-materiality. This “polyphonic” art was a vision of a world of either total democracy or total exchangeability, depending on your point of view.

What are these people on?

6 comments for “Spot the artwork

  1. JD
    April 1, 2012 at 16:12

    via The Stuckists-

    “The art Damien Hirst stole” part 1-


    Swiss artist John Armleder, who had been doing “dot paintings” in a regular grid since the late 1970s, had the same problem as LeKay and Precious: “People would see my dot paintings and say: ‘But you’re doing a painting like Hirst.’ And I would always say: ‘Yes, I’m trying my best’ — because Hirst’s paintings are very nice, but I had been doing them a decade before.”

  2. Moggsy
    April 1, 2012 at 18:28

    I guess they must be high on their own sense of self importance?

  3. April 1, 2012 at 21:42

    Well, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be represented, James.

  4. Moggsy
    April 2, 2012 at 06:42

    It is true I guess that different people see a work in different ways, and might like it or not like it. Take Picasso. He absolutely could draw and paint realistically.

    So what was he doing with the people who have noses on the sides of their heads and stuff? Was he trying to represent something about how we see unconventionally.

    Or was it some con? They were sure easier and quicker to paint like that and no one could say “Heyy. You got that bit wrong”

    Something deep, or just the emperor’s new clothes?

  5. April 2, 2012 at 13:25

    Looks like bad wallpaper to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *