Museum Struggles To Display Damien Hirst Art Exhibit

[Mulboyne]

NZHerald: Japan beef ban leaves Hirst's cow art in a pickle
A cow preserved in formaldehyde, one of artist Damien Hirst's most famous works, ran into an unlikely obstacle on its way to a Tokyo museum: Japan's import ban on British beef. Hirst's "Mother and Child, Divided", consisting of a cow and a calf each sliced in half, is part of a retrospective of Britain's controversial Turner Prize - and its eventful journey illustrates the challenge of taking increasingly complex works of modern art around the world. Japan stopped beef imports from Britain after an outbreak of mad cow disease there. The Mori Art Museum had to convince customs officials that even the most adventurous gourmets are unlikely to tuck into Hirst's cow. "I think my staff explained that it's not for eating," Fumio Nanjo, director of the Mori Art Museum, told Reuters...Once the cow had cleared customs, another aspect of the artwork turned into a headache for the curators - the formaldehyde solution in which the animals are preserved...For their trip to Japan, the carcasses had to be taken out of their original formaldehyde solution, and will be re-pickled for the Tokyo exhibition. But health regulations are tighter in Japan than in Europe. Fearing that formaldehyde fumes could poison staff as the liquid is poured into the glass case that holds the cow, the museum has had to pledge to install a special ventilation system at its premises in the iconic Mori Tower...more...

[succubusqueen]

Truth be told....Museum should always have ventilation systems. Not only to control fume..but as a way to control the environment.

[Buraku]

Damien Hirst is shit anyway, I wouldn't call what he does art. The guy can't even paint or sculpt
just chops up some dead animal and sticks it in a giant formaldehyde jar and repeats this again and again and again, again, again....until we're all bored to death by those artworks produced by the Turnerprize stoner rejects
Then they put a little cherry on top by trying to describe their so-called master piece as some pseudo intellectual philosophical BS
(although by today's modern art standards he certainly does qualify as an 'artiste')


believe me, Japan is missing absolutely nothing by banning some shitty Damien Hirst 'art'
There are far more significant art works to come from Great Britain which should be in Japanese museums etc but they get relegated by the modern-day Turner prize stoner fucks, who don't really do anything but produce bad works of art so rich company execs can find an easy way to pass their laundered money from one building to the next....its fools gold, the crap is only worth something if you believe in it.

[Charles]

Damien Hirst is shit anyway, I wouldn't call what he does art. The guy can't even paint or sculpt

Yep, the guy doesn't paint



Or sculpt.

its fools gold, the crap is only worth something if you believe in it.

Art is about illusion. Hirst takes the mundane and makes them into objects worth millions of dollars. If you knew how to do this, you'd do it yourself. But you don't, so you can only whine jealously. The world is full of philistines like you, but artists of Hirst's caliber are rare and prized. Hirst has contributed significantly to the world of art, he changed the rules forever. What have YOU done lately?

[prolly]

Hirst has contributed significantly to the world of art, he changed the rules forever.

I'm no Charlie Finch, but even I had to roll me eys at that one. Given that the 90s were a rather slim decade, while I can't argue that he's made a "contribution" it's a difference of degree. Hubris is hardly new, and it's too bad you're all to eager to drink the ArtWorld Kool-aid.

[ttjereth]

Yep, the guy doesn't paint

Or sculpt.




Art is about illusion. Hirst takes the mundane and makes them into objects worth millions of dollars. If you knew how to do this, you'd do it yourself. But you don't, so you can only whine jealously. The world is full of philistines like you, but artists of Hirst's caliber are rare and prized. Hirst has contributed significantly to the world of art, he changed the rules forever. What have YOU done lately?

I fail to see how the skull is sculpture, since it's just a cast of an actual skull?

On top of that, I think your opinion of Hirst and his work is highly overrated as do many others. Ranting and raving about philistines doesn't make your opinion on the man or his work any more valid than anyone else's, and if dead animals preserved and/or cut in half are works of art there are a ton of artists of rare and prized caliber out in the world working in taxidermist shops.

[Charles]

I'm no Charlie Finch, but even I had to roll me eys at that one. Given that the 90s were a rather slim decade, while I can't argue that he's made a "contribution" it's a difference of degree. Hubris is hardly new, and it's too bad you're all to eager to drink the ArtWorld Kool-aid.

