Hooked by His Own Petard
Posted on October 2nd, 2006 in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Here’s what I’d like to do to the British artist Damien Hirst. I’d like to lure him into a room with a scrumptious meal. Then, the second he takes a bite, I’d like to yank him into the ocean with the big hook now embedded in his mouth and drown him. Then I’d like to inject him full of gallons of formaldehyde. And then I’d like to throw his body into a tank, give the whole thing a pretentious name, and sell him to some philistine hedge fund billionaire, at which point I would call his slaughter “art.”
And then I’d like to do it to him again.
Don’t worryâI’m not really homicidal. But I am somewhat provoked by this New York Times piece on Hirst and his attempt to recreate his piece of “art,” titled “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.” Which is a profit-making way of saying that Hirst paid a fisherman to kill a tiger shark and then put it in a big tank and sold it for millions of dollars.
As some of you may remember, I vented frustration months ago when a Florida fisherman caught and killed a record-length hammerhead, just for the thrill of it. I see no difference between that pointless act and Damien Hirst killing a tiger shark and calling it art. Even worse, Hirst’s original shark decomposed, as corpses will do. So, as detailed in the Times, Hirst paid a fisherman to go out and kill him a second shark.
Tiger sharks are astonishingly beautiful animals. I wouldn’t want to swim with oneâalong with white sharks and bull sharks, they are dangerousâbut I’m glad they’re around. Like all sharks, they’re an important part of the ocean’s ecosystem, and they enrich our lives by adding to the diversity of the planet. Trouble is, they’re just barely around. Like all of the ocean’s big fish, tiger sharks have been decimated by massive overfishing and the slaughter of sharks for their fins, so Asians can eat a status symbol that they stupidly believe is an aphrodisiac.
The Times piece doesn’t mention any of this, of course. The write-up by Carol Vogel is in the “Arts & Leisure” section, which is, in my opinion, a curious, though perhaps inadvertently telling place for an article on the pointless slaughter of a remarkable animal.
Here’s what a tiger shark looks like underwater, alive.
And here’s what Damien Hirst did to the second of the two tiger sharks he had killed.
I prefer the former, and I fail to see how what Mr. Hirst has done improves upon the natural beauty of a living animal. He hasn’t created art, but obscenity. And he’s taking his porn all the way to the bank.
2 Responses
10/3/2024 1:58 pm
Is it not possible that Hirst’s art object/act intentionally includes, and thus comments upon, the very judgment — “obscenity” — you have brought to it and is therefore of some literary, scientific or artistic merit? If so, it is not “obscenity” under the current legal definition. Take Robert Mapplethorpe as another example. Some would say he should not be allowed to publish, under the banner of “art”, sexually and racially charged photos that depict scenes that in other contexts are indistinguishable from pornography. Yet if he isn’t free to publish those photos, we all suffer. I realize you were just expressing a personal moral opinion, not asserting a legal position, but be careful of analyzing things too literally. If Hirst’s “art” made people aware, albeit at a somewhat less conscious level, of the issues you yourself raise, might that not provide some moral justification?
6/12/2023 11:07 am
What teh freaking hell anonymous, aren’t you simply satisfied learning in a class room from a teacher like me that something’s or someone’s suffering is not moral awakening to you. I’m not sure how do you suffer if Robert Mapplethope doesn’t get to publish his work glorifying pronography. Did you check the suicide rate of porn stars, we dont know that’s why we all suffer.
I can’t even justify taxidermy. I think Damien Hirst is just a sick fellow trying to get over some childhood nightmare. Get him help before he empowers all like him.
So why do you not say your name if you are such a firm believer in these inhuman phenomenons, apparently you know these are inhuman instincs.