[Sliding on the Walls]

There's just something about Damien Hirst that really angers me. Actually there are [glow=red,2,300]many[/glow] things, but here's the latest:

"With Dead Head"

Damien went to a morgue when he was 16 as he knew someone who worked there. He got a photograph taken of himself next to the decapitated head of a man that Damien didn't know, just a corpse in the morgue. He smiles, in a 'check me out, isn't this cool' kind of manner and years later has the photo turned into a limited run of 1000 copies selling them for over £2,000 a pop.(making a cool £2 million if my maths is correct)

In my eyes that's like the lady pictured below making £2million off the back of this picture.

Am I missing something or is this wrong? I'm open to hear arguments in Hirst' favour... Please enlighten me

[stenev]

I'd say the only difference would be that at least the enemy combatants have their faces covered so their families wouldn't directly be hurt or insulted by Miss Englands profiteering.

[samuraiwriter]

I've seen that photgraph as well and have often wondered the about "story" behind it.

Hirst's works aren't my cuppa but "For The Love of God" was extremely impressive in person, perhaps out of morbid curiousity. Maybe that is what Hirst is exploiting, the morbid curiousity in all of us (and himself)?

And I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the abu ghraib phots turned into art works one day soon, ala Adams' Vietnamese execution photo.

[kronoopus]

I think these were originally offered on Eyestorm a long time ago. Didn't get it then, and I still don't get it.

[Ottomatik]

Don't like hirst. Never have. Getting a fisherman to catch a shark for him for $3000. Then putting said shark in a glass box full of liquid. Selling that for ALOT of £.
What's next a sea bass mounted on a wooden plaque for £5M?
A clock with dots for over $500? Oh wait, already did that.
When I think of hirst, it makes me like Banksys' Morons even more!

[Daniel Silk]

www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/online_az/4:322/result/0/75997?initial=H&artistId=6043&artistName=Damien%20Hirst&submit=1

[pezlow]

This is a really old print, it wasn't anything like £2k when released about 10 years ago

[Nico]

Jan 14, 2010 16:47:14 GMT 1 Sliding on the Walls said:

There's just something about Damien Hirst that really angers me. Actually there are [glow=red,2,300]many[/glow] things, but here's the latest:

"With Dead Head"

Damien went to a morgue when he was 16 as he knew someone who worked there. He got a photograph taken of himself next to the decapitated head of a man that Damien didn't know, just a corpse in the morgue. He smiles, in a 'check me out, isn't this cool' kind of manner and years later has the photo turned into a limited run of 1000 copies selling them for over £2,000 a pop.(making a cool £2 million if my maths is correct)

In my eyes that's like the lady pictured below making £2million off the back of this picture.

Am I missing something or is this wrong? I'm open to hear arguments in Hirst' favour... Please enlighten me

OF COURSE YOU ARE MISSING SOMETHING!!!!


(you called that bitch a "Lady"!!!)

[artstylee]

gross print hirst.

[tomjedimaster]

Hirst quote from the Guardian in 2001:

"It's me and a dead head. Severed head. In the morgue. Human. I'm 16. If you look at my face, I'm actually going: "Quick. Quick. Take the photo." I wanted to show my friends, but I couldn't take all my friends there, to the morgue in Leeds. I'm absolutely terrified. I'm grinning, but I'm expecting the eyes to open and for it to go: "Grrrrraaaaagh!" I was doing anatomy drawing. I took some photos when I shouldn't have done. To me, the smile and everything seemed to sum up this problem between life and death."


The print wasn't very much money when it was released

[eyectopus]

I remember 1st seeing that photo and wondering whether it was really a persons head, it looked too real to be a prop. I couldn't believe the story. Fair enough he is only sixteen, taking the photo was bad enough, but releasing it as a print doesn't seem right. I was a bit taken back when I first saw it, but now I just look at it and wonder who could hang it on their wall.

I was very impressed by the fact that he was doing anatomy drawing in a morgue at sixteen though.

[rrrich]

The difference between the pictures is really down to what the images represent and their impact on the viewer. Consider that the Abu Graib photos really brought to light and highlighted the contradictions in the US's policy of supposed liberation of Iraq. The intention of spreading democracy, a US version of 'universal' human rights, pretty much went out the window when these came to light. There was no artistic element to these photos (ok, it's questionable if people would agree there is with Damien Hirst's photo), but the Abu Graib photos were snapshots of torture and human rights abuses by invading and occupying military forces that were increasingly being viewed as neo-imperialist. The political impact across the Middle East and the rest of the world was huge. Far more than a picture of a kid next to a severed head.

For the Hirst print, 2k for it seems unsurprising for him. For me and a lot of people, it's bad taste rather than art.

[Jeezuz Jones Snr]

Is that story true?? crap print, would have been a lot better if the guy had a fag in his mouth also!!! only kidding guys.....

[burn111]

the only good taste hirst has got is his paul insect collection

[angel41]

This reinforces my opion that the guy's a complete tosser. Incredibly bad taste.

Anyone that wants this on their wall wants their severed head examining.

[redfred]

I can remember these being touted around e-bay a few years ago for £200, not sure if they were signed or not, but they were crap then and still crap now, it beggars belief that anyone could label this as art and actually want it on display!

[curiousgeorge]

Given the time frame this could be seen as a seminal piece from him??

[monkeyballs]

Whats the difference between the Hirst and




I've always found that Hirst image quite interesting, however, like napalm I wouldn't want it on my wall. To say its in bad taste though? Is napalm in bad taste, or Gerald Laing as well?

[stenev]

I think the main difference though is that Napalm isn't being sold by McDonald's or Disney. In my mind the bad taste aspect is down to who makes the money.

edit: Thinking about it, if the image had been somehow found and released by 'the heads' family, making some commentary on Hirst and the art world then I would have a very different view of it.

[curiousgeorge]

At least he didnt steal it

It's never going to be everyones cup of tea (nor mine) but to do that, at that age is rather telling imo

[nah]

meh, taking offense to things is so old fashioned

[Winter]

I got a free numbered but unsigned Dead Head when I bought my Opium

[pezlow]

Tracey Emin put this piece in her room at the royal academy summer show last year. If you listen to the podcast of her talk at the RA she talks about this piece in some detail.

[Happy Shopper]

I think the Dead Head photo could be thought of as a "found object", that an artist claims as art.
It wasn't taken to be art and sold, but Hirst found it later and made it art.
It's a shocking, and thought provoking image. You wonder if it's real and what the situation was, and why he's laughing! Whether you like it or not isn't the point.
(also, obviously, Hirst didn't kill that man!)

Pretty different to the torture picture. That woman was torturing those prisoners and having her photo taken doing it!
Not really the same ball park.

[nex]

news just in man landed on the moon