If you meet someone new, and decide you're attracted to them, then they suddenly have value. If you're not, then you move on. You don't suddenly hate them for daring to be a potential mate, just cuz YOU couldn't love them. BUT if you find out they're getting married, you think, "Oh, good for them." You're not angry that someone cares about them when you don't. This art is the same. Just cuz it's not your type doesn't mean it isn't important to other people. Please respect that.
I love you for this, it's such a great analogy!! I'm always trying to tell people this! it's silly to get all angry just because some people make things you don't like
That was amazing. I feel more culturally aware for learning about Hirst, and watching Noel talk about art is one of life's greatest miracles. Thank you x
I was really impressed by Noel. He didn't do any call backs to his own routines or comic bits. He really stayed focused on the work and interviewing Damien. Thank you so much for posting.
All big (i.e. commercially successful) artist have a bunch of assistants. That's how they're able to be so productive. And as much as you disapprove... it's nothing new: so did the renaissance painters, didn't they?
Who cares, do you think fashion designers sew every single piece of their collections? Or that arquitects put every single brick into the buildings they create?
The thing is, Hirst doesn't make long proclamations - he's not at all intellectual. He lets the art world (curators, gallery owners, and wealthy collectors) do all the justifying and legitimizing - he is a lot like Warhol in that regard. They claim Hirst is a rebel ...but he is actually anything but. He understands the contemporary art world's need for instant gratification and its desire for icons and spectacle (regardless of how empty or meaningless) - he gives contemporary art nothing more than what it desires - he really doesn't challenge anything. Hirst and Koons are the heroic high priests of contemporary Western culture - with its intellectual laziness and short attention span.
Not at first, which is the point: at the start, as they said, people would walk into a gallery and go "Wtf, this isn't art." And people are still doing that, now. But you ARE impressed by their existence when you visit a museum. His work is considered valuable now, as he said, simply because people put prices on it. The work itself isn't work anything unless the beholder finds value in it. The beholders find his work valuable, so it is. If you don't, then it's not your concern.
It's his art, and it had an audience, and that audience wanted it, and they had money. But, I think the litmus test is that, if you take all that stuff away, would this artist keep making the same stuff? In Damien's case, I think he probably would. He would just be doing it in poverty. (So no diamond skulls, cigarette butts, yeah sure] That, I can respect. It's a fools errand being an artist really. The overwhelming likelihood is that you'll die poor, alone, unrecognised and forgotten by everyone. It's not like being a mechanic, a clerk, or a telco engineer. [which I have been, to eat.] So one would only continue to do it if it's what you're naturally driven to do. An irrational need to make something useless. Nobody would choose that. It's like a mental illness. Except in the cases when it turns good, like it did for him. [and even then, it can still go wrong. Basquiat et al.]
I hate when people say "this isn't art" ... Like... You don't have to like it. I can understand why you wouldn't. But to say it isn't art is just mental. I mean no one gets to define what is and isn't art. That's not how art works. I love most of Damien Hirst that I've seen. I think he's incredible. I love the colours he uses - it's very beautiful. And I really love the Mother and Child (divided). It's disturbing but it's beautiful. It's okay to not find it beautiful or in any way intriguing, but it's not okay to say it's not art. Also Noel! Gosh. Noel Fielding. I won't lie, I found this because of Noel, not because of Damien.
+Prem Chand see I think a lot of it is beautiful. But that's a matter of perspective. We're allowed to disagree on what is beautiful, but no one gets to say something isn't art just because they don't like it.
People say this isn't art because it doesn't compare with the Renaissance masters like Leonardo or Michelangelo. If Damine Hirst is the best artist our generation can produce, then there is something seriously wrong with our generation.
Saw a homeless person baking under the sun on a sidewalk. No matter how hard you try to hide it, it disturbs us all inside. Is that art? Stop using the fact that art can both disturb and enlighten simultaneously to defend Hirst. Hirst doesn't care about you, or how his "work" changes you for your own sake. Don't let a narcissist with an aesthetic sense fool you. Find something else to impress you, because there sure is a lot that can in this world. It just isn't easy to find with a single click.
oh, like a ribbing, i understand now. and you're welcome, i thought this was great and since i have to way to see the actual exhibit myself, i found this really great to be able to watch and wanted to give others the chance to see it too :) xx
To all the people judging the art and saying it's "shit" - you make the assumption that you know what is "not shit" - in which case, why aren't you making "not shit" art and raking in all of the rewards? Just curious, since you seem to 'know'?
Noel and art, two of my favourite things, amazing. I've seen the dots before and you wouldn't think the same person who made them, also cut a cow in half, it's sort of bizarre, but beautiful too. Thanks for uploading it by the way!
the thing about art is that anything made from a genuine artistic approach is art. If he actually is passionate about his ideas, then it's art. though i can't quite tell if that's the case or if he's just getting one over on the rich
Is his art up for interpreting? Because I’d like to put in my two cents here. Pieces like For the Love of God and A Thousand Years, I think Hirst tried to show the concept or cycle of life and death. To let the society know that death is always near us. Projects with those numerous pills are the same, saying “No matter how much you try to avoid death, it’ll always arrive”.
