"Art" theft

[easty]

So, 2 of Damien Hirst's "art" pieces were stolen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25330237

For a start, they're bloody rubbish, they're just different coloured dots on a white background. Second, he created the larger one in 2005 and its worth £15000, then 3 years later just decides to make basically the exact same thing but smaller, and it's worth £18000.

What idiots actually buy these things?

[Gatecrasher]

So, 2 of Damien Hirst's "art" pieces were stolen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25330237

For a start, they're bloody rubbish, they're just different coloured dots on a white background. Second, he created the larger one in 2005 and its worth £15000, then 3 years later just decides to make basically the exact same thing but smaller, and it's worth £18000.

What idiots actually buy these things?

:top marks

I wish I kept my paintings from primary school, I'd be a freakin millionaire.

[hibby rae]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/stolen-damien-hirst-artworks-easily-replaced-2013121181948

[Sir David Gray]

I saw the one with the multi-coloured dots on it and couldn't believe that it was considered to be art at all, let alone be worth £15,000!

You could get a 5 year old to draw something like that.

Anyone who pays £15,000 for that needs their head examined.

Some people have a very strange concept of what constitutes art.

[lapsedhibee]

For a start, they're bloody rubbish, they're just different coloured dots on a white background.

Worked for Seurat and the other Pointillists.

[HH81]

To be fair some of them are nice dots.

[Hibercelona]

Take the pish all you want.

But whos laughing more?

Us poor shlubs? Or the guy making a fortune for putting dots to a piece of paper? :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I can paint all the right dots, but not necessarily in the right order.

[Northernhibee]

I like his art, mostly because it annoys people. I like that.

Got to say Tracy Emin is even better for that, love what she does.

[Jonnyboy]

I look upon art as I look upon music. If I like it, I like it

I confess to a smile or two when told a friend of a friend declared "What's so special about a painting of some ugly bird?" Mona Lisa

Another gem from the same individual "We went into this room with lots of paintings on the ceiling" Sistine Chapel

:greengrin

[frazeHFC]

Some art is ridiculous, saw a painting online once that looked like someones spew after a night out and it was getting thousands.

This is cooler. The top and bottom lids are the exact same color although they don't look it. Put few fingers across the middle of it and you see. Also if you were to save the picture on photoshop it confirms it's the exact same colour.

https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1426728_720311984656482_803607110_n.jpg

[Sir David Gray]

Some art is ridiculous, saw a painting online once that looked like someones spew after a night out and it was getting thousands.

This is cooler. The top and bottom lids are the exact same color although they don't look it. Put few fingers across the middle of it and you see. Also if you were to save the picture on photoshop it confirms it's the exact same colour.

https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1426728_720311984656482_803607110_n.jpg

I'm putting two fingers across the middle and the bottom lid still looks lighter than the top one. :confused:

[frazeHFC]

I'm putting two fingers across the middle and the bottom lid still looks lighter than the top one. :confused:

Makes a difference for me. They are the exact same color though, loaded up photoshop to check and it confirmed it.


An illusion something to do with the shadows making it seem lighter, when in fact it's the same.

[Future17]

I'm putting two fingers across the middle and the bottom lid still looks lighter than the top one. :confused:

Will also depend on your perspective. Tried looking at it (with fingers across the middle) from a different (probably slightly higher) position. Or, if you're lazy, tilt your screen. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't understand how the likes of Hirst and Emin get shown at the Royal Academy and the likes of Jack Vettriano gets ignored. You've got to wonder what these people that study art for decades know about anything - let alone composition, colour and draughtsmanship.

I also don't understand why Hibs aren't in the Champions League - they look as good as any of the teams I've seen on telly.

[easty]

I like his art, mostly because it annoys people. I like that.

Got to say Tracy Emin is even better for that, love what she does.

It's not so much Damien Hirst, or his art, that annoys me. It's the fact that you or I could do exactly the same thing he does, like exactly the same, absolutley identical dots on an identical white background, but it wouldnt be classed as a good piece of art by the "art community" or the "experts". It wouldnt be worth £15.00, never mind £15,000.00.

Whats that all about?

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's not so much Damien Hirst, or his art, that annoys me. It's the fact that you or I could do exactly the same thing he does, like exactly the same, absolutley identical dots on an identical white background, but it wouldnt be classed as a good piece of art by the "art community" or the "experts". It wouldnt be worth £15.00, never mind £15,000.00.

Whats that all about?

Why does it bother you so much? I detect a wee bit of chippiness in your post.

[lyonhibs]

I have nothing against Damien Hirst, or any other creator/purveyor of modern "art". They make something/cut a cow in half, and some eejit with more money than sense pays £XX 000(000) for it.

Supply and demand, though I cannot say I would ever make up part of the demand for it, even if I did have a spare squillion burning a hole in my pocket.

But it's not "art" in my book. Art, whether painting, sculpture, music, whatever - for me - is meant to make one go "woah" or at least "bloody hell that takes a talent I don't have".

Constable, Monet that sort of thing. Most of Modern Art can away and take a long walk off a short pier. Not modern artists, or buyers of modern art, they are just players in the system, but the whole concept of modern art.

[Jack]

So, 2 of Damien Hirst's "art" pieces were stolen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25330237

For a start, they're bloody rubbish, they're just different coloured dots on a white background. Second, he created the larger one in 2005 and its worth £15000, then 3 years later just decides to make basically the exact same thing but smaller, and it's worth £18000.

What idiots actually buy these things?

Wasted on me I only have a black and white tablet!

[easty]

Why does it bother you so much? I detect a wee bit of chippiness in your post.

Everything bothers me. I'm a miserable ****. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Everything bothers me. I'm a miserable ****. :greengrin

Have you seen the price of butter?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I have nothing against Damien Hirst, or any other creator/purveyor of modern "art". They make something/cut a cow in half, and some eejit with more money than sense pays £XX 000(000) for it.

Supply and demand, though I cannot say I would ever make up part of the demand for it, even if I did have a spare squillion burning a hole in my pocket.

But it's not "art" in my book. Art, whether painting, sculpture, music, whatever - for me - is meant to make one go "woah" or at least "bloody hell that takes a talent I don't have".

Constable, Monet that sort of thing. Most of Modern Art can away and take a long walk off a short pier. Not modern artists, or buyers of modern art, they are just players in the system, but the whole concept of modern art.

I know what you mean - that's exactly what I did when I saw Hirsts stuff when it was at Belford Road. Not got a clue why it made me feel that way, but it definitely had me thinking.

I have no training in art, but I've watched a few shows on its history. When they explain how an artist like Mondrian - for example - worked, it makes a lot more sense of what you see.

I liked the tapestry that Grayson Perry did in Sunderland. I thought it was just clumsy composition till the works he was referencing were explained.

I'm not trying to tell people what they should like, just share my experience that learning a bit more about what's actually going on, can really increase your enjoyment.

I'm off back to Pseuds Corner now. :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

I'm just confused as to why you would put thirty thousand quids worth of artwork behind a door you can force open with one kick.

[lapsedhibee]

Art, whether painting, sculpture, music, whatever - for me - is meant to make one go "woah" or at least "bloody hell that takes a talent I don't have".

Constable, Monet that sort of thing. Most of Modern Art can away and take a long walk off a short pier. Not modern artists, or buyers of modern art, they are just players in the system, but the whole concept of modern art.

Weren't the same sort of objections voiced about Constable and Monet when they were first shown? :dunno:

[Jack]

A couple, attending an art exhibition, at the National Gallery, were staring at a portrait that had them totally confused.

The painting depicted three black men totally naked, sitting on a park bench.

Two of the men had black willy, but the one seated in
the middle had a pink willy.

The curator of the gallery realised the confused couple were having trouble with interpreting the painting and offered his assessment. He went on and on for nearly half an hour explaining how it depicted the sexual emasculation of African-Americans in a predominantly white, patriarchal society.

"In fact," he pointed out, "some serious critics believe that the pink willy also reflects the cultural and sociological oppression expressed by gay men in a contemporary society."

After the curator left, a Scotsman approached the couple and said, "Would you like to know what the painting is really about?"

"Now why would you claim to be more of an expert than the curator of the Gallery," asked the couple.

"Because I'm the guy who painted it," he replied.

"In fact, there is no African-American representation at all.

They're just three Fife coal-miners. The guy in the middle went home for lunch...

[Sir David Gray]

Will also depend on your perspective. Tried looking at it (with fingers across the middle) from a different (probably slightly higher) position. Or, if you're lazy, tilt your screen. :greengrin

Tried that too.

They still don't look like the same colour on my screen.

[lyonhibs]

Weren't the same sort of objections voiced about Constable and Monet when they were first shown? :dunno:

I don't know, maybe they were.

However, I don't think (or rather I hope not) that in 1,2,300 years the works of Damien Hirst et al will still be touring round the best art galleries of the world at that time.

Who knows though? I'll be brown bread clutching my "2031 Hibs Scottish Cup Winners" Google Glasses upload by then :greengrin

[Don Giovanni]

A couple, attending an art exhibition, at the National Gallery, were staring at a portrait that had them totally confused.

The painting depicted three black men totally naked, sitting on a park bench.

Two of the men had black willy, but the one seated in
the middle had a pink willy.

The curator of the gallery realised the confused couple were having trouble with interpreting the painting and offered his assessment. He went on and on for nearly half an hour explaining how it depicted the sexual emasculation of African-Americans in a predominantly white, patriarchal society.

"In fact," he pointed out, "some serious critics believe that the pink willy also reflects the cultural and sociological oppression expressed by gay men in a contemporary society."

After the curator left, a Scotsman approached the couple and said, "Would you like to know what the painting is really about?"

"Now why would you claim to be more of an expert than the curator of the Gallery," asked the couple.

"Because I'm the guy who painted it," he replied.

"In fact, there is no African-American representation at all.

They're just three Fife coal-miners. The guy in the middle went home for lunch...

:faf:

[Northernhibee]

It's not so much Damien Hirst, or his art, that annoys me. It's the fact that you or I could do exactly the same thing he does, like exactly the same, absolutley identical dots on an identical white background, but it wouldnt be classed as a good piece of art by the "art community" or the "experts". It wouldnt be worth £15.00, never mind £15,000.00.

Whats that all about?

That's the thing - we could have done it but we didn't.

I love how he has the balls to create something so simple and pass it off as something worth a five figure sum - incredible marketing and persuasion and quite honestly the fact it annoys people makes me like it very much.

My favourite piece of art of all time has to be Tracy Emin's unmade bed - for me art should provoke reactions and discussion and that managed to do that to quite extreme levels.

[.Sean.]

Is this not all a part of Derren Brown's latest ruse?

[easty]

That's the thing - we could have done it but we didn't.

I love how he has the balls to create something so simple and pass it off as something worth a five figure sum - incredible marketing and persuasion and quite honestly the fact it annoys people makes me like it very much.

My favourite piece of art of all time has to be Tracy Emin's unmade bed - for me art should provoke reactions and discussion and that managed to do that to quite extreme levels.

Nah I'm pretty sure loads of people had done dots on a white background before. They just weren't Damien "everything I do is art" Hirst so nobody would have given a ****.

His work is to art, what Simon Cowell is to music. He passes us Mr Blobby and Zig and Zag, then sits back smugly at the idiots who fill his pockets with money buying the drivel he's well aware that he's serving up.

Sort of reminds me of Nathan Barleys rise of the idiots.

[Off the bar]

Hirst doesn't even paint the dots himself, he has an army of assistants who paint them and he just signs them.
The only point of the spot paintings imo is for rich folk with no taste to buy 'art' that they can have on the wall which is instantly recognisable as a Hirst and which when people see it they think wow they've got a Hirst that must have cost a bomb.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Hirst doesn't even paint the dots himself, he has an army of assistants who paint them and he just signs them.
The only point of the spot paintings imo is for rich folk with no taste to buy 'art' that they can have on the wall which is instantly recognisable as a Hirst and which when people see it they think wow they've got a Hirst that must have cost a bomb.

