Week 4- Damien Hirst and the diamond skull.
Discuss how Hirst's persona and work relate to the Renaissance concepts of Mercantillism and the (increased) status of the artist.
Mercantilism in the renaissance times was essentially an economic theory, based on exporting more than a country imports, thus causing the countries reserve and wealth to rise. Possessions of gold, silver and diamonds are examples of materials used by countries to export and gain wealth. Hirst has used his social status as a famous artist and extreme wealth all in order to put together the skull.It was said that if anyone else had made this diamond covered skull worth millions it would be viewed as some what vulgar to the audience in that someone with unlimited amounts of money has just wasted these diamonds worth millions on something that looks like no art and has no taste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God_(artwork)). Knowing that not just anyone did this and that it was done by Hirst an artist of such high stature it changes the way we view the the object in the most direct and brutal way possible as the title For the love of God questions the morality of such an object can be made with reference to also the morality of how art is made. It makes the audience aware of how we as a society are only directly concerned with what is put in front of us and are unaware of the processes in which things are made. The use of diamonds represents the blood spilt in africa in order to gain wealth. This also relates back to the renascence concepts of mercantilism through the blood diamonds used to gain wealth. The title For the Love of God can now be seen as a bold statement to the lives lost over the diamonds in Africa.
Without Hirst status of a famous artist, the artwork would not have been seen the same way and would merely been looked upon as something that a famous rapper wanted as bling bling.
persona and work relate to the Renaissance concepts of Mercantillism and the (increased) status of the artist.
Hey Nicko!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree on the messages you have portraid in your post. The relationship between mercantilism and material vulgarity of the skull is the negative effect wealth and possession of rarities such as dimonds, have on people. The depth of information you have on this artist paints a broader picture of what the artist was trying to create past the materiality of the dimond skull. The title is also an indication into Hurst's ideas in his artwork.
I disagree with the view of "Hirst didn't do it, it wouldn't be art" that many people have. I think the only play Hirst's name had in the creation of this piece was his sheer wealth, few other artists could of physically put together this piece simply because it was so expensive to make. I believe that if any other artist created the skull based on the same concept, it might actually be more welcomed as art, due to Hirst's shaky reputation amongst critics.
ReplyDelete