Monday, October 02, 2006

Murder For Art?

Thanks to Bill Gusky for the heads up on this disgusting bit of information.

Again, I am embarrassed and ashamed of my profession.

I am not sure, but what is the difference between killing a shark for making sculpture or killing a cat to make an "art video"?

See why it's just like an art mafia? What exactly is going on here and why should people go to art galleries?


Timmer said...

It's not art to me and I would choose to not participate in any element related to the torture or killing of animals in the name of art. I couldn't even do a painting criticizing it. It's sick and people should be ashamed to even view such an exhibition let alone finance it!

Gardenia said...

Just as art elevates the higher side of man, it can also be perverted by the baser side of man. I can't believe this man got off on probation - next it will be children & women if he is not locked up for a good long time -

Red said...

Damien Hirst has always been a non-artist (for which read "tosser"), he just gets off on these crazy ideas (he also put a sheep in formaldehyde ages ago).

Personally, I find it repellent. I know relatively little about art, but I find the spectacle of death is no spectacle at all. Calling this art is the equivalent of calling bullfighting a sport. It's not a sport, it's bloody butchery!

* (asterisk) said...

Hirst is a cunt, and calling him a "British punk artist", or whatever shite it was, does a disservice not only to artists, Candy, but also to the British and anyone with a punk ethic. We all get the shitty end of the stick through association with arseholes like him.

Anonymous said...

the scary thing here, is that he recieved a sentence of 6 months and had been in custody 8. (if i am reading it correctly)
how long before he files for compensation for the two months he served over the odds?
he ought to swing for it. after all, if it had been a human, it would have been murder. does it lessen it because "it was just a cat"?
and as for hirst, what puzzles me, is people say he isn't a true artist because he himself doesn't do the work, he has a team of dozens producing it.
but wasn't that exactly what warhol did? all "his" films, ans silk screens were made by "staff£, and he only turned up to the unveiling!

Candy Minx said...

Cappy, it is a few hundred years that there are artists who have other people make their art. Now if it's collaborative, thats one thing...I mean film is collaborative, if you think about it. Yes, a writer director has all the story and scenes and camera shots...but ioften nowadays a director doesn't have to know how to use a camera...and make up and set design build a movie as much a director, and good directors always bow to their co-workers.

As for Hirst and Jeff Koons etc...they are like the end of the Renaisance...where those massive fetish paintings( I like them, but they aren't "reality" either) were made by many students and assistants. So Hiorst likely fancies himself like those dudes...

Tim, i agree the finacing is as disgusting as Hirsts murder of a shark. I always took Hirst you know so so...he is part of the "shock" of art...and perhaps as long as we have artists like Kinkade all pretty sucky...then we will have shock value art too...they are completely related, in my eyes.

Yes, Red, I know the sheep and cows too...for me, I wish he had make fake animals and really made them seem real. Isn't it so passe even the preservation of these animals in museums, it is somewhat looked down upon and not doen anymore. To kill a tiger and put it in a museum.I wish he had made an incredible replica of the shark. Or fuck, he didn't even catch the shark himself ha ha ha!!! I jsut lost any kind of interest in him after reading this article.

*, I agree, he is a cunt, a real one! What the insult is even for is Hirst. Yes, and punk is such an insult to use as a term...I would suspect that there might even be a higher ratio of vegetarians among punk and industrial musicians than other genres...I wonder?

diana, you are a genius! Yes yes, if art does bring out the best in the human spirit, then it might bring out the worst, it makes so much sense. Thanks for your wisdom on this matter, well said!

Anonymous said...

Again, I am embarrassed and ashamed of my profession.


...why should people go to art galleries?

Now, I'm not an artist... and I certainly am no fan of these... well... um... let's just say that I don't think of this sort of cruelty and stupidity as "art".

This is the thing, though...

Would anyone mistake David Lean for Ed Wood? They were both directors...

How about Tiny Tim with Yitzhak Perlman? Two musicians...

In my hobby, "Paranormal Investigator", I work with university groups and professors, hard scientists, as well as historians and folklorists... I have working relationships with the Spiritualist Church, various psychics and mediums, as well as good friendships and working relationships with Skeptics[sic] Canada...

Yet others who claim to have the same "hobby" or interest run about willy-nilly with cameras and equipment they don't know how to use or even why they are using them through cemeteries getting highly motivated when they see a photo of their breath vapour, cigarette smoke, or specs of dust and whatnot in a picture.

To me, this is a vast golf... we're out to educate and find answers... they're out for cheap thrills and fame.

Do the masses see the difference?

Actually, yes.

The "sheeple" think we're dull and boring and not "pretty" enough to grab their attention... we don't offer "thrills and chills" and tend to ignore us in favour of the other "ghost hunters" and whatnot.

The more interested and curious find us though... and they add to our efforts and support what we do.

Here in lies the tie in...

MOST "sheeple" (and "people" too,) know the difference between legitimate creation, expression, and art vs. cruelty and a blatant attempt to grab headlines by folks who think "Any publicity is GOOD publicity... and if I can revolt you, then I've accomplished my artistic task of illiciting an emotional response".

..and those who DON'T recognise this for what it is... never will.

Ergo: See the distinction in "Them" vs. "Yourself" and remember, most other folks do see it as well.

Last thing, DON'T help these yuckles with publicity... They WANT you to freak out and they WANT you to write about them... if they get people "talking", they gain fame and attention and therefore gain money. It's best to remove their spotlight and let them flail about in obscurity.

My $0.02 worth.

Candy Minx said...

Matthew, wonderful stuff, wow you got my blood pulsing there, fantastic.

And you're right by talking about them feeds into their shock value intentions. And in some funny way, talking about thomas Kinkade feeds into his fetishistic "spiritual" art work.

And...I do believe there is room for everybody...and part of the reason that the idea of shock value is effective and will keep occuring is because of artists liek Kinkade and there is room for it.

You make a fantastic point about peoples perceptions, and yes, people DO KNOW the difference between show offs, scam artists, con jobs, and valuable inspiring life affirming work.

By the way, my father was an aethieist and my mother was a spiritualist (actually, they probably still are) and I have many interesting memories of going to Spiritualists churches when I was a kid.

I tend to be inclusive and enjoy all the layers of art and books and movies...I think what bothers me most about this, isn't the actual art work. It's the ethics of going out and hiring someone to kill an animal for some art work. Especially in the face of so much wasteful living and damage to the see an ocean creature to be used in such a way, when we're actully worrying about running out of ocean life and food sources...just robs me the wrong way. It aactually has nothing to do with whether this art work is "valuable" or "historically correct" or a "con job". those issues don't really concern me about this work. I can think of lots of things that would open dialogue with viewing Hirsts work that could justify it's "collectability." I think there are other things going on here though...

thanks for such a great comment here Matthew..I shall keep thinking about what you have said.

Anonymous said...

i was getting a bit over confident with the subject matter as i had just read an article in from this weekends sunday times by paul morrisey, who directed "warhols" films, and it was him that said that andy never had the slightest thing to do with the films, but turn up at the premier, and subsequently the reviewers would say it was an andy warhol film to make it more "happening".
i will stick to commenting on topics that i actually understand from now on! unfortunately that excludes me from most of your posts, but i still read them with intrest!
i am learning by osmosis!!!!
bye! xx