£33,000 worth?

Overview Chat Bike Members News Women

This topic has 70 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by steveoath.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 71 total)

1 2 →

£33,000 worth?
core
Full Member

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25330237

Now, am I missing something, not seeing a hidden picture in the dots, or just dull?

Those ‘pieces’ are just some coloured dots. Why on ever would you want them in a gallery, consider them any good or give them any value?

Posted 10 years ago

jam-bo
Full Member

i wouldn’t buy one but just because you don’t like it or don’t get it, it doesn’t make it worthless.

Posted 10 years ago

wwaswas
Full Member

They’ve issued a photofit of the villain;

Posted 10 years ago

Fresh Goods Friday 700 - The censored edition

rwc03
Free Member

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/stolen-damien-hirst-artworks-easily-replaced-2013121181948

Mash on it as always

Posted 10 years ago

scruff9252
Full Member

An alterntvive view from the daily mash;

Stolen Damien Hirst artworks ‘easily replaced’

Posted 10 years ago

shermer75
Free Member

This thread is turning out to be a lot funnier than I thought it would be

Posted 10 years ago

Nobby
Full Member

On the basis that this:

fetched £75,000,000 then I’d say they were cheap.

Posted 10 years ago

clubber
Free Member

I think your bike’s rubbish while you obviously think you’ve made some good choices and like it.

Things are worth what people are willing to pay. Some people find enough meaning in those dots to make it worth £33k to them. Or they think that others will and that it’s a shrewd financial investment.

Posted 10 years ago

CaptainFlashheart
Free Member

fetched £75,000,000 then I’d say they were cheap.

Looks like a load of utter pollocks to me.

🙂

Posted 10 years ago

Nobby
Full Member

Yes CFH, the most expensive load of pollock’s ever 🙂

Posted 10 years ago

thegreatape
Free Member

IIRC Hirst didn’t even paint them, he just ‘supervised’ the lass that did.

Posted 10 years ago

DezB
Free Member

That Picasso geezer. Rubbish. Can’t even get the nose in the right place.

Posted 10 years ago

tuffty
Free Member

Supervised! Pmsl 🙂

Posted 10 years ago

clubber
Free Member

Mozart, etc. Conmen because they didn’t play in the orchestra 😉

Posted 10 years ago

thegreatape
Free Member

Well I don’t know what you’d call it in the art world, but it was something like that 🙂

Posted 10 years ago

lemonysam
Free Member

Well I don’t know what you’d call it in the art world, but it was something like that

They were studio assistants. It’s something that’s gone on for as long as there have been professional artists.

Posted 10 years ago

howsyourdad1
Free Member

I think abstract art can be utterly brilliant, but those Hirst works are not.

Posted 10 years ago

funkrodent
Full Member

thegreatape – Member
IIRC Hirst didn’t even paint them, he just ‘supervised’ the lass that did

Not sure about these paintings, but it’s true that a number of Hirst’s major sculptures were designed by him and made by others. Hymn springs to mind, but certainly there are others.

The argument was that he isn’t a sculptor so needs others to realise his vision. Sounds like a bit of a con to me. Picasso continually re-invented himself through learning new disciplines and to my knowledge he produced all his own work.

That said a lot of the renaissance masters ran big studios and apparently a lot of their paintings were done (at least partially) by their students…

Posted 10 years ago

johndoh
Free Member

I think abstract art can be utterly brilliant, but in your opinion those Hirst works are not.

Posted 10 years ago

DezB
Free Member

Picasso continually re-invented himself through learning new disciplines and to my knowledge he produced all his own work.

So all Damien Hirst does is get other people to paint dots for him?

Posted 10 years ago

howsyourdad1
Free Member

Thanks for that johndoh, I didn’t realise people might not understand it was my opinion.Thanks for making it clear. The bold type really brings that home. I guess me putting “I think” at the start didn’t really help.

Posted 10 years ago

DezB
Free Member

I don’t think people understood it was my opinion 😆

Posted 10 years ago

faz083
Free Member

Wonder if it’s anything to do with that Derren Brown show on Friday

Posted 10 years ago

richpips
Free Member

That looks like a screen grab from the Dots app.

