Damien Hirst, a British sculptor, is in the news today after offering his creation pictured above, a platinum skull set with 8,601 diamonds and titled "For the Love of God", up for sale with a price tag of nearly 100 million dollars. If sold, this would be the priciest new piece of art in history. Each of the diamonds has a certificate asserting that it is "ethically sourced" (by the way, have you seen Blood Diamond?), but, like the article states "[t]he concept of 'ethically sourced' diamonds - or oil or weapons or even imported T-shirts - may sound a tad far-fetched".
But beyond the materials, what does the price tag say about the state of art?
Is it beautiful? Compared to what? Like the Crown Jewels, it is what it is: a highly skilled exercise in extravagance...
What happened to art that portrays beauty, art that carries a political, social or human message, art that is not gimmicky? Certainly it still exists, but all too often it is seemingly overlooked by a market obsessed by what's "in," what's trendy, what everyone is chasing.
Will the bubble burst? If it does, of course, it will be no fault of the artists; it will be because stock markets take a dive and collectors retrench. But it may do art itself no harm. In fact, Cohen [a British art critic], for one, is looking forward to the day Hirst takes a fall.
"Hirst isn't criticizing the excess, not even ironically," he wrote in London's Evening Standard, "but rolling in it and loving it. The sooner he goes out of fashion, the better."
What do you think? Have we lost our love of beauty and supplanted it with a love of the trendy? What is the message of a piece like this? Is there a message?
1 comments:
To me, at face value, it tries makes death attractive, which, of course, is false. I personally think any art that portrays something that is not truth is, by definition, bad art.
However, if there is something good about it, I guess I don't see it.
Post a Comment