Can't see any difference from what has always gone on. Rich patrons, who may or may not understand art, commission works from fashionable artists. It enhances their status to show off these works.

Personally, I like Hirst's stuff, it makes me smile - and some of it is quite insightful. But, I also believe that the best artists aren't necessarily the ones who are fashionable in their own lifetime. I think Van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime.

As for getting assistants and apprentices to do the work, then signing it, Michaelangelo and Rembrandt, did that too. If people really think its that easy to produce an acceptable copy of Hirsts work, why not give it a go? His stuff is fashionable, and people will pay money for good reproductions.

It isn't that easy. Good artists can take complex ideas, and make them look simple. IMO, it's the same in any part of the arts - to gain mass appeal, the idea has to resonate with as many people as possible. So, the most popular art tends to look easy - IMO.

It's a daft argument anyway - saying one painting is better than another is like saying orange is a better colour than purple.

[Northernhibee]

Nah I'm pretty sure loads of people had done dots on a white background before. They just weren't Damien "everything I do is art" Hirst so nobody would have given a ****.

His work is to art, what Simon Cowell is to music. He passes us Mr Blobby and Zig and Zag, then sits back smugly at the idiots who fill his pockets with money buying the drivel he's well aware that he's serving up.

Sort of reminds me of Nathan Barleys rise of the idiots.

But if it's sparking a debate of what counts as art or not and provokes a reaction from yourself as it has then surely that in itself is culturally relevant and a piece of art?

[Off the bar]

Can't see any difference from what has always gone on. Rich patrons, who may or may not understand art, commission works from fashionable artists. It enhances their status to show off these works.

Personally, I like Hirst's stuff, it makes me smile - and some of it is quite insightful. But, I also believe that the best artists aren't necessarily the ones who are fashionable in their own lifetime. I think Van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime.

As for getting assistants and apprentices to do the work, then signing it, Michaelangelo and Rembrandt, did that too. If people really think its that easy to produce an acceptable copy of Hirsts work, why not give it a go? His stuff is fashionable, and people will pay money for good reproductions.

It isn't that easy. Good artists can take complex ideas, and make them look simple. IMO, it's the same in any part of the arts - to gain mass appeal, the idea has to resonate with as many people as possible. So, the most popular art tends to look easy - IMO.

It's a daft argument anyway - saying one painting is better than another is like saying orange is a better colour than purple.

Would'nt argue with much of that except where Michaelangelo and Rembrandt had assistants helping with work they were largely doing boring colouring work and the masters would come in and add the finishing touches that the assistants were'nt able to add, with Hirsts spot paintings he decides on a colour palette and then has a factory line set-up in his studio of assistants pumping out the spot paintings.

I like alot of Hirsts work and went to see the retrospective at tate modern earlier in the year and standing in front of the butterfly paintings was an incredible experience, however I think the spot paintings are a bit of a con, I don't really see them as works of art in the same way as the butterfly paintings or the halfed cows. The spot paintings are just a comercial product pumped out because of a demand for them. I also think the purchase of one is only really done to leave the price tag on the wall of your expensive flat in the same way someone with a huge flashy car or watch is showing their wealth not their taste. Of course if you wanted to show your fabulous taste you should buy one of my prints!

I guess the great thing about Hirst is his ability to provoke a reaction and to provoke discussion about 'art'. The great thing about art is that it's subjective and entirely in the eye of the beholder, it's just to my eye having someone else painting spots then Hirst signing it does'nt make great art it just make Damien even richer.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Would'nt argue with much of that except where Michaelangelo and Rembrandt had assistants helping with work they were largely doing boring colouring work and the masters would come in and add the finishing touches that the assistants were'nt able to add, with Hirsts spot paintings he decides on a colour palette and then has a factory line set-up in his studio of assistants pumping out the spot paintings.

I like alot of Hirsts work and went to see the retrospective at tate modern earlier in the year and standing in front of the butterfly paintings was an incredible experience, however I think the spot paintings are a bit of a con, I don't really see them as works of art in the same way as the butterfly paintings or the halfed cows. The spot paintings are just a comercial product pumped out because of a demand for them. I also think the purchase of one is only really done to leave the price tag on the wall of your expensive flat in the same way someone with a huge flashy car or watch is showing their wealth not their taste. Of course if you wanted to show your fabulous taste you should buy one of my prints!

