"A ~$100,000,000 Diamond Encrusted Skull..." Topic

For the love of art and money: link

At the dark heart of Damien Hirst's new show Beyond Belief is a piece entitled For the Love of God. Shown in an illuminated glass case in a darkened room on the top floor of the White Cube gallery in St James's, it consists of a life-size cast of a human skull in platinum, its surface covered by 8,601 flawless pavé diamonds, weighing a total of 1,106.18 carats. Crucial to the work's meaning is the asking price of £50.00 GBP million.

Damien Hirst's platinum cast of a human skull is covered with 8,601 ethically-sourced diamonds
If anyone but Hirst had made this curious object, we would be struck by its vulgarity. It looks like the kind of thing Asprey or Harrods might sell to credulous visitors from the oil states with unlimited amounts of money to spend, little taste, and no knowledge of art. I can imagine it gracing the drawing room of some African dictator or Colombian drug baron.

But not just anyone made it – Hirst did. Knowing this, we look at it in a different way and realise that in the most brutal, direct way possible, For the Love of God questions something about the morality of art and money.

"For the Love of God questions something about the morality of art and money."

Yeah, like how many sick and starving kids could have been helped.

What a waste.

It's not vulgar at all. An artist made it…

Although that was not his intent, the writer encapsulates why many people today (including me) think the whole "Art" world is full of .

But it is more. By ensuring that the price he is asking for the skull receives the maximum amount of publicity, Hirst has also made sure that whoever buys it will never be able to enjoy it. Like the Ring of the Nibelung, this glittering, deadly prize will prove at some level a curse to the person who possesses it.

I can't remember another art work that so perfectly embodies the cynicism and ambivalence successful artists must feel towards those who promote and collect their work.

Deacdent beyond beleif…the irony (or post-irony depending on your point of veiw) of it fails on so many levels.

Yes I saw Kai at Fall In but he was not sure with work and all if he could make Cold Wars. Do not know if he is on the list for Historicon. Hope he is there as I am looking at the Meso-American line as well.
VR
James Mattes

I can't articulate how abhorant I find that item…

The most abhorrent thing about it is that someone would claim that because one person made it, rather than another, it is worth more. That is absurd. The thing is what it is no matter who made it. Maybe you could argue quality but if there is no difference in the quality then it doesn't matter.

Pissing on the sidewalk is ing on the sidewalk whether it is done by a wino or a performance artist. One gets you taken to jail, the other gets you put into a museum. Talk about the emperor has no clothes.

Philistines!

Know ye not that the diamonds are ethically sourced?

And 50 million would buy a lot of minis . . .

"because one person made it, rather than another, it is worth more. That is absurd."

Well yes, from a practical point of view but like George C. Scott in ‘The Flim Flam Man' Mr. Hirst is not so much selling a product as an idea. Think of it as an educational experience. The really curious point is how showering contempt on his prospective customers only increases their desire to buy his stuff. It's a strange masochistic relationship which I suspect has something to do with the insecurities of many of the wealthy.

Nick Bibby, who once upon a time made figures but has long since moved on to become a fine animalier bronze sculptor as well as doing other sundry projects has been Mr. Hirst's assistant (that is, he did all the actual work) for a large statue of a half dissected pregnant girl;

picture

Cast of a skull? You would think he could afford the real thing. As for the'morality of art and money', hes a rich parasitic bastard whose has always been willing to sell his 'soul'\artworks to the highest bidder. Money, Money, Money, thats all he is.

And the scale is unpractical for use on my game table.

I think it's beautiful, in a very macabre way.

"How do these people sleep at night, knowing that the hundred million they just spent could have endowed schools, built hospitals, eradicated diseases and alleviated hunger? Don't they think about the morality of pouring so much wealth into something as dead as a diamond necklace, a painting, a private jet?"

How do we gamers sleep at night knowing that the hundreds, even thousands of dollars we spend on toy soldiers could feed some third world orphan? The whole argument is BS in my opinion. If someone wants to spend their money on such an object, more power to them.

(1) I doubt seriously whether anyone is going to buy it, unless it's prepurchased by the diamond consortium (I mean source) where he received the diamonds to make it.

(2) As Tom indicates, he didn't make the piece. He probably did some sketches and hired some professional artisans to create the object.

(3) I won't comment on the artistic quality. The skull has been adorned with jewels since pre-history. The difference being the decadence of yesteryear being pale in comparison with $100 USD million worth of dimaonds (I wonder how much the diamonds on the piece really cost).

(4) My sister-in-law had a show at White Cube 2 months ago.

I believe the teeth are real, unless I misheard the brief BBC World segment.

I also like the skull, though if I had the funds, I still wouldn't buy it. Not being a latter day Benthamite, I wouldn't know where to put it, it smacks of the occult.

Sounds more like something I'd expect to find as loot in a D&D dungeon crawl than a piece of art. Presumably the buyer will be a dragon looking for "something special" to add to his horde…

You know I've got to agree with the OFM on this one. What a pretensious piece of crud! The nitwits who buy this "art" will only "ponder" its deeper meaning in front of other niotwits with far more money than brains. This is one of those "art" pieces that really has little true value. In 500 years will this have the same value as DaVinci's "Mona Lisa" or Michelangelo's "David"? Time will tell, however I do not think so. This is "art", not for the masses, not for the "educated" or "cultured" but rather art for the venal and vacant. This is the kind of "art" that isn't just preching to the choir, but to the mezzo-sopranos.

Hundvig: THANK YOU for the most honest and entertaining comment on this story! Brilliant!

Tom: ROTFL! Very funny… because it's true.

By the way, I'm not a total idiot or hick, but I've never heard of "Hirst" before. Doubt I will again.

I thought the article was one of the most pompous, smug pieces of crap I've read in AGES. Most of you have already summed up why, so I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes on it.

Hirst has always supplied my art appreciation classes with good discussion topics.

Apparently the real skull (owned by Hirst) is that of a C18th European.

Hirst has called himself 'a religious artist without God' ("I want to live for ever but I can't") occasionally I produce religious art with God. It makes my friends happy, and and that's probably more than can be said for Hirst's output, no matter how many squid it makes him.

(mind you, one friend had to banish my INCARNATION from her dining room because everyone she asked to tea 'kept asking her to explain it' for which probably read 'put them off their tea'…)

Ahh, very clever, particularly the irony of the "English teeth".

Looks like this piece of art has done what it was supposed to: raise questions and create discussion.