outfitter
Well-known
Under the French legal concept of droit morale many a widow has consigned genuine works to the flames (or denied authenticity) - they certainly have a motive as the more paintings destroyed the more valuable the estate's holdings become. I was told by the author of a catalogue raisonné of a famous painter that he saw the widow consign a painting to the fire and then say she wasn't too sure about "that one". The art expert mentioned that the painter's assistant remembered him painting the destroyed painting.
I represented artists, galleries and a major international auction house and all I can say is that the commerce in art is not for the faint of heart.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm sure you're right. Nor, it seems, is discussing it!
Not sure, though, that droite morale has a lot to do with it. Surely supply and demand? You know more than I but I'm not seeing the connexion if the estate owns the art. I'm probably just misunderstanding you.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
I think people will remember the shark. It's pretty impressive.
I read somewhere that the formaldehyde in a lot of Damien Hirst’s stuff is getting quite cloudy now so they are getting difficult to see
Sparrow
Veteran
Maybe that explains why Charles Saatchi's collection went up in smoke …
Andy Kibber
Well-known
I read that too. The shark is falling apart!
parsec1
parsec1
Take to the water and you will find the real ones much much more impressive. They have been around for 60 million years. Damian Hirst will be lucky to be remembered in 60.I think people will remember the shark. It's pretty impressive.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
parsec1
parsec1
I suppose you could say something similar about landscape painting.
Not sure about that. In 60 million years the landscape has changed quite considerably ,sharks haven't.
From a personal point of view dirty unmade beds and sharks in tanks are only publicity grabbing drivel.
Unfortunately in the current culture this is perceived as 'art' by those who should know better but are afraid to speak out for fear of being ostracized by the 'hip' trendy 'cool' 'on scene' etc etc..ad nausem.
As old Abe said "you can fool some of the people all the time...etc etc..
I know and have friends who paint or sculpture who's work I would have in my home.
Would you want to live with a decaying shark or Tracy Emins old bed in yours ?
Sparrow
Veteran
Bit of a simplistic Daily Mail critique that don't you think? have you seen any of her work? or is you views formed by the commentary on the more sensational stuff, Tracey Emin Venice Biennial exhibition was pretty impressive I thought.
parsec1
parsec1
Definitely not a Daily Mail reader although I used to take pictures for them and the Daily Mirror. Staff on Express Newspapers (Sunday/Daily)
Conract on Times and Sunday Times, Indy and many other publications worldwide ,NPA media card holder (sponsored by News International).
Different strokes for different folks.
Didn't see her Venice exhibition so I could not comment. Will go to Arles this year but even the esteemed Roger reckons at least half of the exhibits are not worth seeing.
I guess it all depends on ones point of view(sorry for the pun) and the ability to distinguish the smelly and the shiny and the hype from the facts.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Not my point, but sure.
As an aside, I believe Hiroshi Sugimoto said that he took pictures of ocean horizons because reckons it's the only thing on earth that would have appeared exactly the same to our ancient predecessors. I thought that was as good a reason as any to take a photograph.
Whether or not I'd want a piece of art in my home isn't my measure of its worth.
You don't like Hirst et al. You think they perpetrated a scam on the art world and curators, critics, etc. are sheep so they didn't object. That's fine. You're far from alone in your position.
I happen to think that a pickled shark in a museum is kind of amazing. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Last edited:
parsec1
parsec1
Prefer a pickled onion with my fish but you are right we should agree to disagree.
As far as Hiroshi's pictures of horizons ,well I prefer Larry Burrows pictures from Vietnam The first photographer to use colour in that warzone.
Such is life !
Flickr = Peter 32.
Regards
P
Roger Hicks
Veteran
REALLY looking forward to seeing you.
Of course the 50% of what's not worth seeing will be a different 50% for each visitor, though I suspect there will be some overlap at the top and bottom percentiles.
Cheers,
R.
parsec1
parsec1
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Ahh yes, Chris Burden. To me he symbolizes the art world's rejection of our culture. First of all, this is a performance, theater, not visual art. Second, this has nothing do do with portraying our culture/history/politics/religion/life. For the first 30,000 years of art, that was art's purpose. What exactly is the purpose of garbage like this?
Paul T.
Veteran
this is a very tired argument, which was first aired centuries ago. Constable was good, but his time is past. Sensation, with Hirst's and other works, was one of the most popular exhibitions of recent times, so it's hardly a cabal of critics conspiring to construct a hype.
I think Hirst is pretty much over now, and his new works apparently aren't selling, but people will still be discussing that shark in a tank, decades from today.
If Hirst doesn't meet your criteria for good art of today, tell us what does. Otherwise this is a pointless discussion.
I wouldn't profess to know Chris, but I guess it was just one of those things in which the person calling themselves an artist was thinking he was pushing the boundaries of what art can be. I'm a bit more traditional than this when it comes to art.
Paul T.
Veteran
Don't agree. He's a fascinating guy. And he inspired a damn good song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf3fb_gW6DU
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I know a lot of fascinating guys, it doesn't make them a visual artist. Art today has virtually no credibility outside of the narrowly defined academic world that has built itself around the 'art world' and that makes me sad. The average person where I live has never seen a work of art created in their lifetimes. The only art they're familiar with are things from 100+ years ago (eg. Monet, Van Gogh, Michelangelo, DaVinci, etc) because as far as the vast majority of the people in the USA are concerned, art is dead. Its a joke now. You can screech all you want about pushing boundaries et al, but it wasn't until the late 20th century that most people became anti-art. The reason is that art became anti-real people living in real countries with real cultures.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.