I guess the great thing about Hirst is his ability to provoke a reaction and to provoke discussion about 'art'. The great thing about art is that it's subjective and entirely in the eye of the beholder, it's just to my eye having someone else painting spots then Hirst signing it does'nt make great art it just make Damien even richer.

As someone said earlier - who's the fool? My view is that if people are that stupid or vain, extracting money from them is an art form in itself.

Don't know if you've seen his stuff about the pharmaceutical industry - I thought it was fantastic. He uses templates from drug comoany packaging - but the drug name is replaced by "bacon" or "sausages".

[Off the bar]

[/B]
As someone said earlier - who's the fool? My view is that if people are that stupid or vain, extracting money from them is an art form in itself.

Don't know if you've seen his stuff about the pharmaceutical industry - I thought it was fantastic. He uses templates from drug comoany packaging - but the drug name is replaced by "bacon" or "sausages".

they had the 'pharmacy' instalation at the tate modern http://www.damienhirst.com/pharmacy which left me a bit cold, although I think as part of a larger exhibition it loses it's context as a piece of art. If you had encountered it in a smaller gallery as a single show you might have walked in and though wtf is this why am I here is this art? But as part of the larger retrospective you're already in art mode and everyone goes in and strokes their chin and nods like they get it. I like the idea of challenging our faith in medicine and although I've not seen the bacon and sausage medicine I like that idea more than the pharmacy room, there is more of Hirsts wit in that.

If you do ever get the chance to see the paintings made from all the butterflies go and see it they are huge and absolutely stunning! They look like something between stained glass windows and a huge kaleidoscope, the colours are so vivid and as you get closer you can see all the individual butterflies making the pieces. Genuinly on eof the best pieces I've seen in the flesh!

http://www.damienhirst.com/exaltant

[Phil D. Rolls]

they had the 'pharmacy' instalation at the tate modern http://www.damienhirst.com/pharmacy which left me a bit cold, although I think as part of a larger exhibition it loses it's context as a piece of art. If you had encountered it in a smaller gallery as a single show you might have walked in and though wtf is this why am I here is this art? But as part of the larger retrospective you're already in art mode and everyone goes in and strokes their chin and nods like they get it. I like the idea of challenging our faith in medicine and although I've not seen the bacon and sausage medicine I like that idea more than the pharmacy room, there is more of Hirsts wit in that.

If you do ever get the chance to see the paintings made from all the butterflies go and see it they are huge and absolutely stunning! They look like something between stained glass windows and a huge kaleidoscope, the colours are so vivid and as you get closer you can see all the individual butterflies making the pieces. Genuinly on eof the best pieces I've seen in the flesh!

http://www.damienhirst.com/exaltant

It might just have been the way I was feeling that day - I work in a hospital, so mocking medicine seemed to hit the right note.

Butterflies sound good. :aok:

[wpj]

they had the 'pharmacy' instalation at the tate modern http://www.damienhirst.com/pharmacy which left me a bit cold, although I think as part of a larger exhibition it loses it's context as a piece of art. If you had encountered it in a smaller gallery as a single show you might have walked in and though wtf is this why am I here is this art? But as part of the larger retrospective you're already in art mode and everyone goes in and strokes their chin and nods like they get it. I like the idea of challenging our faith in medicine and although I've not seen the bacon and sausage medicine I like that idea more than the pharmacy room, there is more of Hirsts wit in that.

If you do ever get the chance to see the paintings made from all the butterflies go and see it they are huge and absolutely stunning! They look like something between stained glass windows and a huge kaleidoscope, the colours are so vivid and as you get closer you can see all the individual butterflies making the pieces. Genuinly on eof the best pieces I've seen in the flesh!

http://www.damienhirst.com/exaltant


Really enjoyed the Hirst exhibition at the Tate last year, there's as much fun to be gained from watching people's faces as from the art itself