[Closed] £33,000 worth?

[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.