[Closed] £33,000 worth?

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

They've issued a photofit of the villain;

[img] [/img]

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

Mash on it as always

An alterntvive view from the daily mash;

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

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

On the basis that this:

[img] [/img]

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

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.

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

Looks like a load of utter pollocks to me.

🙂

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

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

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

[img] [/img]

Supervised! Pmsl 🙂

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

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

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.

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

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...

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

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

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

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.

[i]I don't think people understood it was my opinion[/i] 😆

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

That looks like a screen grab from the Dots app.

[img] [/img]

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.

Police are looking to speak to this man:

[img] [/img]

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

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

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.

In what terms?

Ah, but what is Art.....

🙂

That's exactly the question.

[img] [/img]
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.

Ah, but what is Art....

I don't know but it rhymes with fart

Spot on, kayak23 🙂

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.

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'.

'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

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.

HHGTTG?

I know lots of his 'painters' they are mainly on nearish minimum wage. His new studio here in stroud is absolutely huge, it is a factory on an industrial estate. As I've mentioned before I nearly ran him over once, stepped out in front of my car. Had I have not been consentrating there would be no dots.

I like it, and it's going to look great on the wall of my living room.

No one think it's just a publicity stunt then?? You know just to bring back into the public frame the Hipnonimouse name "Hurst"

Me thinks it is just that.

🙄

It's art, and as this most of this thread. I don't get it.

Why spend so much money on, what somebody thinks is good, when there is so much that needs to be done.
Just a waste of money.
I think it shows the value of money.

[i]Had I have not been consentrating there would be no dots.[/i]

Imagine how much you would've got for your car as Hirst's final piece...

[i]You know just to bring back into the public frame the Hipnonimouse name "Hurst"[/i]

Yeah, he's been out of the headlines for a while.
[img] [/img]

Why spend so much money on, what somebody thinks is good, when there is so much that needs to be done.

nothing in this world has value other than that which we give it.
art is no different.
value is bestowed on all things.

^^ That Damien Hurst fellas good looking lad int he ^^

Why spend so much money on, what somebody thinks is good, when there is so much that needs to be done.

Feel free to sell your bikes and donate the money to the good cause of your choosing. 🙂

Coloured dots on some paper!

Dammit, I was doing this kind of stuff with stickers in infant school! If only I had realised it was valuable art and kept it!
You should have seen what I could do with black material and a load of fuzzy felt!

I really like the cows thing he did and the head thing with the diamonds and lots of other stuff he's put out and it's weird and interesting. It seems obvious to me that once you've "established" yourself as a credible artist in that world you can, as someone said, shit in a bucket and sell it for a fortune, in fact this guy did (well canned it anyway)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artis t's_Shit

It's up to people to decide what they want to spend their money on and it's also up to others to call them arseholes for spending it on pretty much nothing, that's the great beauty of freedom of expression. Art's a bit like faith you have to choose to accept something has worth despite the evidence, in another life Damian Hurst would have founded the Mormons.

[i]Damian Hurst[/i]

Geoff's brother?

Imagine how much you would've got for your car as Hirst's final piece...

Really Dez? You must be excellent at parties or to be trapped in a lift with.

[i]Dammit, I was doing this kind of stuff with stickers in infant school! If only I had realised it was valuable art and kept it![/i]

This is why you are not an artist 😉

Duchamp said "It is art because I say it is" - which is where a lot of the modern artists take their cue from. It's not the object is or how it was created, it's Art because the person placing it on the wall/floor/ceiling says it's art.

I came very close to buying one of Hirst's 'Spin Paintings' It was around £15k at the time, I think they are selling for £500,000 now.

I'm relived I didn't buy it in the end as my ex wife would have demanded half of it, so there was a silver lining. 😀

[img] [/img]

one of Hirst's 'Spin Paintings'

LOL. Sustrans have a contraption that produces those by pedaling a bike to spin the disk. Add a bit of poster paint and away you go Very popular with the kids 😀

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.

Now, if, rather than saying

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

you had said

[b]Abstract art can be utterly brilliant, but I think those Hirst works are not.[/b]

then you would have had a valid point. You didn't so you don't.

Semantics.

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

There you go.

Duchamp said "It is art because I say it is" - which is where a lot of the modern artists take their cue from. It's not the object is or how it was created, it's Art because the person placing it on the wall/floor/ceiling says it's art.

Duchamp was wrong:
Something created is art if anyone considers it to be so - the view of the person who created it is irrelevant. 😀

It's the only definition that works, btw. 🙂

Semantics.

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

There you go.

Then there are 33,000 reasons that Hirst pics is art.

[quote=tang said]As I've mentioned before I nearly ran him over once, stepped out in front of my car. Had I have [s]not[/s] been consentrating there would be no dots.

FTFY

[quote=johndoh said]Now, if, rather than saying

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

[b]I think abstract art can be utterly brilliant but those Hirst works are not.[/b]

...and on the subject of the "art", ISTM that the only value in those paintings is the bit where he signed them.

Ahh, but with the way you wrote it, the final part of your sentence was a statement not an opinion.
Now, if, rather than saying

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

Abstract art can be utterly brilliant, but I think those Hirst works are not.
then you would have had a valid point. You didn't so you don't.

That comes of someone taking a naive literalistic view of howsyourdad1 typographical artworks. His work is somewhat more subtle than that, and a study of his oeuvre would had led to a realisation that the meta-physic of the whole is essentially coming from a non deterministic viewpoint where the concept of fact is intrinsically facile.

I came very close to buying one of Hirst's 'Spin Paintings' It was around £15k at the time, I think they are selling for £500,000 now.

I'm relived I didn't buy it in the end as my ex wife would have demanded half of it, so there was a silver lining.

Ah, but if you sold it for £500k and her "professionally dealt with" you would still have £450k. Schoolboy error.

I scored quite highly on the "psycho test" BTW. I lack empathy apparently.

Maybe be the clue to the thief is within the picture.

Just join up the dots !

Wow.

I like them. But i do tend to lean toward geometric artworks.