Kinda unrelated, but kinda not at the same time-The fact that art critics (and the concept of critiquing art in general) exist is ridiculous enough idea on it's own. Whether art is "art" is completely subjective. Whether art is good, great, or shit is completely subjective. There is no right or wrong in art. Critiquing it for the masses and telling others whether they should like it or not completely defeats the purpose of it's existence. Art is an intensely personal medium-that's the point of it. By telling someone that they've done something wrong with it, that their art is shit-you're essentially commenting on that person's inherent character which feels a bit wrong to me. Not understanding the point in something or not agreeing with the point or the visual(or whatever the case may be) of something doesn't necessarily make it bad or wrong, it's literally just a question of personal taste. Art is quite literally: "Someone else's trash is someone else's treasure". For me, personally, I'm not particularly moved by his work but I also haven't seen it in person which I find has an enormous impact on how you perceive art. Just seeing pictures or footage of art makes it a bit flat and lifeless and takes the "reality" out of it. Seeing it live is a totally different scenario.
If any of his work was put in a natural history museum, people would walk by and say "ooh, sharks and cows sure are interesting." But he puts it in a snooty modern art gallery and everyone says "oh what a profound conceptual genius he is! Lets appraise this for millions of dollars!"
Jochem Meijnen If you have 6-6-2x3=6 And add 2+6 you get 8, if you subtract 6 from 6 you get 0, if you subtract 2 from 2 you get 0, if you add 5 to 3 you get 8, and if you subtract 1 you get 5... This turns into 8-0-0x8=5 80085=BOOBS!!!!! Coincidence?!
This is a wonderful video. I really enjoyed it. I'm a fan of Noel Fielding's artwork, but I have never heard of Damien Hirst. I really enjoyed this. Death Life Immorality, do you believe in god? It's great. I wasn't shocked to hear Noel didn't believe in god. I read that he doesn't believe in organized religion. I agree on both levels, and I loved the artwork shown here. I would have loved to see it in person.
Thanks for uploading this! I saw pics of Noel and Hirst's artwork on tumblr and was like 'where can I find this? What is is from?' I emailed a friend and they told me about it on channel 4. Thanks to youtube and YOU, I enjoyed watching this tasty morsel of Hirst and Fielding!
funny how we think we know what art it is, Picasso? warhol? Rembrandt? duchamp? banksy? What is considered art for everyone is what have you been told is art... if the rich people pays 100 millions for Picasso must be art then.... I personally think art should transmit, and give you emotions.
I'm shocked by the amount of people bitching about Damien and his work. Unless you yourself are a Picasso or a Warhol, then you have absolutely no right to get on your high horse and dictate what is art. The art I just saw shocked the hell out of me. Personally, I get more of an impact from physical three dimensional art than I do from paintings, and I find him more emotional and though provoking than most artist. His art is for those who think freely, not those who are taught how to think.
Nope. Salvador Dali would be. Dali painted from his fears and his nightmares. Dali has so much more to give when it comes to the dream like surrealism that David always creates.
Este tio deberia decorar alguna discoteca! Es un espabilao con ideas,como una peluquera lista,no? Se parece a Philp Collins.Tiene esa misma cara y ese mismo arranque.
The closer one looks at Hirst the more boring and dry his work becomes. Oh for the days when Pollock was the rebel and Basquiat was being true to expression!
I don’t get how this counts as his art. Is it cause he’s the one who decided to put the things there? I mean did he actually physically create any of it (other than those few spot paintings)? It seems more like he’s a museum curator, but instead of making factual plaques that just say what the things are, he gives them odd names/explanations.
this has been frequently visited idea since the 60s, whether or not you have to make something for it to be art. Actually scratch that, Duchamp first posed this question with "Fountain" in 1917. Tons of artists and art movements over the past 100 years have asserted that one need not make something themselves for it to be considered art. See: minimalism, conceptualism, fluxus. Something being conceptual means it is more about the idea behind the piece than the actual piece itself. And several of these movements have been about taking regular objects out of their usual context and putting them into the context of art.
the problem is that the challenge that used to be before pop art came long is no longer a challenge......i don't see him an artist with an idea.....but who cares if you are as fabulous as hirst...its better than everything else
What a quandary British "art" got itself into; In that there was allegedly none before, then all of a sudden because Sarah Kent said it was so - it was so. Damien hirst is a nice person (and actually a very funny guy) but even he would agree (before every knob bigged him up) that he was the luckiest Yorkshire-lad half-wit on the planet
Damien Hirst is like Oscar Wilde? I'd be very confused if Wilde came back to life and didn't kill himself after walking around the modern world for more then a week.
A drunk wanking on the street is art. Everything is art if you look at it with an artistic view point. I believe this is the point of his work. Many people view art in a very small category with all sorts of restrictions but art has no barriers. A butterfly is an insect but wouldn't you also consider it art? I can understand people being upset with his work because of the fact that much of it used to be living, but if I died and then was later used as art I would be quite flattered.
Like Picasso stated, (in ref. to his work being not Art), "If I hand you a book in English and you do not read English doesn't mean the the book isn't filled with much value". Artist understand this very thing and do there utmost not to say harsh things about any ones work. People (coming from my point of view) that make harsh remarks about and Artist is a wannabe in the highest order!
Because normal people are there to buy food to eat not look at the chicken wings and speculate what they are to feel or the deeper meaning in why they are packaged in one direction. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I see what Hirst is doing and understand why Noel is into it. Noel is the kind of person to go to the supermarket and not give a shit about it cause he's in the cookie aisle listening to the rolling stones and loading up the cart with sweets and having one on the way to checkout.
Stop tax funding art galleries and we'll see how much this art is worth. There are many great modern artists, who can feed themselves and aren't living on tax payers money.
Let me begin by telling you that when my brother was just starting school, he rebelled at the rules of spelling. Why did words have to be spelled in a particular way? Why couldn't he spell them as he wanted to spell them? He resented the rules and he resisted the authority of those who made them ! Keep this in mind. I think that Conceptual art comes from people who could not and would not do the difficult work required to become a 'traditional' artist. Can't master the necessary skills ? Can't understand how to use color to create mood? Can't master composition? Can't draw or understand human anatomy? Can't figure out how to express your feelings with image? Can’t be bothered ? Well then, belittle the importance of those skills and debase the notion that they are a prerequisite to creating art. Instead, create an art genre that you CAN do. A new genre. And let's call it Conceptual art. Conceptual artists claim that IDEAS and CONCEPTS are the main feature of their art. They can slap anything together and call it ''conceptual art'' confident that viewers will find SOMETHING to think about it no matter how banal or trivial the artist's concept! There is no way conceptual art pieces can be judged. The promoters of this art have attacked the motives and credibility of authorities and critics who might disparage the work. They have rejected museums and galleries as defining authorities. They reject the idea that art can be judged or criticized . All of this results in a decline in standards. And when you jettison standards, quality suffers. There really IS such a thing as BAD art ! We know this only because we have standards and criteria by which such things can be evaluated. It seems that conceptual art comes down to a basic idea: No one has the right or authority to make any judgements about art ! Art is anything you can get away with ! A whole new language has been created to give the work an air of legitimacy and gravitas. Conceptual art is 'sold' to the unwary public with ....."ArtSpeak". ArtSpeak is a unique assemblage of English words and phrases that the International Art world uses but which are devoid of meaning! Have you ever found yourself confronted by an art gallery’s description of an exhibition which seems completely indecipherable? Or an artist’s statement about their work which left you more confused than enlightened? You’re not alone. Here are examples of ArtSpeak: ''..she manipulates architectural structures in order to deconstruct socially defined spaces and their uses and test novel and playful possibilities." Or ' 'Works that probe the dialectic between innovations that seem to have been forgotten, the ruinous present state of projects once created amid great euphoria, and the present as an era of transitions and new beginnings.'' Or ''The exhibition reactivates his career-long investigation into the social mutations of desire and repression. But his earlier concerns with repression production--in the adolescent or in the family as a whole--give way to the vertiginous retrieval and wayward reinvention of mythical community and sub-cultural traditions.'' This language is meant to convince me that there is real substance to this drivel which is being passed off as 'art'. But I don't buy it. Plenty of other people DO buy it. Not because they love the work. They are laying out enormous sums in the belief that their investment will bring them high returns in the future. One Jeff Koons conceptual piece is three basketballs suspended in a fish tank. Here is Koons' own ArtSpeak explanation of his floating basketball 'concept' verbatim: “ This is an ultimate state of being. I wanted to play with people’s desires. They desire this equilibrium. They desire pre-birth. I was giving a definition of life and death. This is the eternal. This is what life is like, also, after death. Aspects of the eternal” Rather lofty goals for 3 basketballs suspended in a fish tank!! It sold for $350,000. I wonder what it would have fetched without Koons' name attached to it. _______________________________________ Something radical has happened to the art scene in the past 50 years. Cubism slid into non-representational art....what is often called Abstract. Abstract or non-representational art is a legitimate and often profound genre. But to many people, it appeared as if this new style had no structure, principles or standards of evaluation. It’s markings seemed random and arbitrary. Something that anyone could do. Any composition of blotches or scribbles was “Abstract Art”. This was the slippery slope that led to the abandonment of standards in art. Art is what I say it is....and lots of people jumped on the art bandwagon. Anyone can be an artist. Anyone can mount a show. And who is to say if it has value? A tacit agreement forms among critics, galleries, publications and auction houses to promote and celebrate certain artists and styles. Objects with no artistic merit are touted and praised . Their value increases with every magazine article, every exhibition in a prestigious gallery. And when they come up for auction, sometimes the auction houses will lend vast sums to a bidder so that it appears as if the work of the particular artist is increasing in value. The upward spiral begins and fortunes are made. And many are reluctant to declare that the Emperor is, in fact, naked lest they appear boorish unsophisticated Philistines ! This is what dominates the art market today. The love of money is the root of all evil. It has corrupted politics. It has corrupted sport. It has corrupted healthcare. It has corrupted religion. And now it has corrupted art. But, there is reason to hope. As much of the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans was kept alive through the Middle Ages in small pockets of learning and culture, ateliers have sprung up around the world that are devoted to preserving and handing down the traditional visual arts: drawing, painting and sculpting to each new generation. And when this craze for conceptual art has burned itself out and when visual art is no longer looked on as mere decoration and when schools that have dissolved their art programs want to reestablish them again, the world will find these skills preserved through the atelier movement.
