$98 million

[Arrow]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/06/01/skull.art.reut/

"Damien Hirst, former BritArt bad boy whose works infuriate and inspire in equal measure, did it again on Friday with a diamond-encrusted platinum cast of a human skull priced at a cool $98 million."

http://www.supertouchblog.com/2007/06/01/londonhirst-unveils-98-million-diamond-skull/

http://www.supertouchblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/dhr.jpg

[CroftonGraphics]

Despite what people say about Hirst,

Its quite an interesting concept in our age of 'bling' and materialism that has emerged over the last few years in the UK.

It makes me think that we cannot take wealth to the grave but the irony is that the skull is made from very expensive materials but it is still dead.

So perhaps the joke is on us in the end and the dead skull laughs back at us....

[fritchie]

Actually, I have to say I like this piece, despite all the sensationalism it will attract. It reminds me of skulls naturally covered in a form of gyspum (plaster of paris, but beautifully crystallime in this case), that were discovered somewhere in remote Mexico a decade or so ago. Flashlights shown into this "Cave of Skulls" gave back a scene of glittering human skulls, it was reported, due to the natural deposition on the skulls of microcrystals of the gypsum over centuries of time. Of course, those skulls weren't platinum either, but artistically they seem similar.

[evaldart]

He has now become responsible for what is and will be one of the most opulent and coveted objects in the world for centuries to come. History will happen around its preciousness. The Hope diamond has just become a Ring Pop. It will change hands amongst the most priveledged, perhaps disappear for a while, re-surface to great sensation, provide fodder for future Pink Panther-esque films. Vaults, fortresses and armys will protect it. It will be a challenge to the greatest thieves in the world...one of them will be admiring it in his basement after the deed is done and then die by a poison dart in the neck...Hirst Skull moves on. Mystery, Death, intrigue.
So damn precious it will be forgotten that it was ever art.

[Merlion]

Among arftists, he knows best how to attract publicity especially among the rich, and only he can afford to make this diamond disco ball like skull, and sell it at an asking price 4 times its cost, even with conditions attached. (See CNN news story above.)

Hirst's skull makes dazzling debut (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/06/hirsts_skull_makes_dazzling_de.html)

Damien Hirst was worried his diamond-encrusted skull would look like a £50m disco ball - and he was absolutely right.

June 1, 2007, Securing an interview with God himself would be easier than setting eyes on Damien Hirst's latest work, For The Love of God, never mind meeting its creator.

Hirst's new exhibition, Damien Hirst: Beyond Belief, opens today in both White Cube galleries in London. There are several floors of sheep and cows in tanks, a new shark thrillingly chopped up vertically rather than horizontally, doves, butterflies, and a surprisingly touching sequence of paintings based on Polaroids of the Caesarean delivery of his own son. There is also a sequence of vast canvasses splattered with hair, broken glass, scalpel blades, human teeth and diamond dust, seductively colourful yet all based on biopsies of such horrors as a cancer of the salivary gland or a prostate blood clot.

But all are eclipsed, and the show is meticulously constructed to ensure this, by the dazzle of the diamonds. Admission to the holy of holies will be by timed ticket only, and the worshippers will only be permitted to remain there for five minutes. Weekends are already booked out......

[dilida]

He said he hopes this gives people hope.... I just don't like it, or any of his work. It strikes me as obscene in a way. The diamonds obscure the natural beauty that a skull can have, and for me they cheapen the life that the skull had at one time. Not that this is a real one, but skulls represent a life gone by, precious to someone once. What do diamonds represent? Nothing as precious as life.

lisa

[CroftonGraphics]

Although its perhaps unintentional,
it could be representative of the cheap tacky materialistic 'bling' culture trying to assert itself beyond death now.

A frightening thought in itself.

Imagine dying and then having to read Hello magazine in the waiting room for what might come after? :(

[evaldart]

You know you're right, on the other hand its so damn glitzy and expensive-looking it renders itself visually fake. Might not even notice it amongst the toilet plungers, the ancient boxes of Rice a Roni and the plastic M-16's at the dollar store.