I will accept your criticism if you are able to do either of the following:

1. Create a work of art that has equal impact in the art world, and sells for equal prices.
2. Have sufficient money to purchase a Hirst artwork.

Until then, you're just an armchair critic. As an artist, until I can do either of those things, I can only follow in Hirst's wake.

[ttjereth]

I will accept your criticism if you are able to do either of the following:

1. Create a work of art that has equal impact in the art world, and sells for equal prices.
2. Have sufficient money to purchase a Hirst artwork.

Until then, you're just an armchair critic. As an artist, until I can do either of those things, I can only follow in Hirst's wake.

That is possibly the most ridiculous post I've seen all month.

So you are no allowed to do so until you are able to recreate a work of similar popularity or achieve a similar level of wealth as the person you are criticizing?

[Charles]

I fail to see how the skull is sculpture, since it's just a cast of an actual skull?

On top of that, I think your opinion of Hirst and his work is highly overrated as do many others. Ranting and raving about philistines doesn't make your opinion on the man or his work any more valid than anyone else's, and if dead animals preserved and/or cut in half are works of art there are a ton of artists of rare and prized caliber out in the world working in taxidermist shops.

Do you need eyeglasses? It's a real skull, laboriously encrusted with millions of dollars of diamonds and precious metal applique.

Yes, my opinions are more informed than yours, at the minimum. I know the man's works and his theories, as well as those of all the other artists he is influenced by and is influencing. You do not, you have to google for contrary opinions, while my bookshelves are full of them. Your opinion is ill-informed, akin to declaring that Lee Iacocca or Daryl Shelby had no influence on modern automobiles. Your whine that a taxidermist could do it, oh that's the oldest, most pathetic criticism of all. I hear it all the time, it's the old wheeze, "my 6 year old kid could do that!" OK, so why aren't your 6 year old kid's works in the museum and selling for millions? Is there a possibility that the artist knows something your little kid doesn't? Something that took a lifetime to develop?

[Charles]

So you are no allowed to do so until you are able to recreate a work of similar popularity or achieve a similar level of wealth as the person you are criticizing?

Correct (although you stated it poorly, conflating wealth and popularity with critical influence).

Until then, I don't make the rules, Hirst does. Until then, I work in an art world shaped by his rules.

[ttjereth]

[hundefar]

This discussion is making me hard.

[Charles]

Having spent some of my years in Art School doing drawing exercises in the Medical School's dissection lab, producing drawings from freshly dissected cadavers, and in particular focusing on cranial anatomy, I can perhaps be excused for seeing the real teeth and assuming the rest of the skull is real. But at least my observations were made from personal experience, rather than dubious sources like wikipedia.

But I will consider myself chastened. Your Google-fu has outwitted my BFA degree and decades of professional experience in the arts. I will have to call all the world-class artists I know who have sought my professional services and inform them that some anonymous guy on the internet named ttjereth will now be handling their requests. And I will have to refund the huge amounts of money I made writing art criticism.

[ttjereth]

Having spent some of my years in Art School doing drawing exercises in the Medical School's dissection lab, producing drawings from freshly dissected cadavers, and in particular focusing on cranial anatomy, I can perhaps be excused for seeing the real teeth and assuming the rest of the skull is real. But at least my observations were made from personal experience, rather than dubious sources like wikipedia.

But I will consider myself chastened. Your Google-fu has outwitted my BFA degree and decades of professional experience in the arts. I will have to call all the world-class artists I know who have sought my professional services and inform them that some anonymous guy on the internet named ttjereth will now be handling their requests. And I will have to refund the huge amounts of money I made writing art criticism.

You do that, and while you're at it you should see if one of them can help you with removing that tremedous stick you have stuck up your ass.

[Charles]

You do that, and while you're at it you should see if one of them can help you with removing that tremedous stick you have stuck up your ass.

Sure, I'll get right on that, as soon as you write me an 1000 word essay on the influence of Joseph Beuys on Damien Hirst without consulting any outside sources.

The difference between you and me is that people actually pay me to read my opinions on the arts. Kind of like people actually paying money to get into a museum to see Hirst's work. Hirst is a success because he can get a rise out of even the most uninformed philistine like you. The very fact that you HAVE an opinion about Hirst is proof of his achievement.

[prolly]

ah yes, the ole' straw man approach.

you follow in his wake; i will subvert it (and yes i am an artist with nyc and occasional tokyo gallery representation).
i have no intention of trying to argue - we have different opinions and experiences on the matter.

