damien hirst

[calvin1663]

putting a shark in formaldehyde...

[samsikle]

idk. freaks me out a bit.

[broneck]

other animal splits are awesome as well

[sushijerk]

Shark in formaldehyde is cool. Lame skull with diamonds for 80 mil (or however much it was) is not.

[pavlova cakesworth]

dude this shit is nearly as old as i am. previous previous previous previous previous previous previous previous previous previous previous level.

[calvin1663]

^you're a fucking retard. if i wanted to say this was next level, I'd have put it in that thread. I posted a topic about the artist (hence the topic title) so that people could discuss this guy's work, not bitch about how because it didn't happen in the past thirty minutes, it ceases to be relevant and/or cool.

summary of the above: neg rep for you

[datasupa]

^giving neg rep is so previous level

[calvin1663]

^you just internet stalemated me...I can't neg rep, because that'll prove your point, and i can't plus rep b/c that's contradictory to the intrinsic meaning of +rape. fuck.

[pavlova cakesworth]

^you're a fucking retard. if i wanted to say this was next level, I'd have put it in that thread. I posted a topic about the artist (hence the topic title) so that people could discuss this guy's work, not bitch about how because it didn't happen in the past thirty minutes, it ceases to be relevant and/or cool.

summary of the above: neg rep for you

bitch, i don't give a shit whether you said it was next level or not. the fact of the matter remains that the physical impossibility of death in the mind of someone living was made sixteen fucking years ago. all the controversy it generated upon its release as well as the debate on its value as an artwork is cold as ice. it's become canonical. so, unless you had something a wee teensy bit more profound than "genius or nutcase? discuss" to contribute on the subject of a sculpture so old they had to replace the shark because it was decaying, fuck off and go be boring on 4chan or somewhere.

[chingon]

yeah, but the 100million skull is super recent, and that's some next level art-market mindboggling shit. I am glad there is a art-related topic in here becuse it makes me feel comfrotable repsonding.

The replacement of the shark, as noted above, is fairly interesting in itself, because it really confounds the relationship between its pricetag and conceptual value. Hirst said something along the lines that "it doesn't really matter if he replaced the shark because his work primarily conceptual." So what does it mean to invest in a concept? and then how THE FUCK does he justify a $100 million dollar skull that cost $40 million to make? and then to buy it him fucking self? (!)

Sometimes I don't really understand Hirst, but then I went to BCAM and really fucking enjoyed the Away from the flock as well as his animitronic scientist thing.

and of course i kind of envy his position.

[pavlova cakesworth]

you're right about the skull, and i think the point of the "value of the concept" argument is that the piece would "work" (and does "work") with any old shark. as far as hirst is concerned, it's the equivalent of restoring a painting. i mean, it's not like he was being lauded for contracting a fisherman to score him that particular tiger shark.

[calvin1663]

^then shut the fuck up and leave, nobody asked you to bitch in this thread, you're contributing absolutely nothing

[Charlie Delta]

Ask for a thread move to Superculture and try again in there...

?

[andewhall]

What about the guy that does some kind of reverse anema with paint, climbs up a ladder and shite's down a canvas?

[poshpol]

[sean_]

i saw a raccoon fur jockstrap at the ROM yesterday