 |  |
Art meets science in Damien Hirst's new show at Gagosian in New York, which I haven't seen. The image on the left is the original photo, the right is Hirst's painting (painted by a roster of assistants with some input from Hirst himself.)
A press release at Science Photo Library says: "The paintings signal a new direction in [Hirst's] work - that of photorealism. Photorealism was an invention of the 1960s. Take a photograph, and copy it meticulously, until your painting and the photograph are indistinguishable. From a distance Hirst's paintings look like photographs. But close up you can see that they have all been executed using oil paint and brushes." ...and... "We do occasionally licence our images to artists who want to use them for source material. But until you see the finished artwork, we never know how close to the original photograph it will be. The look and feel of the Hirst's oil paintings is different from the original photographs, although the image itself is almost facsimile reproduction."
Michael Kimmelman said in NY Times (available here) "[Hirst's paintings] arrive amid a booming youth market, as shallow and money-obsessed as Mr. Hirst, and just as enamored of fashion, but with a higher premium placed on solo handicraft and earnestness or at least on the appearance of it."
David Cohen at artcritical.com says: "If you want to see Mr. Hirst’s careeer in terms of iconoclasm, you could say that by producing 31 dutiful, soporific canvases he has delivered a fatal overdose to painting more decisive than the assassination attempt of his pickled shark. But Mr. Hirst isn’t really an iconoclast. For all his razzmatazz and buffoonery, he is in deadly earnest about the power of images." |
I saw the show, the paintings are pretty weak overall, hired or not. I have to run but I took a photo of one I liked and will post it soon.
I feel a grudging admiration for art from a hired hand. Economic and foolproof. (so hard to find good help these days!)
I had quite the moment of revulsion when I discovered these were bits of brain and not pastry confections. The gloves gave it away, and I looked up the site and found the word "pathology."
I saw the show and I agree with Tom, the paintings were badly done. Art school B- painting at best.
they are sposed to be b- to c+ drivel paintings on purpose (as per david cohen), right? and in response to that triumph of painting thing? and transgressive like malcolm morley (and marilyn minter) again, right? it seems like a big set up.
The quality level/vibe is much like the paintings Ludwig Schwarz (also an artist in Germany who's name I'm blanking on) did where they hired a company in China that will render any photo as a photorealistic oil. They're actually slightly more inept, hand-wise, than those guys'. The photos chosen were Hirst's typical death from life, life from death themes. Yes, he's having us on, but also heading down the painting-on-canvas trail that many conceptualists follow to stay market-viable. Usually that's when they--sorry for the pun in Hirst's case--"jump the shark."
But of course Hirst has been producing paintings all along, clever bastard. The dots, which are kind of good, and the Walter Robinson-derivative spin paintings. He can still jump the shark with these, though.
Also, not all the paintings are worse than the Chinese companies'. Some of the morgue interiors in the first room seemed pretty tight but the rendering got sloppier and sloppier as you walked through the show.
And what is it with Kimmelman and his "moral scold" persona? Cheese Louise.
Uh, anyone have a URL for these Chinese companies that will paint for you? Any idea what something like that might cost? Just wondering....although I suppose those people selling pictures of
movie stars on the sidewalk could probably do that sort of thing...
(also, speaking of Damien's shark, jummped or otherwise, did any see that article about how it's kinda falling to bits in its tank?)
I recognized the brain sections, and thought ... Art meats science ...
hah. good one Mark!
|
A press release at Science Photo Library says: "The paintings signal a new direction in [Hirst's] work - that of photorealism. Photorealism was an invention of the 1960s. Take a photograph, and copy it meticulously, until your painting and the photograph are indistinguishable. From a distance Hirst's paintings look like photographs. But close up you can see that they have all been executed using oil paint and brushes." ...and... "We do occasionally licence our images to artists who want to use them for source material. But until you see the finished artwork, we never know how close to the original photograph it will be. The look and feel of the Hirst's oil paintings is different from the original photographs, although the image itself is almost facsimile reproduction."
Michael Kimmelman said in NY Times (available here) "[Hirst's paintings] arrive amid a booming youth market, as shallow and money-obsessed as Mr. Hirst, and just as enamored of fashion, but with a higher premium placed on solo handicraft and earnestness or at least on the appearance of it."
David Cohen at artcritical.com says: "If you want to see Mr. Hirst’s careeer in terms of iconoclasm, you could say that by producing 31 dutiful, soporific canvases he has delivered a fatal overdose to painting more decisive than the assassination attempt of his pickled shark. But Mr. Hirst isn’t really an iconoclast. For all his razzmatazz and buffoonery, he is in deadly earnest about the power of images."
- sally mckay 4-30-2005 5:49 pm
I saw the show, the paintings are pretty weak overall, hired or not. I have to run but I took a photo of one I liked and will post it soon.
- tom moody 4-30-2005 9:24 pm
I feel a grudging admiration for art from a hired hand. Economic and foolproof. (so hard to find good help these days!)
- L.M. 5-01-2005 2:34 am
I had quite the moment of revulsion when I discovered these were bits of brain and not pastry confections. The gloves gave it away, and I looked up the site and found the word "pathology."
- M.Jean 5-01-2005 4:17 am
I saw the show and I agree with Tom, the paintings were badly done. Art school B- painting at best.
- joester 5-02-2005 2:57 am
they are sposed to be b- to c+ drivel paintings on purpose (as per david cohen), right? and in response to that triumph of painting thing? and transgressive like malcolm morley (and marilyn minter) again, right? it seems like a big set up.
- bill 5-02-2005 4:19 am
The quality level/vibe is much like the paintings Ludwig Schwarz (also an artist in Germany who's name I'm blanking on) did where they hired a company in China that will render any photo as a photorealistic oil. They're actually slightly more inept, hand-wise, than those guys'. The photos chosen were Hirst's typical death from life, life from death themes. Yes, he's having us on, but also heading down the painting-on-canvas trail that many conceptualists follow to stay market-viable. Usually that's when they--sorry for the pun in Hirst's case--"jump the shark."
- tom moody 5-02-2005 4:44 am
But of course Hirst has been producing paintings all along, clever bastard. The dots, which are kind of good, and the Walter Robinson-derivative spin paintings. He can still jump the shark with these, though.
- tom moody 5-02-2005 4:57 am
Also, not all the paintings are worse than the Chinese companies'. Some of the morgue interiors in the first room seemed pretty tight but the rendering got sloppier and sloppier as you walked through the show.
- tom moody 5-02-2005 5:07 am
And what is it with Kimmelman and his "moral scold" persona? Cheese Louise.
- tom moody 5-02-2005 5:11 am
Uh, anyone have a URL for these Chinese companies that will paint for you? Any idea what something like that might cost? Just wondering....although I suppose those people selling pictures of
movie stars on the sidewalk could probably do that sort of thing...
(also, speaking of Damien's shark, jummped or otherwise, did any see that article about how it's kinda falling to bits in its tank?)
- rob (guest) 5-02-2005 6:13 pm
I recognized the brain sections, and thought ... Art meats science ...
- mark 5-03-2005 7:23 am
hah. good one Mark!
- anonymous (guest) 5-03-2005 6:30 pm