?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
retc
Sep. 16th, 2008 03:24 pm (UTC)
"The original shark was disintegrating at the time of the sale"?
mrsdanvers63
Sep. 26th, 2008 08:41 pm (UTC)
I find Hirst's ideas vary from the interesting to the "how stupid do you think we are?".

I have a question - "if a fundamental part of a piece of art disintegrates is it the same piece of art or just a copy and does it's value change?"

There's been some interesting debate about Hirst's paintings, as most of them are done by someone who is better at the practicalities of art than he is. ( http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art-and-architecture/news/a-damien-hirst-original-929872.html )

Just as he hasn't the skill to produce a pickled shark he hasn't the skill to do dots properly, it seems. It's well known that the "Old Masters" had others to fill in the outlines ( think painting by numbers), but how near are we getting to the "Emperor's New Clothes"?
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )