Damien Hirst and The Diamond Skull
"For The Love of God"
Damien Hirst is a famous English artist known for contemporary art and according to Wikipedia 'he has been claimed to be the richest living artist to date’. With Hirst's creations mostly based on the theme of death he has created some of Britain's most famous works, e.g. The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living', which involved the dead bodies of animals, such as a 14-foot (4.3 m) tiger shark, sheep and a cow preserved in formaldehyde. This became the iconic work of British art in the 1990s.
His most recent work “For the Love of God” which was created in 2007 is a piece that according to Wikipedia was apparently inspired by his mother after she asked “For the love of God, what are you going to do next?”
The work is a platinum cast of a skull from an actual person that lived between 1720 and 1810. He was a 35 year old man from Europe. The skull is covered with 8,601 diamonds including a large pink diamond on the forehead and everything is covered except for the human teeth. This work took about 18 month for it to be fullly done and ready to be displayed.
This art work is now held at the White Cube gallery in London, this work costs fourteen million pounds which is $30.4m NZD to make, and was sold for fifty million pounds which is $108m NZD. This art work is the most expensive art ever made.
The ideas behind this work have a direct link to the Renaissance concepts of Mercantillism and the (increased) status of the artist. Mercantilism in the Renaissance era was wealth measured by the possession of precious metal e.g. gold and silver. Hirst’s latest work is the most expensive piece of contemporary art to date, which in return has elevated Hirst’s status along with his diamond-incrusted skull.
"If anyone but Hirst had made this curious object, we would be struck by its vulgarity.”
Richard Dorment from the daily telegraph
“Work of art? He is not an artist. It's all commercial value to him. Is this just another way for rich people to deal with their time and excess of money. If Paris Hilton or Ali G say they did it, instead of Hirst, would you call that art? or just another publicity stunt?”
Art News Blog
"It works much better than I imagined. I was slightly worried that we'd end up with an Ali G ring"
"I wouldn't mind if it happened to my skull after my death."
Damien Hirst
Damien Hirst
This piece works because of his status as an artist. Without Hirst' status of being a contemporary artist, he would not be able to make the artwork (the funding/benefits), it certainly wouldn't be as successful, and most people would definitely not view it the same way as other art in its genre.
A lot of people feel very strongly about it, either negatively or positively, but that's part of the job of an artist; to make people think or look at things in a different way. So, in the responses that it has provoked, it succeeds as a work of art.
Reference:
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459204/Damien-Hirst-unveils-jewels-crown-50m-diamond-studded-skull.html)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6712015.stm)
Im quite interested in the passage"If Paris Hilton or Ali G say they did it, instead of Hirst, would you call that art? or just another publicity stunt" This is an interesting though? Does Damien Hirst's reputation make this sort of sculpture recognisable as art, or is it just for fame or the value of the diamonds. Very thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteHi i am Arkawat hope you can remember me.
ReplyDeleteDamien work's "for the love of god" I think this work makes me think about when we dead we can't take anything to after life. I think he would like diamonds to represent beauty and wealth. Skull is representing nothingness or death even you are beauty or wealth in the time being but when you are dead. you are just a skull without diamonds. in the other hand maybe this work is no meaning it's just a value of the diamonds.
Garcia!
ReplyDeleteIt was fascinating to read the amount of response this piece had, especially the comment talking about Hirst's work as some kind of publicity stunt. The fact that the piece will need high security all it's life made me think of priority. For something that you couldn't use in reality e.g. a phone, wouldn't be worth my money (...if I had the dosh to buy it). But why would you want something that would only worry you about it's theft? I reckon it's silly and despite worth, I think it's pretty useless!
:)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally think the skull is an aesthetically attractive piece; quite dazzling and thought provoking...I get a 'rock n' roll glamour' feeling from the diamond skull image. I think Hirst's ability to provoke indvidual interpretation is quite remarkable and he doesn't seem hesitant to work outside commonly held beliefs in society. The status of Damien Hirst has not only projected this particular work to be critisized widely but the skull itself has become a very popular motif since the work came out. This can be seen in high fashion examples such as ed hardy design, Dior jewellery design and karen walker jewellery. Mercantilism is truly as alive today as it was during the Renaissance. It is also up to these artists with controversial reputations/ well known statuses to set these trends. People who have money will spend up large on 'fashionable' skull pieces that have been directly or indirectly inspired by Damien Hirst's diamond encrusted skull. Therefore Hirst has not only acquired a recogniseable status, but he has the power to challenge society and earn millions doing it due to his status.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think Hirst's status has risen due to his expensive and interesting piece of work. I like the diamond incrusted skull and think it is quite a beautiful piece. It makes some thing that is quite obscene to a elegant object that dazzles in the light. Since this project cost so much it has given Hirst a sense of power, revealing how wealthy he is to the public. His work and persona relates to the concept of mercantilism because the use of precious materials on the skull which would have been used for economic purposes during the renaissance period.
ReplyDelete"If Paris Hilton or Ali G say they did it, instead of Hirst, would you call that art? or just another publicity stunt" I think that this quote is very interesting, and aswell as thought provoking. I do personally like the diamond skull, it is a dazzling piece, although it doesn't stop me from wondering if Hirst is really just putting a good publicity stunt for everyone to see that attracts more attention and credit for him as the 'rock-star artist'? Hirst' persona is wild and liberated, his high standard status as an artist is just a big bonus for him, giving him the power and authority to do whatever he wants. Who knows what he'll do next? or whether he is really just putting up an act.
ReplyDeleteDamien Hurst Skull is a very interesting art piece. The work involved is very controversial. I believe there are many views that can be taken on the artist, however I think you need to focus more on the artwork produced rather than judging the character of the artist. However the use of non- fair trade diamonds is a very inhuman. i think the artist is a little narrow minded in his quest for peoples attention.
ReplyDelete