[Cantab]

Now, although I have been a great fan of Hirst’s work, I have problems with this piece. On the positive side, it shows a certain consistency in Hirst’s work – the death and religion themes, the interest in affluence, its another ‘gross out’ experiment as with the animal body part pieces, etc. However, it demonstrates a couple of emerging Hirst problems: what do you make as an artist if you don’t have any fundamental craft skills of your own? What do you make if you have not developed a style out of which your future work springs? All of Hirst’s great 1990s works were constructions, based on animal body parts and other organisms. His work was essentially conceptual. The dot and spin paintings were mechanical – involved no craft skills. Since 2000 Hirst has, I feel, been floundering. Much of his work has been repetitive – MORE animal body parts, and assemblages, then photos of animal body parts (an exhibition resulted that was a gross out involving sculpting with flesh and using the end result for religious purposes), followed by some elaborate casts based on medical and cultural subject matter.
With this piece, we see Hirst searching around for another medium, finding it, and then contracting out the work. Hirst’s oeuvre is characterised by his being, fundamentally, an art entrepreneur. Contrast Picasso: profound craft skills, a range of media (paint; print; drawing; sculpture; ceramics, etc). Picasso’s work is not just thematically coherent, as with Hirst, it is ‘skills-coherent’. That is, his work is in part an exploration and development of the media he has committed to. Hirst fails utterly at this important artistic level – the commitment to material. He has surely come to the end of the animal body part medium – the last exhibition in Mexico was repetitive and, well, dire. Here we see what lies behind Hirst’s current work – ‘bright’ ideas. No more than that at the moment. And no style either. Is this the work of an artist or a jeweller with an eye to the market? Would you know who made this piece if you were not told? Style, too, is in part media based – it’s something we develop as we PRACTICE our art/craft. Hirst’s style, his ‘signature’ as an artist, was evident in the 1990s; with this piece we are reminded that Hirst is presently going nowhere with his art. Where’s the progress? Give me Richard Long any day – he may not progress a lot, but his commitment to the possibilities of his media – stone/mud – has been superb. And Tracey Emin? Even Tracey has seen the limitations of a range of constructions – tents and beds have gone: she’s using PAINT, and drawing with some style….

Anybody going to comment on its title: ‘For the love of God’?

[fused]

In the cult of celebrity (and notoriety) this will certainly garner an abundance of press.
The NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/magazine/03Style-skull-t.html?ex=1338523200&en=069a2e4fd4650c46&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) checks in and White Cube offers cheaper editions (http://www.whitecube.com/editions/) using the image

[fritchie]

I've just researched my recollection on the Honduran "glowing skulls" (which I misremembered as Mexican), and it seems the initial discovery was made in 1994, by accident, in a previously-known cave that contains a partly subterranean river. Here
http://www.marrder.com/htw/jun2000/cultural.htm
is a website, from which I captured this picture. The picture is posted here under "fair use" terms of copyright for educational purposes. These burials date from about 3000 years ago.

It would not surprise me if Hirst got his idea from this discovery, though the memory may have been subliminal.

[Cantab]

Fritchie - your point could also add depth and significance to Hirst's piece.

[Merlion]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/06/01/skull.art.reut/

"Damien Hirst, former BritArt bad boy whose works infuriate and inspire in equal measure, did it again on Friday with a diamond-encrusted platinum cast of a human skull priced at a cool $98 million."

http://www.supertouchblog.com/2007/06/01/londonhirst-unveils-98-million-diamond-skull/

http://www.supertouchblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/dhr.jpg
I looked at this picture again. It says here and other sources that this is casted from a real skull. Why is there such a big reduction in size? Casted from a child's skull?

[philpraxis]

He said he hopes this gives people hope.... I just don't like it, or any of his work. It strikes me as obscene in a way. The diamonds obscure the natural beauty that a skull can have, and for me they cheapen the life that the skull had at one time. Not that this is a real one, but skulls represent a life gone by, precious to someone once. What do diamonds represent? Nothing as precious as life.

lisa
Well, to me this is only a vanitas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanitas ), showing how light we should be in front of so much money because in the end, it is NOTHING.

On this part, I think it's a well working piece. Its aesthetics are there too. But most important, there is a strong polysemy in his work, i.e. several layers of lecture.