+djangolad - If I had big money to collect art Anselm Kiefer would be at the top of my list along w/ a few very specific Basquait's, Jose Parla and a Picasso next to Banksy...
Sure why not I like all those names as well! I initially loved Parla's work 10 years ago but Jose became a little formulaic don't you think? Certainly not in the same class as the others you mention. Jose makes art that pretends to be street art these days. It's for wealthy shallow people who want to appear cool!
no it's not really different on a technical level but it's putting it in a different context. which is what most art does. you're meant to think about it in a different way and to kind of relate to and empathize with that creature that was alive once just like you are now
If you meet someone new, and decide you're attracted to them, then they suddenly have value. If you're not, then you move on. You don't suddenly hate them for daring to be a potential mate, just cuz YOU couldn't love them. BUT if you find out they're getting married, you think, "Oh, good for them." You're not angry that someone cares about them when you don't. This art is the same. Just cuz it's not your type doesn't mean it isn't important to other people. Please respect that.
I love you for this, it's such a great analogy!! I'm always trying to tell people this! it's silly to get all angry just because some people make things you don't like
Enjoy your bananas taped to a wall mistaken for "art"
What Damien Hirst has figured out above all else is that it is easy to fool people who are afraid of being wrong.
Damien Hirst stole all his famous work from John LeKay and other artists. Spread the word!
Say what you will about his product. I could listen to his mind and streaming of consciousness for hours on end.
That was amazing. I feel more culturally aware for learning about Hirst, and watching Noel talk about art is one of life's greatest miracles. Thank you x
I was really impressed by Noel. He didn't do any call backs to his own routines or comic bits. He really stayed focused on the work and interviewing Damien. Thank you so much for posting.
The stain glass windows created from butterflies are amazingly beautiful.
He couldn't even tell if he painted his own dot paintings.
All big (i.e. commercially successful) artist have a bunch of assistants. That's how they're able to be so productive. And as much as you disapprove... it's nothing new: so did the renaissance painters, didn't they?
What important is the concept and idea is from him.
@@grytlappar no
Maybe because he just makes shitty paintings that anyone could do
Who cares, do you think fashion designers sew every single piece of their collections? Or that arquitects put every single brick into the buildings they create?
thank-you for uploading, brilliant!
Damien's new exhibition (Relics). I can't believe it's in Qatar. I went there with my school and can I just say,I was shocked yet impressed.
wow!! this is amazing i love Hirst and Noel together
"Is there anything other than the bloody spots?!" ~ Brian Sewell, Art Critic
"If it needs a long explanation to proclaim its art, it's probably bullshit." Quote from, "Modern Art a portrait of Mediocrity."
Damien Hirst stole all his famous work from John LeKay and other artists. Spread the word!
The thing is, Hirst doesn't make long proclamations - he's not at all intellectual. He lets the art world (curators, gallery owners, and wealthy collectors) do all the justifying and legitimizing - he is a lot like Warhol in that regard. They claim Hirst is a rebel ...but he is actually anything but. He understands the contemporary art world's need for instant gratification and its desire for icons and spectacle (regardless of how empty or meaningless) - he gives contemporary art nothing more than what it desires - he really doesn't challenge anything. Hirst and Koons are the heroic high priests of contemporary Western culture - with its intellectual laziness and short attention span.
Not at first, which is the point: at the start, as they said, people would walk into a gallery and go "Wtf, this isn't art." And people are still doing that, now. But you ARE impressed by their existence when you visit a museum. His work is considered valuable now, as he said, simply because people put prices on it. The work itself isn't work anything unless the beholder finds value in it. The beholders find his work valuable, so it is. If you don't, then it's not your concern.
