Seriously, is crap like this really worth putting in a museum? It doesn’t even look that much like Kate Moss. And she isn’t even all that attractive to start with, so I’ve no idea why she’s the subject of a sculpture meant to represent the “ideal beauty”. It’s hard to believe such a shallow piece has come from the same man that sculpted the amazing and thought provoking sculpture of Alison Lapper pregnant, a sculpture which had many levels to it and brought a lot of attention to both art and disability when it was placed in Trafalgar Square.

The Lapper statue celebrates both the female form in it’s many shapes and the challenges faced by someone born with such “disabilities” (which is in some ways a misnomer as her condition has far from disabled her), and also reminds us of the great statues of history which over time have lost limbs, such as the Venus de Milo. This new statue of Kate Moss, 50kg of solid gold valued at £1.5 million, is the exact opposite, a crass piece of pop-trash representing an over-paid, over-hyped woman of little true standing in the world. Maybe that’s the irony that I’m missing, and that making a statue of such a person out of such a material is a representation of everything wrong with this world. But I doubt that’s the case.

Along with Damien Hirst’s diamond skull, this is just another case of style over substance or talent that sadly is everywhere within the world of so called “modern art”. Hirst’s skull sold for £50 million. Just stop and think about that for a minute or two. £50 million. Both the skull and the gold statue of Kate Moss offend me more than they really should. If they were worthless pieces of art created from basic materials then I wouldn’t be that bothered, but the fact that they are created from such rare materials is obviously an attempt to raise the profile of such works and to generate hype. Think back to all the classics from the past, most of these were created by starving artists with genuine talent and a love of the work they were doing, most of whom died penniless and didn’t find fame until long after they died. Can anyone honestly think that a hack such as Hirst, or even Warhol, will be fondly remembered in 1, 2, 3 or 4 hundred years time?

The people that buy into tall this crap have no interest in art or the appreciation of such objects or images, it’s all about the wealth and status such objects show. This isn’t art for art’s sake, or even just for the shock value, it’s simply a disgusting display of wealth.

As usual, Hirst didn’t even do much of the work involved with the skull, seeing himself as more of a “conceptual artist”, which translates as “I’ll come up with the idea and get the credit, my flunkies can do all the work”. Much like Warhol before him. Of course, there is the age old argument that the very fact it even bothers me means the artist has done their job to get a reaction, and there could be some truth in that, Shame they can’t do work that gets a more positive reaction.

Hirst has turned his art into a brand. It’s Coca Cola, it’s Disney, it’s Apple. Each piece of his work is “the brand”. There are no individual pieces of Damien Hirst work any more, just one mass of branding split into pieces and sold to whatever idiot will buy them. Buy a can of Coke and you pay for the brand and you also pay for the drink, which at least may refresh you. Buy a piece of Hirst and you are buying the brand and nothing more. Coca Cola may give you refreshment, satisfaction and even enjoyment. Hirst’s work will give you nothing but a large hole in your bank account, and embarrassing looks in years to come when his work is no longer the in thing and he falls out of favour with the rich idiots with too much money to spend on this crap. Hirst is just like every other recognisable brand, just a name, something simple ready for mass consumption. Subject to wealth. Welcome to the world of capitalist art. Buy in now.

One thing that has kind of pleased me this last week was the news that work by one of my favourite artists failed to sell. Why would I be pleased? Simply put this work was never meant to be uprooted and sold to some idiot with too much money. It was made to stay on the streets and be free, for everyone to view, for everyone to enjoy. In fact I’d rather see it covered up or washed off than pulled down and sold in an auction.

The world of art really needs a revolution that pulls it down to the every man, not the money man.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm and is filed under Art. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.