Con Art ? - "Damien Hirsts are the sub-prime of the art world"

[mongers]

Julian Spalding: Damien Hirsts are the sub-prime of the art world

If you are unfortunate enough to have acquired any Hirsts, sell them before they become worthless

Tuesday 27 March 2012

Some people argue that Damien Hirst is a great artist. Some say he is an execrable artist, and others put him somewhere more boring in between. They are all missing the point. Damien Hirst isn't an artist. His works may draw huge crowds when they go on show in a five-month-long blockbuster retrospective at Tate Modern next week. But they have no artistic content and are worthless as works of art. They are, therefore, worthless financially.

If you want a pickled shark in a tank, you don't have to pay the $12m Steve Cohen paid for the one selected by Hirst. You only pay that much for the artistic content that Hirst has added to it. If there isn't any, what are you buying? You could argue that you are buying an investment. But that depends on people in the future valuing the artistic content in your shark even more highly than you do. If they don't, what are you left with? A shark in a tank, which is what you bought.

I've coined the term Con Art, short for contemporary conceptual art and for art that cons people. Contemporary conceptual art? All art is a concept in the sense that it's the product of thought. But all art must also be a creation. You have to be able to see art; it can't just be a projected thought. That's how the emperor got dressed; his expensive robes were all in the minds of people around him, when in reality he had nothing on.

It's often been proposed, seriously, that Damien Hirst is a greater artist than Michelangelo because he had the idea for a shark in a tank whereas Michelangelo didn't have the idea for his David. What separates Michelangelo from Damien Hirst is that Michelangelo was an artist and Damien Hirst isn't. Michelangelo's extremely subtle, profoundly moving ideas were manifest in what he made; they weren't pretentious profanities tossed off the top of his head.

......

Rest of the opinion here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/julian-spalding-damien-hirsts-are-the-subprime-of-the-art-world-7586386.html

Channel four news have an interview with him and a discussion with an art critic here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/270312/clipid/270312_4ON_art_2_27

[Neil]

If you're buying art that isn't a sculpture or painting of a famous dead white person or a landscape, you're wasting your money anyways and should be taxed at 100%.

[garbon]

Sounds like a lame argument.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sounds like a lame argument.

Yes.
If the original of Duchamp's "Fountain" were unearthed, it would command a fortune.
Now maybe Hirst's work won't stand the test of time but that can't be predicted either way now.

[Sheilbh]

Now maybe Hirst's work won't stand the test of time but that can't be predicted either way now.

I doubt much of it will.  As the art critic who was responding to this guy said he's not got many young artist who are influenced by him.  Grayson Perry said, half-jokingly, that the most interesting thing about Hirst are his accounts.  I don't think that's true of other YBAs like Tracy Emin who's superb.

But the idea that because something's worthless artistically it'll be worthless art is nonsense as Jack Vettriano's career proves.

[Scipio]

Now maybe Hirst's work won't stand the test of time but that can't be predicted either way now.

I doubt much of it will.  As the art critic who was responding to this guy said he's not got many young artist who are influenced by him.  Grayson Perry said, half-jokingly, that the most interesting thing about Hirst are his accounts.  I don't think that's true of other YBAs like Tracy Emin who's superb.

But the idea that because something's worthless artistically it'll be worthless art is nonsense as Jack Vettriano's career proves.

Or Thomas Kincaid's career.