Posted 10 years ago

core
Full Member

I didn’t say I don’t like it, and I don’t know if there’s anything to get, is there? (Genuine question)

I’m not a hugely imaginative or creative person, but do recognise the quality of some artwork, and the talent needed to produce it.

Some ‘art’ on the other hand wouldn’t appear to require very little artistic talent. Unless something like this Hirst work has a hidden message or a picture within a picture etc then it it just a load of geometric shapes to me, and where’s the value in that, anyone could have produced it, it didn’t take a ‘special mind’.

I find art on the whole a totally pretentious and snobby afair, used mainly as a tool to boost ego’s and belittle those who don’t get it.

I just don’t get chucking a load of paint on a canvass, or a load of shapes, then making a statement about it representing something or other, or being “whatever you want it to be” etc.

Posted 10 years ago

GrahamS
Full Member

Police are looking to speak to this man:

Posted 10 years ago

jam-bo
Full Member

to be honest, damien hirst could shit in a bucket and someone would probably pay £33,000 for it.

Posted 10 years ago

lemonysam
Free Member

I just don’t get chucking a load of paint on a canvass, or a load of shapes, then making a statement about it representing something or other, or being “whatever you want it to be” etc.

I can see that it’s something you’ve really tried to engage with.

Posted 10 years ago

molgrips
Free Member

Now, am I missing something

Yes.

And BTW the value of a piece of art has nothing to do with the skill taken to create it.

Posted 10 years ago

core
Full Member

In what terms?

Posted 10 years ago

howsyourdad1
Free Member

Ah, but what is Art…..

🙂

Posted 10 years ago

molgrips
Free Member

That’s exactly the question.

Posted 10 years ago

kayak23
Full Member

I agree with some of the things that have just been said, but the metaphorical resonance of the gesture contextualize the accessibility of the work.

Although I am not a painter, I think that the internal dynamic of the figurative-narrative line-space matrix contextualize the substructure of critical thinking.

With regard to the issue of content, the metaphorical resonance of the spatial relationships visually and conceptually activates the larger carcass.

Posted 10 years ago

jon1973
Free Member

Ah, but what is Art….

I don’t know but it rhymes with fart

Posted 10 years ago

DezB
Free Member

Spot on, kayak23 🙂

Posted 10 years ago

CaptainFlashheart
Free Member

I agree with some of the things that have just been said, but the metaphorical resonance of the gesture contextualize the accessibility of the work.

Although I am not a painter, I think that the internal dynamic of the figurative-narrative line-space matrix contextualize the substructure of critical thinking.

With regard to the issue of content, the metaphorical resonance of the spatial relationships visually and conceptually activates the larger carcass.

That post is a paradigm shift in the meta-symbiosis of this forum. Well done.

Posted 10 years ago

howsyourdad1
Free Member

I agree with some of the things that have just been said, but the metaphorical resonance of the gesture contextualize the accessibility of the work.

Although I am not a painter, I think that the internal dynamic of the figurative-narrative line-space matrix contextualize the substructure of critical thinking.

With regard to the issue of content, the metaphorical resonance of the spatial relationships visually and conceptually activates the larger carcass

Fraud. You didn’t use the word ‘juxtapose’.

Posted 10 years ago

jam-bo
Full Member

‘I liked it, Oh yes, I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was particularly effective, Oh, and err.. interesting rythmic devices which seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the Vogonity of the poets compassionate soul, which stresses through the verse structure to sublimate this, and transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other. And one is left with a profound and visual insight into whatever the poem was about.

the resemblance is uncanny

Posted 10 years ago

lemonysam
Free Member

I agree with some of the things that have just been said, but the metaphorical resonance of the gesture contextualize the accessibility of the work.
Although I am not a painter, I think that the internal dynamic of the figurative-narrative line-space matrix contextualize the substructure of critical thinking.

With regard to the issue of content, the metaphorical resonance of the spatial relationships visually and conceptually activates the larger carcass

Hmmm… needs more unnecessary nouning but the spacial metaphors are delightfully opaque. I’m sold.

Posted 10 years ago

howsyourdad1
Free Member

HHGTTG?

Posted 10 years ago