Hirst vs. Koons--a correction
Hey, I'm on vacation. And I'm losing sleep as a function of my big idea. All that said, it should be noted that Jeff Koons makes the puppy sculptures, not Damien Hirst. And sometimes I just wander about and lose my bearings--I once did a long post about a Dodge Dakota and realized at the end that I was referring to the Dodge Durango. Which rendered the post senseless.
In any case, please note the error in the previous post and accept my apologies. In a different set of circumstances, I'd just have gone back and changed it. But since I've received a comment (just published), I feel like the Big Idea post is now set in stone. Thus this correction.
The comment, FYI, read: "If Hirst is a charlatan, does that make you a crank?"
The answer, dear Commenter, is: "No, it does not make me a crank." Were I not on vacation, I would also follow up with some rambling on about the relationship between Hirst's dot paintings and Mondrian's Broadway Boogie-Woogie.
In a perfect world, I'd love to correspond with the people who post comments. I wonder if some of them--those, for instance, who craft their comments like questions--are, in fact, seeking a dialogue. The annoying thing about Blogger (Google's blogging program I use) is that, for the life of me, I can't see a mechanism for responding.
If anybody ever wants a back-and-forth, use the "contact me" button in the right column.
And I suppose charlatan is a strong word. Everybody thought Andy Warhol was a charlatan and they turned out to be wrong.
Jeff Koons, however (if we're keeping record), is a charlatan. It might, in fact, have been him I was thinking about when I said it. But in my humble opinion, Hirst (although wildly commercially successful, and I take my hat off to him for that), once he stopped stuffing fish into tanks full of formaldehyde, has generated nothing but dreck.
In any case, please note the error in the previous post and accept my apologies. In a different set of circumstances, I'd just have gone back and changed it. But since I've received a comment (just published), I feel like the Big Idea post is now set in stone. Thus this correction.
The comment, FYI, read: "If Hirst is a charlatan, does that make you a crank?"
The answer, dear Commenter, is: "No, it does not make me a crank." Were I not on vacation, I would also follow up with some rambling on about the relationship between Hirst's dot paintings and Mondrian's Broadway Boogie-Woogie.
In a perfect world, I'd love to correspond with the people who post comments. I wonder if some of them--those, for instance, who craft their comments like questions--are, in fact, seeking a dialogue. The annoying thing about Blogger (Google's blogging program I use) is that, for the life of me, I can't see a mechanism for responding.
If anybody ever wants a back-and-forth, use the "contact me" button in the right column.
And I suppose charlatan is a strong word. Everybody thought Andy Warhol was a charlatan and they turned out to be wrong.
Jeff Koons, however (if we're keeping record), is a charlatan. It might, in fact, have been him I was thinking about when I said it. But in my humble opinion, Hirst (although wildly commercially successful, and I take my hat off to him for that), once he stopped stuffing fish into tanks full of formaldehyde, has generated nothing but dreck.
posted by Geoffrey at 11:44 AM
1 Comments:
"So, what does this Raymond guy actually do?"
"Well, he often takes other people's photographs then does works based on them."
"Ah, right, just like that guy who got sued for his Obama "hope" image that was based on someone else's photo? I heard Koons does similar things to Raymond, using other people's photos as the basis for works."
"Yeah. Funny you should say that, since Koons was successfully sued in the early '90s for using someone's photo as the basis for his String of Puppies work."
"Fascinating stuff. Guess that Raymond guy better watch out."
Post a Comment
<< Home