It's his art, and it had an audience, and that audience wanted it, and they had money. But, I think the litmus test is that, if you take all that stuff away, would this artist keep making the same stuff? In Damien's case, I think he probably would. He would just be doing it in poverty. (So no diamond skulls, cigarette butts, yeah sure] That, I can respect.
It's a fools errand being an artist really. The overwhelming likelihood is that you'll die poor, alone, unrecognised and forgotten by everyone. It's not like being a mechanic, a clerk, or a telco engineer. [which I have been, to eat.] So one would only continue to do it if it's what you're naturally driven to do. An irrational need to make something useless. Nobody would choose that. It's like a mental illness. Except in the cases when it turns good, like it did for him. [and even then, it can still go wrong. Basquiat et al.]
Awesome documentary! Great interview Noel Fielding!
I hate when people say "this isn't art" ... Like... You don't have to like it. I can understand why you wouldn't. But to say it isn't art is just mental. I mean no one gets to define what is and isn't art. That's not how art works.
I love most of Damien Hirst that I've seen. I think he's incredible. I love the colours he uses - it's very beautiful. And I really love the Mother and Child (divided). It's disturbing but it's beautiful.
It's okay to not find it beautiful or in any way intriguing, but it's not okay to say it's not art.
Also Noel! Gosh. Noel Fielding. I won't lie, I found this because of Noel, not because of Damien.
+Cherie Morgan C'mon, his art is not "beautiful". It is simply bold and shocking and that alone qualifies for good art these days.
+Prem Chand see I think a lot of it is beautiful. But that's a matter of perspective. We're allowed to disagree on what is beautiful, but no one gets to say something isn't art just because they don't like it.
People say this isn't art because it doesn't compare with the Renaissance masters like Leonardo or Michelangelo. If Damine Hirst is the best artist our generation can produce, then there is something seriously wrong with our generation.
How can killing something and displaying it be a art its just the good marketing gimmick that it
art is individual action desplayed on a certain platform//
I found "A Thousand Years" disturbing but loved "In And Out of Love" Art should disturb and stir something in you.
As should laxatives
Saw a homeless person baking under the sun on a sidewalk. No matter how hard you try to hide it, it disturbs us all inside. Is that art?
Stop using the fact that art can both disturb and enlighten simultaneously to defend Hirst. Hirst doesn't care about you, or how his "work" changes you for your own sake. Don't let a narcissist with an aesthetic sense fool you. Find something else to impress you, because there sure is a lot that can in this world. It just isn't easy to find with a single click.
I don't get 1000 Years but it's hard to forget that image. Unforgettable.
oh, like a ribbing, i understand now. and you're welcome, i thought this was great and since i have to way to see the actual exhibit myself, i found this really great to be able to watch and wanted to give others the chance to see it too :) xx
is good to see that someone gets it, this is merely a sadistic game by the elite.
To all the people judging the art and saying it's "shit" - you make the assumption that you know what is "not shit" - in which case, why aren't you making "not shit" art and raking in all of the rewards? Just curious, since you seem to 'know'?
I came here looking for Noel Fielding; I leave looking for cheap flights to London. I *need* to see this exhibition like I need air.
Noel and art, two of my favourite things, amazing.
I've seen the dots before and you wouldn't think the same person who made them, also cut a cow in half, it's sort of bizarre, but beautiful too.
Thanks for uploading it by the way!
Absolutely one of the best videos on here. He is talented, and cool. Ilove the bloke's personality and views on art.
I absolutely adore this
I love the fact that people like you are out there to react to these things. It's part of the installation really.
His assistants are the actual artists. He doesn't really do anything but give direction. He's famous because celebrities made him that way.
Thanks for this!
simply amazing
the thing about art is that anything made from a genuine artistic approach is art. If he actually is passionate about his ideas, then it's art. though i can't quite tell if that's the case or if he's just getting one over on the rich
that's exactly my view on art too!
He got hate mail... Mission complete for an artist like this! Very VERY close to Dada but without the parody of art... I like it!
That is really quite a brilliant way to put it.
The art critic takes the words out of my mouth with the 'how many spot paintings do you need' comment.
The whole stick is 'Spinal Tap'.
Artist don't make harsh comments about other Artist work; They except them and move on......... . . . . .
Is his art up for interpreting? Because I’d like to put in my two cents here.
Pieces like For the Love of God and A Thousand Years, I think Hirst tried to show the concept or cycle of life and death. To let the society know that death is always near us. Projects with those numerous pills are the same, saying “No matter how much you try to avoid death, it’ll always arrive”.
