beyond the shark in a tank thingy, i think most of this guy's work is pretty lame. not outrageous, not daring, shocking, provocative, nothing. just lame.
further, he doesn't even make most of his work (actually, change "most" to "all"), and when he did (in 2009) it was pretty much the most universally disliked show ever. (reviews mentioned bad first-year art school style, etc).
i think this guy is pretty much the ultimate triumph of style over substance.
...and maybe it's just my christian/utilitarian background, but i just don't see what his art adds to the world in terms of somehow making it a better place.
a more beautiful place, or more compassionate, or something.
most of his mission and his self-promotion all seems to be about how rich and fabulous he is.
I don't really care if it was Damien Hirst, or a team of softmores he hired, "bloodhead" is gnarly, and so are lots of D.H. works. He disects things and shows how grotesque/simultaneously beautiful they are. This is not a new motif. It's an ancient one. And it DOES ad to the language of art. It shows its guts, its bowels, its hypocrisy. If we only had art that tried to 'make the world better place', seriously, it would be too narrow of a selection. In order to talk about truth, the painter neads access to the full range of colours, including the dark ones.
As for his celebrity, good for him. If you ask me, artists should rule the world. =P
Where/when did I say that people weren't allowed to access the full range of colours, including the dark ones?
I didn't say that, in fact.
What I did say was that I think DH's work is the triumph of style over substance, and that when he actually tried to make his own work, rather than commissioning other people to re-hash other people's ideas, we saw the whole "emperor is naked" thing-- i.e. he has little real talent as an artist, and his main talent is that of marketing and self-promotion.
So good for him that he's rich and famous and probably has a fabulous life which he's probably worked very hard for, but I still think his work is pretty lame.
And if 500 years from now he's recognized as a 21st century Caravaggio/Duchamp, and I'm wrong, then so be it.
But he sure wouldn't be the first artist to come along, become wildly rich and famous in his own lifetime, and then be forgotten (along with his work) as soon as he's dead.
On that note, who was the #1 all-time selling Canadian author before Leonard Cohen?
A: Winnipeg's own Ralph Connor, who outsold Dickens during his lifetime, and now is either forgotten completely, or is held up as an example of how bad work can succeed wildly (success being defined in financial terms) given the right circumstances.
ralph connor's house is at 23 westgate-- now the university women's club. it's awesome. he also used to pastor elim chapel, right down the street from the label, before the first world war.
you could read his books, but there are lots of other people who i think wrote about winnipeg and the west more interestingly than he did.
9 comments:
Is that how it works though? Aren't all artists working from a lineage, a history of art? Couldn't I find people pre-dating all these sources?
beyond the shark in a tank thingy, i think most of this guy's work is pretty lame. not outrageous, not daring, shocking, provocative, nothing. just lame.
further, he doesn't even make most of his work (actually, change "most" to "all"), and when he did (in 2009) it was pretty much the most universally disliked show ever. (reviews mentioned bad first-year art school style, etc).
i think this guy is pretty much the ultimate triumph of style over substance.
...and maybe it's just my christian/utilitarian background, but i just don't see what his art adds to the world in terms of somehow making it a better place.
a more beautiful place, or more compassionate, or something.
most of his mission and his self-promotion all seems to be about how rich and fabulous he is.
to what end?
I don't really care if it was Damien Hirst, or a team of softmores he hired, "bloodhead" is gnarly, and so are lots of D.H. works. He disects things and shows how grotesque/simultaneously beautiful they are. This is not a new motif. It's an ancient one. And it DOES ad to the language of art. It shows its guts, its bowels, its hypocrisy. If we only had art that tried to 'make the world better place', seriously, it would be too narrow of a selection. In order to talk about truth, the painter neads access to the full range of colours, including the dark ones.
As for his celebrity, good for him. If you ask me, artists should rule the world. =P
Ok, oops.
Blood Head is by Marc Quinn!
Where/when did I say that people weren't allowed to access the full range of colours, including the dark ones?
I didn't say that, in fact.
What I did say was that I think DH's work is the triumph of style over substance, and that when he actually tried to make his own work, rather than commissioning other people to re-hash other people's ideas, we saw the whole "emperor is naked" thing-- i.e. he has little real talent as an artist, and his main talent is that of marketing and self-promotion.
So good for him that he's rich and famous and probably has a fabulous life which he's probably worked very hard for, but I still think his work is pretty lame.
And if 500 years from now he's recognized as a 21st century Caravaggio/Duchamp, and I'm wrong, then so be it.
But he sure wouldn't be the first artist to come along, become wildly rich and famous in his own lifetime, and then be forgotten (along with his work) as soon as he's dead.
On that note, who was the #1 all-time selling Canadian author before Leonard Cohen?
A: Winnipeg's own Ralph Connor, who outsold Dickens during his lifetime, and now is either forgotten completely, or is held up as an example of how bad work can succeed wildly (success being defined in financial terms) given the right circumstances.
I didn't say you said anything {shrugs}.
I like DH and imagine in the future, he will maintain a foothold in history, you don't.
Sounds fair enough.
Neither of us are very creditable at predicting future events I'm sure, and the rest is just preference stuff.
I will put Ralph Connor on my reading list, and get back to you.
=)
ralph connor's house is at 23 westgate-- now the university women's club. it's awesome. he also used to pastor elim chapel, right down the street from the label, before the first world war.
you could read his books, but there are lots of other people who i think wrote about winnipeg and the west more interestingly than he did.
Post a Comment