One is clearly to me on the vanitas side. Another one is just a play on money and art market, proving to what point fame can push things (4 times).
Also, there's the play on actual value. Did you know that in France, piece of art are not subject to tax on fortune (yes, there's a tax on very rich people's asset :) and thus you can easily take $100m off the tax base if you're rich enough aka too rich ;-)

It's not his best piece, but it's okay for me :)

[underfoot]

I wonder ,
if this piece were broken down into its component parts
what value would be placed on each? eg.
platinum =
diamonds =
labour =
artist reputation =
art =

[philpraxis]

I wonder ,
if this piece were broken down into its component parts
what value would be placed on each? eg.
platinum =
diamonds =
labour =
artist reputation =
art =
Tentative answer:
platinum + diamonds = $25 million
labour = $50 000
artist reputation + art = $73 million
[/QUOTE]

[fritchie]

Re Merlion post 13: The CNN article says he cast it using a real, 18th century (17xx) skull of a 35 year old. Must have been someone severely malnourished his/her whole life, or more likely a genetic dwarf, to be so small. The blog article agrees with those facts, and also says the teeth are real (i.e., from the skull, I presume). I thought the teeth looked different from the rest, but presumed he simply had treated them differently. A full set of teeth would not have come from a child. I also presumed he had modeled the skull, keeping it small because of cost.

The blog also gives Aztec jade-encrusted skulls as his inspiration. I'm not sure how much credence to give blog reports, but if that's correct, it blows my Honduram "Cave of the Glowing Skulls" hypothesis. The Aztec material is much better known, so that's plausible.

[Merlion]

Interesting investigative analysis of this diamond Hirst skull, Fritchie. We just wouldn't know how much to believe in these reports.

I wonder, if this piece were broken down into its component parts what value would be placed on each?
At least you get back the diamonds. But how about the $140 m Jackson Pollock painting. How much is it worth if it is broken down into its component parts?

[Cantab]

Philpraxis – I like your analysis (post 14). As a vanitas the head has some merit, and you point rightly to levels of complexity. However, I've worked with 17 year olds who offer this level of complexity in all their examination work. In fact, there is something of the examination level art exam in this piece – the complexity is rather mechanical. Young people don’t have the experience to channel complexity through, so their art is often loaded with meaning BECAUSE they think that is what is expected. Mature art offers this complexity as the artist processes his vision through a subject, a personal style and a personal relationship with a medium. I’m not even sure if what Hirst has made here is art, in a modern sense. Hirst’s head could be a religious artefact, it could make a good Goth ring or it may merely be an ornament. It feels like any of these, but it doesn’t FEEL like art. Even the emblem on the forehead. What’s the artistic tradition here? What FEELINGS am I to take from that?). Oddly enough, I find that modern architects seem to understand these issues (style and media) better than modern sculptors. There is better sculpture being made, and a better feeling for MATERIAL, by many of today’s architects. Perhaps part of the problem is one of commitment. Hirst is very much post-Warhol: art was heavily tied up in Warhol with personal success, and was in fact a form of self-advertising (reflecting his interest in packaging and the superficial).

[Cantab]

Jonathan Jones, on the skull, in 'The Guardian':
It's nearly time to go back upstairs and try to comprehend that skull, and here is a work that is intimately related to it. On a drawing for the skull, Hirst notes, "Like that Mexican skull with the turquoise on it." He has been spending time in Mexico, inspired by its Day of the Dead, and the skull is partly modelled on Aztec masks that cover real skulls with precious blue stone; you can see one in the British Museum, which also has a fake Crystal Skull once thought to be an ancient American artefact. Reading about the culture that produced the turquoise skulls Hirst has been looking at, I found myself seeing his paintings of his child's gory birth in my mind. I was reading about the culture of blood sacrifice that horrified the Spanish conquerors; the Aztecs sacrificed thousands of people, cutting their chests open to tear out their beating hearts. They did this to keep the world alive, the gods in heaven. Life for them was violence. In Hirst's paintings of Cyrus's birth there is a primeval, an Aztec sense that life involves pain and sacrifice; that death is when pain stops.

You turn to diamond, to hard inorganic purity that glitters forever. A diamond is created deep inside the earth when carbon - the same element that becomes coal, the same element that bonds in the basic molecules of all organic life - comes under incredible pressure and heat. Hirst's diamonds have come out of the dark to eat light.

So this is it, "the distinguished thing", as Henry James called Death. This is King Death: a skull cast in platinum and covered with "the highest quality diamonds" by a West End jeweller. It's the perfect artwork to show in this part of London: the perfect artwork for an age of massive wealth and escalating art prices; a ridiculous pop object in so many ways. Is it vulgar? Oh yes, and that is what makes it great. So much art nowadays aspires to a pseudo-seriousness, shrouding its essential mediocrity in an anthropological appeal to a universal human sense of vulnerability. I'm talking about Antony Gormley, Marc Quinn - and I would have included Hirst had you asked me a year ago. But the skull redeems him utterly: his art has undergone a sea change, into something rich and strange.

The second paragraph is illuminating of Jones’s analytical method – in English studies this is what we call ‘extrapolation’. There isn’t actually enough evidence in the work itself to take this position with confidence. With ‘Guernica’, however, we can be analytical with greater confidence because the complexities of the forms and styling, the composition, the symbolism all add up to offer us a foundation for analysis. Diamonds on a skull? You could think ANYTHING, and the work wouldn’t contradict it.

The Quinn reference – I agree with that: vile work.

[philpraxis]

Philpraxis – I like your analysis (post 14). As a vanitas the head has some merit, and you point rightly to levels of complexity. However, I've worked with 17 year olds who offer this level of complexity in all their examination work.
I'd love grown ups to remember more from these times! :)

I'd quote two people, Buckminster-Fuller:
"Everyone is born a genius, but the process of living de-geniuses them."

and Robert Filliou:
"art = play"

I’m not even sure if what Hirst has made here is art, in a modern sense. Hirst’s head could be a religious artefact, it could make a good Goth ring or it may merely be an ornament. It feels like any of these, but it doesn’t FEEL like art. Even the emblem on the forehead. What’s the artistic tradition here? What FEELINGS am I to take from that?). Oddly enough, I find that modern architects seem to understand these issues (style and media) better than modern sculptors. There is better sculpture being made, and a better feeling for MATERIAL, by many of today’s architects.
Yeah, that's normal that people prefer sculpture done by architects more than sculpture done by artists. Two possibilities:

- everything once called art is art, and architect's sculpture or sculptural buildings (Gehry) are art

- art is something in the being, in the unknown, a transient state of mind that cannot be a systemic replication of the past, and then architects' sculpture is not art, it's merely an updated version of what Naum Gabo and Boccioni were doing 50+ years ago. But in that case, it's normal that MOST of the people recognize architect's sculpture as sculpture. Most people have the maps, the reading grid of what is a sculpture as described 50+ years ago. But 50+ years ago, most people would NOT have considered Naum Gabo and Boccionni sculpture as sculpture :) - you can replace these names with Giacometti, Henry Moore, etc....

[Cantab]

Phil: very Interesting stuff – but my point was to do with how a work of art offers up its content. The 17 year old is no better at producing good art than he/she is at producing good poetry or novels. The reasons are the same: perhaps lots of flair (or ‘genius’). But too little experience in life and not yet mature enough to blend complexities of idea, design and execution. Lads tend to be worse: ‘Look at me’ and ‘I did this’ often overwhelm the work. As for kids being de-geniused as they grow up – this process is giving form to them, like we do with a piece of unshaped stone. There’s nothing in this idea of pure genius. Living quite RIGHTLY f***s this up.

As for architects – it’s their relationship with their materials I like. A lifetime spent working with concrete, stone, metals and their formal and intrinsic possibilities. This is the stuff of great art! Hirst’s relationship to diamond as a material? – all at the level of IDEA, I suspect, so not a relationship at all. Diamond as pure symbol. It's a dead medium. Sculptors have rightly avoided it throughout history.

[philpraxis]

Uh... i'm afraid we're monopolizing the thread and I hope we don't bore other people to death here ;-) hehe... tell me if I do.. ahem

Phil: very Interesting stuff – but my point was to do with how a work of art offers up its content. (...) As for kids being de-geniused as they grow up – this process is giving form to them, like we do with a piece of unshaped stone. There’s nothing in this idea of pure genius. Living quite RIGHTLY f***s this up.
Hmmm... one difference is that a human being takes _many_ shapes as he evolves. Recent discoveries in cognitive science prove that there is something called "cognitive plasticity" all life long, even in old age. And by keeping unformated or lightly formated, you can improve your capability to adapt and learn all along the ride :)

Now there's the question of format: we better format things when we're older: we know other people better, know how to calibrate things, and know "methods" better. But wait, that's the problem, and specifically exemplified with scholars: in computing science, usually when there's an active project, there's a proverb: "Oh, so you got a PhD? Just DON'T TOUCH anything." The problem is that they get so good at method that they are only good at that, and high diplomas rarely prove anything else than that: methods to understand something and represent it later in a good format with the good information, not actually inventing or doing something new or different. It's the "SameEngine(C)(TM)" in progress and not the "DifferenceEngine(Kopyleft)(CC)" at play.

That's what I find sad with format. That's why Allan Kaprow in his "Constructions, Environments and Happenings" explained why the artist were going away from craftmanship. (1966!!!)

As for architects – it’s their relationship with their materials I like. A lifetime spent working with concrete, stone, metals and their formal and intrinsic possibilities. This is the stuff of great art! Hirst’s relationship to diamond as a material? – all at the level of IDEA, I suspect, so not a relationship at all. Diamond as pure symbol. It's a dead medium. Sculptors have rightly avoided it throughout history.
I agree with you. Architects perfectly dominate their medium. And as in my previous post, either you consider all art, or you say "just because it sticks to the medium rules makes it non-art".

Now, I agree also that Hirst's relationship with the piece is mostly on the level of the IDEA, the CONCEPT. That's where also I find it limited: it doesn't include the people, and that's sad in 2007. We're not in 1980s anymore. We're past the purely conceptual works, we're also past the "pop / easy people relationship builder" kind of work. We're more in an era of ongoing works that depict the very nature of man: change. And sometime I find it in Hirst work, sometime not.

[Cantab]

Philpraxis: "And by keeping unformated or lightly formated, you can improve your capability to adapt and learn all along the ride".

Phil - thanks for reminding me of that. Nice Information Processing metaphor. I think, though, that a lifetime spent keeping your options open might add up to a lifetime wasted. The POTENTIAL is in the unformatted disc, the CONTENT is in the formatted disc. (And is there any such thing as a good 'lightly formatted' novel? Isn't that pulp fiction?). I think you're right in general, though. Heisenberg - When you think you are right, that's when you are certainly wrong. Keep it flexible (but this doesn't explain why the 17 year old doesn't produce good art from his/her 'light' formatting...)

And thanks for your other views - you always invite me to think outside the tramlines of my preoccupations.

[philpraxis]

That's what I love in the sculpture.net community: we have tons of different point of views. And this keeps us from being too much "in one side", helps me a lot!

What you say about wasting one's life is particularly true, especially when viewed from the point of view of production. Actually, I certainly have a part of this ADD-related syndrom. I keep on learning new things, and not necessarily produce a lot with it, it always adds up to my current work, that's why some people see my work as scattered whereas I see it as a fuzzy synthesis (!) of what i perceive from the world.

So, in term of production, it seems to be better to focus on one thing and keep going at it: dig deeper, attain unknown realms in depth, that's the specialist way. A way that our science love. A way that our media loves (clearly identifiable, branded). A way that art world loves if you're the first in that territory and you have a crowd of followers in that territory.

Hmmm... is that what we are? A production entity? Or could we be more accurately described as a social entity where production is only one part? And in this view, I guess the important thing is the balance between production, self-enlightenment, relationship and instantaneous moments of life.

Often, when I see works like Hirst's, I wonder "Is the guy / girl happy and balanced with his life, beyond the sculpture?".

On the other hand, very often I see disturbed works and only focus on the vital force, the one that is all over in young works without formatting, and learn from it.

[GlennT]

Hoo boy! There's a lot of art theory/psychobabble goin' on here for a piece that looks like what would happen if you left Paris Hilton alone with a skull, glue, and diamonds for a few hours!

[Cantab]

Phil - thanks for the introduction to Allan Kaprow's theoretical work. I was a great fan of the 'happening', and what it meant for art in the 1960s. I'll have to get hold of the article you mention (no free web version as far as I can see). Talking 1960s - Yoko Ono was on a radio programme here in England recently, and spoke of a piece she had on show that involved a square white block, into which visitors could bang a nail with a hammer that hung from the square block. (Apparently John Lennon walked in before the opening of the exhibition, asked if he could knock in a nail. Ono said 'No', but on reflection added that he could do so if he paid 5 shillings. Lennon, catching on, said that if he knocked in an imaginary nail, he could then pay an imaginary five shillings). Wonderful stuff, and all beyond craftsmanship!

[ironman]

Hi,
"Diamonds on a skull? You could think ANYTHING and the work wouldn't contradict it."
Cantab said that, and that about sums it up for me also.
There doesn't seem to be any focus or reason for being, it just is, and that's not art.
Some could say it operates on many levels of meaning, I think it operates on ANY level of meaning. It's all over the place therefore it has NO meaning.
Never a big Hirst fan, I become less so with each body of work that comes out of his studio. He seems to be floundering around, and I feel sorry for him. He seems to have been pushed out into this art stardom, without the commensurate skills, both mental and physical to live up to the hype. He is at that point where he doesn't really know what to do next, there's no flow to his career (if you want to call it that), no meaning/every meaning. Death seems to be the one common denominator but nothings added, just updated and modernized.
As someone else said, " you wouldn't know the work was by him unless someone told you." That being the case, he becomes everyman, just another wretched, banal, grotesque human being with nothing worthwhile to say, NOT an artistic genius!
Have a great day,
Jeff

[philpraxis]

Hehe.... then you have two wonderful explanation of why art is still being asked for definitions ;-)

Cantab: Kaprow's work is definitely interesting, yes.

[martin2007]

Please check out my equally ironic reaction to hirst's "for the love of god"
http://picserver.nl/v/R80XXM575ANU

[evaldart]

Ha! thats some dandy, anti neo post-modernist piece of hyper-contemporary realism you got there. I hope you even paid someone minimum wage to make it for you to keep things conceptually relative. I like it. What else do you do?

[philpraxis]

Please check out my equally ironic reaction to hirst's "for the love of god"
http://picserver.nl/v/R80XXM575ANU
Ahaha... excellent! That's some nice critique :))

It's weird about all these vanitas pieces : the venice biennale is full of these this year 8)

[fritchie]

Martin2007 - Good comment.

[Aaron Schroeder]

Lot's of diamond encrusted platinum artifacts out there ( people love them and demand more ). Dispite the abundance of objects to select from, the choices seem few in terms of content. I'd have to say that of all the diamond/platinum pieces that I have seen, this skull stands out the most. Hopefully this is the start of a new trend, my internal inventory of platinum/diamond objects seems so myopic, anything that diverges from the norm feels fresh and exciting. If this piece could only light a fire under the butts of all those platinum/diamond artist working today and in the future......that would be great. I look forward to all the great diamond/platinum pieces that are sure to follow. Any one else have an image of an outstanding platinum/diamond art object they can share ? Please no images of rings, necklaces, broaches or earrings.......or other elements.......just diamond/platinum art. If anyone can post an image as good as this skull, I'll discribe a most satisfying beer for you in the art lounge.

[evaldart]

Well Aaron, I've secretly been working on a diamond encrusted platnumn self-portrait, life sized. Almost finished except fot the Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull belt buckle that I always wear. Damned if I didn't come up short just a little bit of diamonds and platnum...can I borrow a little of yours. My wife thinks the billion and a half I spent on materials is outta hand.

[Aaron Schroeder]

Are you kidding. Part with my precious platnum and diamonds ( NEVER ! ), I have grand aspirations to be the greatest P&D artist ever. I know your secret work in progress will be great and a much needed addition to this often neglected and overlooked field of artistic expression but I have my own unique and deeply meaningful work to do. But I hear you and share your pain, it's tough working day in and day out for and ounce here and a carat there. And people think we drink cheap beer because we like it............

[Cantab]

Sorry, Aaron (Post 34) – you mean there’s more diamond art out there? Like, MODERN art? Ahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

Certain materials have been used to great effect in some traditional cultural settings – gold in medieval religious imagery and in the Egyptian decorative tradition, as with Tutankhamen. Also shone tin in the Greek orthodox tradition. So I can see a role for many precious/semi-precious materials in art/craftwork. But, please, NO MORE modern art like Hirst's. Modern art was born out of the democratic, individualistic traditions of the West. Diamonds are a symbol of elitism, of sheer affluence and the denial of ordinary experience. I’ll join you in the lounge, though, and share my description of puke with you.

As for your becoming the best diamond artist in the world - is this some kind of secret psychotic cult or something? Is there actually anybody else doing this? :o

[GlennT]

Diamonds are a symbol of elitism, of sheer affluence and the denial of ordinary experience.