Kinda unrelated, but kinda not at the same time-The fact that art critics (and the concept of critiquing art in general) exist is ridiculous enough idea on it's own. Whether art is "art" is completely subjective. Whether art is good, great, or shit is completely subjective. There is no right or wrong in art. Critiquing it for the masses and telling others whether they should like it or not completely defeats the purpose of it's existence. Art is an intensely personal medium-that's the point of it. By telling someone that they've done something wrong with it, that their art is shit-you're essentially commenting on that person's inherent character which feels a bit wrong to me. Not understanding the point in something or not agreeing with the point or the visual(or whatever the case may be) of something doesn't necessarily make it bad or wrong, it's literally just a question of personal taste. Art is quite literally: "Someone else's trash is someone else's treasure". For me, personally, I'm not particularly moved by his work but I also haven't seen it in person which I find has an enormous impact on how you perceive art. Just seeing pictures or footage of art makes it a bit flat and lifeless and takes the "reality" out of it. Seeing it live is a totally different scenario.
His Art is shit! lol
I think that goes for movies, music and books too.
I think Hirst has never visited a museum of natural history
One of the greatest British visual artist at all times
I went into this doc hating Damien Hirst, and left liking him
If any of his work was put in a natural history museum, people would walk by and say "ooh, sharks and cows sure are interesting."
But he puts it in a snooty modern art gallery and everyone says "oh what a profound conceptual genius he is! Lets appraise this for millions of dollars!"
whats up with all of these its not art comments
i dont get it i dont like it
it aint good for me
but whats up with the whole debate about modern art
it takes 6 technicians 6 day to put all 23 tons of this together
6-6-2x3=6
666 coincidence? lol
He IS the DEVIL !!!!
Jochem Meijnen If you have 6-6-2x3=6
And add 2+6 you get 8, if you subtract 6 from 6 you get 0, if you subtract 2 from 2 you get 0, if you add 5 to 3 you get 8, and if you subtract 1 you get 5...
This turns into 8-0-0x8=5
80085=BOOBS!!!!! Coincidence?!
favorite piece is the shark and the title is a cool metaphor for the piece
This is a wonderful video. I really enjoyed it. I'm a fan of Noel Fielding's artwork, but I have never heard of Damien Hirst. I really enjoyed this. Death Life Immorality, do you believe in god? It's great. I wasn't shocked to hear Noel didn't believe in god. I read that he doesn't believe in organized religion. I agree on both levels, and I loved the artwork shown here. I would have loved to see it in person.
Thanks for uploading this! I saw pics of Noel and Hirst's artwork on tumblr and was like 'where can I find this? What is is from?' I emailed a friend and they told me about it on channel 4. Thanks to youtube and YOU, I enjoyed watching this tasty morsel of Hirst and Fielding!
But are the sharks/butterflies/flies quite flattered? And would you be so flattered if you were specifically killed to be made into art?
funny how we think we know what art it is, Picasso? warhol? Rembrandt? duchamp? banksy?
What is considered art for everyone is what have you been told is art... if the rich people pays 100 millions for Picasso must be art then....
I personally think art should transmit, and give you emotions.
😴😴😴😴😴💤💤💤💤💤💤💤
+RanThaMan - You are really contributing to the comments, aren't you, you sad sack.
He may have put some on paper, only some, but he has never had his hands dirty. The real artist are the actual artist that do the art for him.
I'm shocked by the amount of people bitching about Damien and his work. Unless you yourself are a Picasso or a Warhol, then you have absolutely no right to get on your high horse and dictate what is art. The art I just saw shocked the hell out of me. Personally, I get more of an impact from physical three dimensional art than I do from paintings, and I find him more emotional and though provoking than most artist. His art is for those who think freely, not those who are taught how to think.
yea i know but Noel's worn that ring for years. if anything it's an homage, not an insult.
I like sharks better than art.
Damien Hirst stole all his famous work from John LeKay and other artists. Spread the word!
So we watched this in architecture class. I squeaked.
Damian Hirst, adding the 'F' to art.
What year was this?
Does Noel always twirl his hair when he is excited?
+SirManDudeGuy1 Yes. It is adorable.
If David Lynch were to make a movie bio about an artist, Damian Hirst would be the most likely subject.
Nope. Salvador Dali would be. Dali painted from his fears and his nightmares. Dali has so much more to give when it comes to the dream like surrealism that David always creates.
Este tio deberia decorar alguna discoteca! Es un espabilao con ideas,como una peluquera lista,no? Se parece a Philp Collins.Tiene esa misma cara y ese mismo arranque.
youre welcome youre welcome youre welcome!
ahhh hahahahahahahahahahaha...The guitarist from POISON telling me commercialism is art...ahahaahaa
For veterinary anatomists, he's brilliant.
I love his art.
Looks like Phil Collins little brother
Damien Hirst, who is it ?
Fuck off.
So if I color dots ill become famous!
Wonderful!
The closer one looks at Hirst the more boring and dry his work becomes. Oh for the days when Pollock was the rebel and Basquiat was being true to expression!
What has he actually done?
Fascinating!
AWFULL in absolute.the end of money is acceptable.but of the fish it is a catastrophy.
