Damien Hirst is exhibiting in Doha. Oh la la.
Who cares? Aren't we over him by now? I mean, he was hot in the 1990s when he had ideas. Now he is merely derivative and over hyped. I will admit, being on a canal in Venice and silently floating past a giant skill was cool, but otherwise, he is massively over saturated - I would not pay 100 million of any currency for his stuff. It's become boring and ubiquitous.
I've not been to his exhibit RELICS yet, but will go and write a review soon. I missed the opening cos I was in Dubai attending the Vogue Fashion Experience Dubai - it's like buses in the UK - you wait an hour for one and then six show up. WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAPPEN AT ONCE? I'm gutted I missed it, but whatever, life goes on.
YET. Someone I know wrote on facebook how they saw a sculpture at the exhibit and hated it cos it was "gross" and "ew" - it was a gold copy of Bartholomew The Apostle - who, if you knowz anything about the Artz (hello, minoring in Art History at St Andrews University; Finishing School of Etiquette, Decorum and Privilege makes me AN EXPERT pip pip, Barbour privilege) - is like, totally important. I saw this badass sculpture in a cathedral in Milano and Hirst, because he lacks ideas and is dull, just copied it in gold and put it in his exhibit. In a Muslim country. Discuss.
Bartholomew the Apostle, Milan |
So Bart was persecuted for his religion, and the "gross" comes from the fact they flogged him til his skin came off, in fact, he is nonchalantly holding his skin like a raincoat in the sculpture. It is disgusting and gross to attack someone for their religion, and to hurt them for what they believe in is unforgivable. But to ignorantly dismiss this IMPORTANT piece of ART as, "ew, gross" make me want to slap someone. Anyone! ARGHHH! So of course, I thought, hey oh, I will explain this piece of art to these guys - it's a fairly important message - I thought at least. Their answer; yes, foolish white girl, the sculpture was labelled, we get it, it's still gross. Don't patronise us.
Everyone has ideas about art. They get upset when they see something they don't like - "that's not art to me" they'll say, as if art was made specifically for them. Art should be beautiful, art should be about something, art should be moral...what bollocks. As soon as you tell me art or literature should be X, I immediately think of an artwork that contradicts your limited views and redefines your narrow boundaries. Screw you and your boxes. I honestly think that people who think these things know nothing of art, and aren't artists themselves, so who are they to judge. I'm not going around telling people what you cook in your own kitchen isn't food - it's just not to my taste. That's a food metaphor for ya. Think on it.
Everyone has ideas about art, I said. My idea is that we shouldn't impose our own limitations on someone else. You see something that is gross, I see something that challenges me, makes me think of the changing paradigms of religious persecution, what people can bear, what they cannot, man's inhumanity to man, cruelty and intolerance, their fear of something they just don't understand and their hatred of it - themes that, unfortunately, are timeless - and I think - wow, that's arresting, wow, that's powerful, wow, that's beautiful. Wow, that's art.
Unfortunately, when Hirst copies something, I think, urgh. I already know this! You just coloured it gold. Move on, bored multi-millionaire and make me think.
No comments:
Post a Comment