There sure have been a heck of a lot of extraordinary, affluent elitist women getting married every year these past several centuries. They keep wearing that symbol...

[Ries]

In another thread recently, we were talking about the inherent integrity of bronze- that it has a "soul" to it as a material that people instinctively respond to.

I think a strong arguement could be made for diamonds as well in this respect. Certainly, fashion and perceived value affect people when they desire diamonds- but I would argue that the diamond itself, as a material, has a certain instinctual attraction to human beings.
I know that I have been wearing a diamond in my left ear for 20 years or so now, and I dont do it to show off my affluence, or elitisim- I simply really like it as an object, and, if objects can have power on their own, diamonds certainly do.

Valid criticisms can be made of the Hirst piece for its form, for its exaggerated cost, and mostly for what it says about the art market that it could be created at all, and that it could be taken so seriously by some, and so scandalize others- but these are all discussions of the artwork in context, not of the materials themselves.
In that respect, Hirst has been successful in some of his goals- the artwork has created a big stir, and raised a lot of questions, and the selection of the materials, and the subsequent piggybacking on all the associations we have with those materials, has proven to be a saavy choice on his part.

Not exactly diamonds, but instead mock diamonds, Swarovski Crystals, have been used lately by another very interesting artist working in the UK, Tord Boontje, whose work I have been following.
In many ways he is the anti-Damien Hirst- he does not inhabit the high end social scene of Saatchi's and the Tate Modern- instead, he is trained as an industrial designer, and works much more quietly, making technical tour de forces that are also, I think, quite beautiful.

http://www.tordboontje.com/

He has one of those wacky Flash websites, where you cant link to a particular page- but if you go to "projects" then to "lighting" then to "ice branch" you will see what I think is a very beautiful use of "diamonds".

And then, there is this guy- Moritz Waldemeyer- he defies categorisation, which is one of my favorite things- is he an artist, an engineer, or what?

http://www.waldemeyer.com/

His electronicly controlled crystal lighting sculptures, which use LED's behind thousands of crystals to show images, are stunning, and different from anything I have ever seen before. Everything he does is technically amazing, unique, and quite attractive, in the way crows like me are always drawn to shiny things.

His collaborative piece with Ron Arad, "Miss Haze" is pretty cool.

And those video dresses- well, it could be a cheezy parlor trick in lesser hands, but he really makes it work. He also did some motorised dresses with designer Chalayan last year that were just, well, indescribable- they moved, and changed, on their own, as the models wore them.

A medium, be it bronze, diamonds, or elephant poop, is just that- a medium. Its what the artist chooses to do with it that makes it or breaks it.

[GlennT]

Ries:

Thanks for the Waldemeyer link. A good example of an artistic mind in a nutty professor's body, yielding some cool results.

[martin2007]

Ha! thats some dandy, anti neo post-modernist piece of hyper-contemporary realism you got there. I hope you even paid someone minimum wage to make it for you to keep things conceptually relative. I like it. What else do you do?

i made it myself - i suppose that is bad practice in today's neo post-modernist hyper-contemporary realist art circles where artists can simply imagine an object and it falls from the sky as if by the hand (or love) of god. when i'm not masturbating i make other half-conceptual objects @
http://www.goodward.com

[Merlion]

Is this a prank on a $98 m prank?

Fucking With Perception - Hirst's "For The Love of God" Diamond Skull (http://www.woostercollective.com/2007/07/fucking_with_perception_hirsts_for_the_l.html)

July 12, 2007, Placed outside of the White Cube Gallery Masons yard at 3.30 am on Sunday night in response to the Damien Hirst's "For The Love of God" diamond skull exhibition.

http://www.woostercollective.com/2007/07/12/hirstskull2.jpg

The "For the Love of God" prank was created using 6522 Swarovski crystals
and took Laura, the artist, a month to create.

[Ries]

He sold it- but curiously enough, kept an ownership percentage, and will therefore be involved in its fate- which, it would seem, is to be exhibited like Diamonds of old were- a travelling exhibit, in which the owners will profit.
So it was not bought by traditional art collectors, but by businessmen who hope to profit from it....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601115&sid=alrptIf1av3g&refer=muse

[Merlion]

Interesting. Even the $100 million now is a big business deal. Wonder how much he spent on making this diamond studded skull?

And should new artists aspire to be like him?

[John M]

http://www.skulladay.blogspot.com/