I don’t get how this counts as his art. Is it cause he’s the one who decided to put the things there? I mean did he actually physically create any of it (other than those few spot paintings)? It seems more like he’s a museum curator, but instead of making factual plaques that just say what the things are, he gives them odd names/explanations.
this has been frequently visited idea since the 60s, whether or not you have to make something for it to be art. Actually scratch that, Duchamp first posed this question with "Fountain" in 1917. Tons of artists and art movements over the past 100 years have asserted that one need not make something themselves for it to be considered art. See: minimalism, conceptualism, fluxus. Something being conceptual means it is more about the idea behind the piece than the actual piece itself. And several of these movements have been about taking regular objects out of their usual context and putting them into the context of art.
i wish it had subtitle
you want to see a shark, go to a fucking aquarium.
Or, preferably, Damien Hirst might consider going swimming off the coast of Western Australia with some part of his body oozing blood.
richard0807 yeah that sounds good to me
+Alexander Lee wow. really? you really dont se any artistry and creativity in any of this?
the problem is that the challenge that used to be before pop art came long is no longer a challenge......i don't see him an artist with an idea.....but who cares if you are as fabulous as hirst...its better than everything else
What a quandary British "art" got itself into; In that there was allegedly none before, then all of a sudden because Sarah Kent said it was so - it was so. Damien hirst is a nice person (and actually a very funny guy) but even he would agree (before every knob bigged him up) that he was the luckiest Yorkshire-lad half-wit on the planet
Damien Hirst is like Oscar Wilde? I'd be very confused if Wilde came back to life and didn't kill himself after walking around the modern world for more then a week.
Tjalle Haaze I dunno, he might find it funny. And he wouldn't be persecuted for being bi, so that's a plus.
I can't seem to relate to the artist, nor the narrator, but the art is dope nonetheless.
Whew! Those white boots looked painful to walk on.
Lololol
A drunk wanking on the street is art. Everything is art if you look at it with an artistic view point. I believe this is the point of his work. Many people view art in a very small category with all sorts of restrictions but art has no barriers. A butterfly is an insect but wouldn't you also consider it art? I can understand people being upset with his work because of the fact that much of it used to be living, but if I died and then was later used as art I would be quite flattered.
Does this count as necrophilia?
I love Noel!!!
I do not see art in killing endangered species . Let's think beyond shock value, this is very sad!
Most famous, biggest, boldest, baddest piece of shit evah.
Is it art? No clue but very entertaining documentary for sure.
Damien "HEARSE" was that a good pun
The 'artist' himself looks and sounds like an "east enders" character. Classy!
I just want to know if his costume is for real. Has he seen Spinal Tap too many times?
Push Limits. Create New Ways to see. Awesome.
are u kidding me .....this is bullshit....
gonzalo dominguez yeah really. I hate this crap
soy curioso tambien :)
Like Picasso stated, (in ref. to his work being not Art), "If I hand you a book in English and you do not read English doesn't mean the the book isn't filled with much value". Artist understand this very thing and do there utmost not to say harsh things about any ones work. People (coming from my point of view) that make harsh remarks about and Artist is a wannabe in the highest order!
Damien hirst art works are truly a copy of past concepts and is absolutely just BUSINESS and not art
Because normal people are there to buy food to eat not look at the chicken wings and speculate what they are to feel or the deeper meaning in why they are packaged in one direction. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I see what Hirst is doing and understand why Noel is into it. Noel is the kind of person to go to the supermarket and not give a shit about it cause he's in the cookie aisle listening to the rolling stones and loading up the cart with sweets and having one on the way to checkout.
more like damien hearse
.
.
.
.
.
.
luv the guys art
Stop tax funding art galleries and we'll see how much this art is worth. There are many great modern artists, who can feed themselves and aren't living on tax payers money.
Nobody else answered the add in the paper
Sera segoviano?
Let me begin by telling you that when my brother was just starting school, he rebelled at the rules of spelling.
Why did words have to be spelled in a particular way?
Why couldn't he spell them as he wanted to spell them?
He resented the rules and he resisted the authority of those who made them !
Keep this in mind.
I think that Conceptual art comes from people who could not and would not do the difficult work required to become a 'traditional' artist.
Can't master the necessary skills ?
Can't understand how to use color to create mood?
Can't master composition?
Can't draw or understand human anatomy?
Can't figure out how to express your feelings with image?
Can’t be bothered ?
Well then, belittle the importance of those skills and debase the notion that they are a prerequisite to creating art.
Instead, create an art genre that you CAN do.
A new genre.
And let's call it Conceptual art.
Conceptual artists claim that IDEAS and CONCEPTS are the main feature of their art.
They can slap anything together and call it ''conceptual art'' confident that viewers will find SOMETHING to think about it no matter how banal or trivial the artist's concept!
There is no way conceptual art pieces can be judged.
The promoters of this art have attacked the motives and credibility of authorities and critics who might disparage the work.
