I've known Hirst's work for ... oh, 12 years or so? My friend was a big fan of his work and tried to convert me too. While I liked the style and ideas of many of his designs, I was never a fan of the personality Damien Hirst having seen quite a few interviews in magazines and even on TV.
Over the years, I've heard countless rumours and stories of how he took ideas from smaller designers and made them popular using his established fame not to mention that he re-used a single idea quite a number of times if he could. Many artists consider him too commercial but his work still sells very very well.
Now, on to the real matter: a few months ago, an art student (Cartrain) made a collage using, among other things, a picture of one of the designs of Damien Hirst (For the Love of God). Damien Hirst kicked the little artist viciously by reporting him to the Design and Artists Copyright Society and sending a barrage of legal letters to the site hosting the collage which then took it down.
As revenge, Cartrain went to an exhibit of Hirst and stole a box of pencils which was part of the exhibit Pharmacy:
He did this to set up a tongue-in-cheek ransom note to get his collage back. Turns out the pencils were valued at $500.000 and his attempt to poke Hirst back resulted in the police arresting him and his father.
The full story can be read here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...age-artist-over-a-box-of-pencils-1781463.html
A dumb move of his, no doubt, but the way it was handled was surely excessive to say the least. And worst of all - considering Hirst has taken obvious inspiration (or downright stealing in some cases) for his existing art from smaller artists, it's even worse to see him stomping down on them whenever they copy him. Why do so many big artists get away with killing small ones? Is the art world hypocritical? Do they value art by the maker and not by the art itself? Or has art always been more about the maker? And should it be that way?
Over the years, I've heard countless rumours and stories of how he took ideas from smaller designers and made them popular using his established fame not to mention that he re-used a single idea quite a number of times if he could. Many artists consider him too commercial but his work still sells very very well.
Now, on to the real matter: a few months ago, an art student (Cartrain) made a collage using, among other things, a picture of one of the designs of Damien Hirst (For the Love of God). Damien Hirst kicked the little artist viciously by reporting him to the Design and Artists Copyright Society and sending a barrage of legal letters to the site hosting the collage which then took it down.
As revenge, Cartrain went to an exhibit of Hirst and stole a box of pencils which was part of the exhibit Pharmacy:
He did this to set up a tongue-in-cheek ransom note to get his collage back. Turns out the pencils were valued at $500.000 and his attempt to poke Hirst back resulted in the police arresting him and his father.
The full story can be read here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...age-artist-over-a-box-of-pencils-1781463.html
A dumb move of his, no doubt, but the way it was handled was surely excessive to say the least. And worst of all - considering Hirst has taken obvious inspiration (or downright stealing in some cases) for his existing art from smaller artists, it's even worse to see him stomping down on them whenever they copy him. Why do so many big artists get away with killing small ones? Is the art world hypocritical? Do they value art by the maker and not by the art itself? Or has art always been more about the maker? And should it be that way?
