Damien Hirst, Black Sheep With Golden Horn
Peter Goddard slams Don Thompson’s book on Damien Hirst, Stuffed Shark at the Star, criticizing it for lack of depth, and identifying a largely inert genre of books “aiming to monetize our understanding of the market.” He takes a well deserved swipe at competitor Elizabeth Currid, for similarly providing little substance suggesting a general unwillingness to draw conclusions from the material presented as a problem. Of course, typically the reason writers fail to do this is because they don’t have a firm grasp on the material in the first place. Viewing art through the lens of capitalism and celebrity culture may make the profession easier to discuss, and accessible to lay person, but it distorts the field so significantly it’s becomes impossible to draw any conclusions about the art. Goddard says as much in his review;
Yet these books exist for a reason. And that’s to fill the vacuum left by the absence of credible critical discourse that might otherwise lead the reading public — and the potential art buying public — to understand the value of a work of art, without having to care if it’s worth as much as a Madison Ave. condo.
In another post-Hirst auction moment, Roberta Smith does what Roberta Smith does best, summarizing the hooplaw around the event, identifying the subject of Hirst’s art (the market), and the auction itself as one phenomenon of many signaling the disintegration of the art world. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to label a larger art market and Hirst’s Premium Art Line the beginning of the end, but she’s right to point out the combination of the two has resulted in a dumbed down client base.
{ 14 comments }
Please clarify. Are you saying that “a larger art market and a Hirst Premium Art Line”, meaning the market and the art sold in it, are responsible for dumbing down the buyer’s of said art? What changes in these two things, “a larger art market and a Hirst Premium Art Line”, would make for a smarter art buyer?
Please clarify. Are you saying that “a larger art market and a Hirst Premium Art Line”, meaning the market and the art sold in it, are responsible for dumbing down the buyer’s of said art? What changes in these two things, “a larger art market and a Hirst Premium Art Line”, would make for a smarter art buyer?
Actually I just edited the post a little because while I think expanding a client base in the way Hirst has almost inevitably means there will be an increased number of less-informed buyers, it’s still a little more precarious position than I want to take.
I would think the smartest Hirst art buyer is the one who stays away from the auctions. People need time to contemplate a work to sufficiently understand its aesthetic and artistic value. In the secondary market auctions make sense; the work’s already been evaluated. Primary market auctions are about removing that time from the buyer, and forcing a quick judgment (ideally influenced by frenzy). I’m no art market specialist, but that seems like a really bad way to collect new art.
Actually I just edited the post a little because while I think expanding a client base in the way Hirst has almost inevitably means there will be an increased number of less-informed buyers, it’s still a little more precarious position than I want to take.
I would think the smartest Hirst art buyer is the one who stays away from the auctions. People need time to contemplate a work to sufficiently understand its aesthetic and artistic value. In the secondary market auctions make sense; the work’s already been evaluated. Primary market auctions are about removing that time from the buyer, and forcing a quick judgment (ideally influenced by frenzy). I’m no art market specialist, but that seems like a really bad way to collect new art.
It sounds like you (and certain critics) really don’t think there’s such a thing as a smart Hirst buyer, only a rich one.
What do Jeff Koons’ floating basketballs think of Hirst’s sheep? Or Bickerton’s encapsulated trash?
Sometimes it seems like the subject of these works–perversely preserved, exoticized bibelots–are meant to mirror the rarified, hermetically-sealed, vacuous lifestyles of the insanely wealthy folk who collect them.
It’s weird, cynical, ironic meta-sustenance: like aliens selling alien-food to aliens.
Except not all rich people are vapid and out of touch, and not all of Hirst’s work is depth-less. Rather, I’d argue that Hirst, his work, and his patrons are in happy lock-step with one another, and always have been. We’re just the poor saps left to theorize on the inner-workings of a profoundly closed-circuit.
It sounds like you (and certain critics) really don’t think there’s such a thing as a smart Hirst buyer, only a rich one.
What do Jeff Koons’ floating basketballs think of Hirst’s sheep? Or Bickerton’s encapsulated trash?
Sometimes it seems like the subject of these works–perversely preserved, exoticized bibelots–are meant to mirror the rarified, hermetically-sealed, vacuous lifestyles of the insanely wealthy folk who collect them.
It’s weird, cynical, ironic meta-sustenance: like aliens selling alien-food to aliens.
Except not all rich people are vapid and out of touch, and not all of Hirst’s work is depth-less. Rather, I’d argue that Hirst, his work, and his patrons are in happy lock-step with one another, and always have been. We’re just the poor saps left to theorize on the inner-workings of a profoundly closed-circuit.
To be clear: I think there’s a such thing as smart Hirst collector, and I don’t think all of Hirst’s work is depth-less (though I’m not a fan of the majority of the work I’ve seen in reproduction at the recent Sotheby’s sale). When I was talking about staying away from “the auctions” I really meant “auction”, as in the one that just past. With that kind of frenzy, I don’t know how any one could possibly evaluate the worth of the art accurately.
To be clear: I think there’s a such thing as smart Hirst collector, and I don’t think all of Hirst’s work is depth-less (though I’m not a fan of the majority of the work I’ve seen in reproduction at the recent Sotheby’s sale). When I was talking about staying away from “the auctions” I really meant “auction”, as in the one that just past. With that kind of frenzy, I don’t know how any one could possibly evaluate the worth of the art accurately.
Let’s evaluate the work, then! It feels like people have been bemoaning the loss of an effective critical arts culture for some time (caused in part by the very market-centric paradigm shift discussed here)–yet we continue to foreground the market and put the work on the backburner.
Context is important, but we’re studying the air more than the artwork. It’s a paranoid, inaccurate method. Interesting, but by definition indirect, and almost guaranteed to miss its mark.
Now I’m wondering what Beuys’ golden-hare would say about the golden-horned sheep–both share a sphinx-like muteness, mythic/biblical/parabolist symbolism, and a radical approach to didacticism (not to mention taxidermy). What are we supposed to learn from this thing?
Let’s evaluate the work, then! It feels like people have been bemoaning the loss of an effective critical arts culture for some time (caused in part by the very market-centric paradigm shift discussed here)–yet we continue to foreground the market and put the work on the backburner.
Context is important, but we’re studying the air more than the artwork. It’s a paranoid, inaccurate method. Interesting, but by definition indirect, and almost guaranteed to miss its mark.
Now I’m wondering what Beuys’ golden-hare would say about the golden-horned sheep–both share a sphinx-like muteness, mythic/biblical/parabolist symbolism, and a radical approach to didacticism (not to mention taxidermy). What are we supposed to learn from this thing?
And by the way, the best work ever by the Stuckists, though not really theirs, was that stuffed shark they had in their gallery window. Probably stolen from a local aquarium.
And by the way, the best work ever by the Stuckists, though not really theirs, was that stuffed shark they had in their gallery window. Probably stolen from a local aquarium.
I think Julian Stallabrass might object to any idea of a vaccuum existing due to an “absence of credible critical discourse” on the subject.
I think Julian Stallabrass might object to any idea of a vaccuum existing due to an “absence of credible critical discourse” on the subject.
Comments on this entry are closed.