K!Great posts! Seriously...poo art??!! Haven't we moved beyond that whole phase already. That's so 1985. You've made your point, PoMos, and you really stuck it to 'em (sarcasm), so let's move on.
In response to your earlier questions, I can only imagine that being an art star feels a bit like being a movie star---sort of hollow. And I'm sure the demands of production are stressful. They may still be lost, but with financial ease. It's like their wandering/wavering is well-funded, and in my speculation, thus encouraged.
Was talking to J the other day, and he brought in some new angles on this recent conversation. He posted a comment under the "Designed to Rip" post, but I wanted to share it here, too.
The below link takes you to an article by Charlie Finch, co-author of Most Art Sucks: Five Years of Coagula. He is so fed up with the Hirsts and Koons of the day, that his next "art project" is to Murder Damien Hirst. It's cleverly written, check it out:
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/finch/finch8-6-08.asp
He also told me about a tragedy from the collector's perspective about the guy who purchased the shark in formaldehyde. Apparently, the studio assistants miscalculated the chemical make-up so the liquid mixture was inaccurate, causing the shark to decompose. So...Damien (since we're on a first name basis) contacted the collector, explained this, and demanded more money to remove and replace the shark. Wha??? Is this guy for real?
Let it rot,
k
1 comment:
Post a Comment