They have rejected museums and galleries as defining authorities.
They reject the idea that art can be judged or criticized .
All of this results in a decline in standards.
And when you jettison standards, quality suffers.
There really IS such a thing as BAD art !
We know this only because we have standards and criteria by which such things can be evaluated.
It seems that conceptual art comes down to a basic idea:
No one has the right or authority to make any judgements about art !
Art is anything you can get away with !
A whole new language has been created to give the work an air of legitimacy and gravitas.
Conceptual art is 'sold' to the unwary public with ....."ArtSpeak".
ArtSpeak is a unique assemblage of English words and phrases that the International Art world uses but which are devoid of meaning!
Have you ever found yourself confronted by an art gallery’s description of an exhibition which seems completely indecipherable?
Or an artist’s statement about their work which left you more confused than enlightened?
You’re not alone.
Here are examples of ArtSpeak:
''..she manipulates architectural structures in order to deconstruct socially defined spaces and their uses and test novel and playful possibilities."
Or '
'Works that probe the dialectic between innovations that seem to have been forgotten, the ruinous present state of projects once created amid great euphoria, and the present as an era of transitions and new beginnings.''
Or
''The exhibition reactivates his career-long investigation into the social mutations of desire and repression. But his earlier concerns with repression production--in the adolescent or in the family as a whole--give way to the vertiginous retrieval and wayward reinvention of mythical community and sub-cultural traditions.''
This language is meant to convince me that there is real substance to this drivel which is being passed off as 'art'.
But I don't buy it.
Plenty of other people DO buy it.
Not because they love the work.
They are laying out enormous sums in the belief that their investment will bring them high returns in the future.
One Jeff Koons conceptual piece is three basketballs suspended in a fish tank.
Here is Koons' own ArtSpeak explanation of his floating basketball 'concept' verbatim:
“ This is an ultimate state of being.
I wanted to play with people’s desires.
They desire this equilibrium.
They desire pre-birth.
I was giving a definition of life and death.
This is the eternal.
This is what life is like, also, after death.
Aspects of the eternal”
Rather lofty goals for 3 basketballs suspended in a fish tank!!
It sold for $350,000.
I wonder what it would have fetched without Koons' name attached to it.
_______________________________________
Something radical has happened to the art scene in the past 50 years.
Cubism slid into non-representational art....what is often called Abstract.
Abstract or non-representational art is a legitimate and often profound genre.
But to many people, it appeared as if this new style had no structure, principles or standards of evaluation.
It’s markings seemed random and arbitrary.
Something that anyone could do.
Any composition of blotches or scribbles was “Abstract Art”.
This was the slippery slope that led to the abandonment of standards in art.
Art is what I say it is....and lots of people jumped on the art bandwagon.
Anyone can be an artist.
Anyone can mount a show.
And who is to say if it has value?
A tacit agreement forms among critics, galleries, publications and auction houses to promote and celebrate certain artists and styles.
Objects with no artistic merit are touted and praised .
Their value increases with every magazine article, every exhibition in a prestigious gallery.
And when they come up for auction, sometimes the auction houses will lend vast sums to a bidder so that it appears as if the work of the particular artist is increasing in value.
The upward spiral begins and fortunes are made.
And many are reluctant to declare that the Emperor is, in fact, naked lest they appear boorish unsophisticated Philistines !
This is what dominates the art market today.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
It has corrupted politics.
It has corrupted sport.
It has corrupted healthcare.
It has corrupted religion.
And now it has corrupted art.
But, there is reason to hope.
As much of the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans was kept alive through the Middle Ages in small pockets of learning and culture, ateliers have sprung up around the world that are devoted to preserving and handing down the traditional visual arts: drawing, painting and sculpting to each new generation.
And when this craze for conceptual art has burned itself out and when visual art is no longer looked on as mere decoration and when schools that have dissolved their art programs want to reestablish them again, the world will find these skills preserved through the atelier movement.
jesus christ buddy, see a therapist. it's just art.
I can't decide which is worse, the pigs at Sotheby's or Damien's outfit.
NOEL!!!
I can't help but feel the preserved animals are no different from taxidermy. An age old craft that probably has more creativity involved.
+djangolad - If I had big money to collect art Anselm Kiefer would be at the top of my list along w/ a few very specific Basquait's, Jose Parla and a Picasso next to Banksy...
Taxidermy is a craft developed as a service, unlike art. So no there is no creativity involved.
Sure why not I like all those names as well! I initially loved Parla's work 10 years ago but Jose became a little formulaic don't you think? Certainly not in the same class as the others you mention. Jose makes art that pretends to be street art these days. It's for wealthy shallow people who want to appear cool!
no it's not really different on a technical level but it's putting it in a different context. which is what most art does. you're meant to think about it in a different way and to kind of relate to and empathize with that creature that was alive once just like you are now
legend
very welcome