Rich Artist Poor Art

Art is suppose to be Valuable to the point of being Priceless.

Good art is subjective yet univesally liked. There is no bad art universally hated.

You just can't put a price on great art.

'less are those al cheapo art-furniture gallery (or Ikea), you can either have it or not, at a limiting price. Nothing is too little. Too much is still too much.

The measurables are just immeasurable.

So, I am particularly affected by this current artist that is spinning multi millions in the bank by glamorising the Capitalist approach to his art work.

Granted, past artistic greats died poor and tragic and when alive, were never appreciated, let alone seeing any possibility of using their strokes and brushes to put food on the table.

It took centuries after their demise , that people started appreciating their finer touches.

So, in a way, Briton Damien Hirst reflects how starving artists have come a long way from those pauper-days of yore.

But, I sense greed and opportunistic tendencies in him. A shameful turn how an artist himself aims for monetary gains over artistic transcendence.

Picasso pieces for instance, are known for certain skewed qualities and personality. So too are Botero's 'swollen-subjects'.

Hirst's works thus far are best described as morbid and grotesque.

Check out Saint Sebastian for instance, a suspended calf , tied to a post and pierced with dozens of arrows in a glass tank. George Michael paid a whopping 3.5million pounds for it.

A split shark fetched 10 million pounds. While 3 crucified sheep were sold for 6 million pounds.

Sliced, diced, chopped, cut and splits.... Hirst's contribution to the Art world?

Or will he be more remembered for the money he has made.

For a field not traditionally tainted by the lure of the fortunes, there by turning into an industry, has Hirst become what the residents of SoHo will now aspire to be?

Already photographers these days take pride and strive in not becoming a National Geographic staple but one for the stars such as the likes of David LaChappelle.

Already, Architects, once the profession of hailing the kings and emperors of the past as gods,besides the priests, are today, a victim of their own success in the commercial world of drawing for the extravagant, thereby creating cold and lavish monsters that say more of ambition than heritage and beliefs.

So will artists sell art not because of the love and spread of their craft but to quantify how 'drama' can take the place of more transient qualities such as artistic purpose of expression and personal style and charm?

Does his record 100 million pounds-selling diamond skull piece 'For the Love of God' make him more 'hip hop bling bling jeweller than a bona fide artist now?

I'm not surprised if the skull next appears in P Diddy's , Timbaland or Jay Z's next music videos. Or if they even bought it already as one of its secret buyers!!


The question remains :Is Hirst doing art for art or art for money and fame?


You decide.

It's just different from a multi-million dollar Victoria's Secret Fantasy Angel bra, you know what I'm sayin?... ^^ (This is Tyra wearing a US$11 million diamond-encrusted Fantasy Bra, btw)

Beauty and the Beast.

You know which is which.