I will accept your criticism if you are able to do either of the following:

1. Create a work of art that has equal impact in the art world, and sells for equal prices.
2. Have sufficient money to purchase a Hirst artwork.

Until then, you're just an armchair critic. As an artist, until I can do either of those things, I can only follow in Hirst's wake.

[Charles]

[quote="prolly"]you follow in his wake]
You can subvert his works, but you'd still only be reacting to his work. And even if you never acknowledged any influences, your work will still be judged by standards you didn't set. Cruel, isn't it?

[Visitor K]

hmm.. im no (visual) artist or critic, but i can see both sides of this argument.. i think that the whole art for the sake of art thing has, as charles said changed art forever, but as ttjereth and prolly pointed out, not everybody thinks these changes are for the better, which as much as you want to argue are both just arguments about preference.. like it or not, i would still say that hirst's work falls under the 'art' heading.
its subjective and is specifically made to be reacted to, which, in my opinion, is part of what makes it art (maybe thats what charles means when he says that just because you have an opinion on hirst's work means that he succeeded)..
but, having said that, regardless of his supposed importance in the art world and money (which i would definitely not say are barometers to deem something as art or not) im not a huge fan of what i have seen..

now, if you want dead animals cut up in a way that is real classy art, try out this place:
CUSTOM CREATURE TAXIDERMY ARTS

(no arguing if its art or not, its right in the shops name!!!)

[Greji]

So much for knowing "man's works and his theories" eh? My 10 second google search beats your bookshelves. Welcome to 21st century.

Hey, nobody's perfect! Charles was partially right. The teeth were real. Shit, now I'm getting hard too! These damn ribald museum stories always do it.

[Mulboyne]

Yomiuri: Govt eyes compensation system for foreign art

The government plans to introduce a state compensation system to partly reimburse costs incurred when foreign works of art borrowed by Japanese art galleries are damaged or stolen, the education and finance ministers said Wednesday. Education, Science and Technology Minister Ryu Shionoya and Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa spoke at a meeting of the House of Councillors Budget Committee of the government's aim to support the holding of high quality exhibitions in the country. "The state compensation system will reduce insurance premiums [for artworks] enabling gallery curators to reduce admission fees," Shionoya said. "Because we believe it'll raise international confidence in Japanese exhibitions, we plan to study how other countries handle this issue," he added

.

[maraboutslim]

Yes, my opinions are more informed than yours, at the minimum...Your opinion is ill-informed, akin to declaring that Lee Iacocca or Daryl Shelby had no influence on modern automobiles.

I don't about art, but I know what I like.
I also know that you probably mean to reference Carroll Shelby, not Daryl.

[Typhoon]

Do you need eyeglasses? It's a real skull, laboriously encrusted with millions of dollars of diamonds and precious metal applique.

Yes, my opinions are more informed than yours, at the minimum. I know the man's works and his theories, as well as those of all the other artists he is influenced by and is influencing. You do not, you have to google for contrary opinions, while my bookshelves are full of them. Your opinion is ill-informed, akin to declaring that Lee Iacocca or Daryl Shelby had no influence on modern automobiles. Your whine that a taxidermist could do it, oh that's the oldest, most pathetic criticism of all. I hear it all the time, it's the old wheeze, "my 6 year old kid could do that!" OK, so why aren't your 6 year old kid's works in the museum and selling for millions? Is there a possibility that the artist knows something your little kid doesn't? Something that took a lifetime to develop?

Rationalize all you like, that stuff is still fatuous crap.

[Catoneinutica]

Rationalize all you like, that stuff is still fatuous crap.

I'm more intrigued by Charles' use of the term "eyeglasses."

[Mulboyne]

[Buraku]

He must have blackmail on someone went to all those Hollyweird parties and seen Cameron put his dick into a Pig or made a video where he has been at an event and took it up the tailpipe from somebody 'important'

Modern Art deserves to die

but maybe the West can be saved

Didn't those Britbongs once pay for one of his shitty works to go all the way to Planet Mars?

The Disaster of Damien Hirst's Commercial Artistry
https://www.mutualart.com/Article/The-D ... AA1DE252FC

Sunshine and sales at Art Basel
https://www.ft.com/content/fae4dfbc-59e ... 6af7d084d0

Damien Hirst sold a bad painting of Leonardo DiCaprio to some pervert

didn’t anyone protect Leo?