Art Space News: 'Bling' Skull goes for Big Bucks

(The work, entitled "For the Love of God," is a skull cast in platinum and encrusted with 8,601 diamonds.)

Damien Hirst's latest piece-- "For the Love of God"-- sold last Thursday for 100 million dollars (75 million euros), a record price for work sold by a living artist. A spokeswoman for the White Cube gallery in London, where the piece had been on display, stated that the diamond-encrusted skull was sold to a group of anonymous investors. The skull has been hammered in the press and by onlookers for being nothing more than a form of 'bling'-- an overly expensive item that is nothing more than an indication of wealth.

Hirst remains best known for earlier conceptual works in which creatures including a shark and a cow were preserved in formaldehyde within glass tanks. Critics have stated that the British artist would not have a career had a "corpse not been involved"-- a statement referring to Hirst's earlier work, statements he has made to the press, and his most recent venture. Nevertheless, Hirst has earned a large following of supporters throughout his career regardless of the controversy that surrounds him.

The controversy over Hirst's art is not the only media bombardment that the artist has had to deal with. He once made the grave error of stating that the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States were like a work of art. On September 10, 2002, on the eve of the first anniversary of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, Hirst said in an interview with BBC News Online:

"The thing about 9/11 is that it's kind of like an artwork in its own right ... Of course, it's visually stunning and you've got to hand it to them on some level because they've achieved something which nobody would have ever have thought possible - especially to a country as big as America. So on one level they kind of need congratulating, which a lot of people shy away from, which is a very dangerous thing."

Due to public outrage, Hirst issued the following statement:

"I apologise unreservedly for any upset I have caused, particularly to the families of the victims of the events on that terrible day."

'Bling' or not-- the skull sold. What do you think? Does Hirst profit off of death and suffering? Does it matter if he does? Do you think there was a sense of passion behind the creation of "For the Love of God"? Or do you assume that the piece was nothing more than an example of a man showing off his wealth? Discuss.

Art In The News: The Venice Biennale Welcomes Tracey Emin

Photo: Simon Alekna

The British Council recently announced that Tracey Emin will represent Britain at the 52nd Venice Biennale in 2007. Emin will produce a new body of work for the British Pavilion. She will be the second female artist to represent the United Kingdom at the Venice Biennale with a solo exhibition.

Emin is known for her narrative work. One can assume that her new body of art will reveal further aspects of her personality.

Explore the following links for more information about Tracey Emin:

http://www.whitecube.com/artists/emin/

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/tracey_emin.htm

http://www.tracey-emin.co.uk/tracey-emin-home.html

Art In The News: Is Hirst A Copycat?

[Damien Hirst’s disputed 2000 work Valium, top, and the 1984 drawing by computer graphics artist Robert Dixon]

We all know that artists are known for 'borrowing' images from time to time. However, some 'borrow' more from an image than they should. This seems to be the case with Damien Hirst from the viewpoint of Robert Dixon. Dixon charges Hirst with stealing one of his patterns.

Dixon recently went public with his accusations. He claims that Hirst copied 'True Daisy', which was published in the Penguin Dictionary of Curious And Interesting Geometry in 1991. The piece in question,'Valium' (2000) by Hirst, does look like 'True Daisy' (1984) by Dixon. What do you think? Does it matter if Hirst did 'borrow' the pattern? Mr. Dixon feels that it does matter.

Dixon claims that Hirst would have never created 'Valium' had he not observed 'True Daisy'. Both images share the same number of 'spots' and the same pattern of movement. Dixon claims that the chances of two artists creating similar images with the same amount of 'spots' is very slim. Dixon has since contacted Hirst demanding financial compensation and an acknowledgement of his artistic contribution. Hirst has yet to respond.

The conflict between Dixon and Hirst over 'True Daisy' is nothing new. Three years ago Dixon accused Hirst of copying the circular pattern for a children's coloring book. However, keep in mind that Hirst is no stranger to acts of plagiarism. In 2000 Hirst paid designer Norman Emms compensation after copying a toy that Emms had designed.

What do you think about these claims? Are they legitimate? Or do you think that Dixon is after something else? Is it possible that Hirst may have created 'Valium' with no prior knowledge of 'True Daisy'? Should Dixon be compensated? Should Hirst get a restraining order? Discuss. I want to read and respond to your opinions!

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin