I came to Amsterdam for the Dreamscapes exhibition. With a few hours to spare before the opening, where I would be viewing modern painting masters, I would pay a visit to the Rijksmuseum and see some of the Old Masters.
Much to my surprise and disappointment, I found the entrance dominated by Damien Hirst and a queue. I don’t ever recall having to queue for the Rijksmuseum. The queue was one of those artifical queues you see often see in front of those superficial night clubs, that rate style above substance, continually keeping a queue of people outside for “security” reasons, while also again putting appearance before all else, fabricating a false sense of exclusitivity and popularity.
I made my way about the museum looking at all of the fine artwork and historical museum pieces, until I came across another queue. This time inside the museum, people queued for the special room where Hirst’s diamond skull was on display.
Hirst’s skull is suposedly the world’s most expensive artwork, but this is rather suspect, when you consider that he bought it back from himself. Stranger still, according to the Guardian, up to twenty workers who make his works will not have their contracts renewed even though Hirst’s gallery breaking auction earned him 130 million euro at Sotheby’s in September. Nevertheless, about half his London-based staff were told this week that their contracts will not be renewed.
“It was unexpected, especially after Hirst made a killing from the Sotheby’s sale”, a source told the Guardian.
Whether sacking staff will have much of an impact on the financial health of Hirst’s art-producing company is unclear. The workers are said to be paid only £19,000 (22,600 euro) a year. That amount pales in comparison with the prices paid for works by Hirst.
While I was curious to see Hirst’s ultimate bling, the queue looked rather dismal as well as the prospect of participating in the hype. The Netherlands have been inundated by the propaganda. It seems that not all are sold on the fanfare, especially amoungst some of the Dutch museums competing against the Hirst Rijksmuseum media machine.
Why was Hirst on display in the Rijksmuseum in the first place? Perhaps they were taken in by his comment earlier this year that he, Damien Hirst is like Rembrandt, and so promptly put him on display in the room next to “The Night Watch”.
I circumnavigated the clot of people ignoring the art about them waiting to be admitted into Hirst’s sanctum of superficiality and progressed to the next room. Superficial is the catch phrase here, as superficially the room appeared to be a continuation of museum’s permanent collection. However this was the curator’s attempt to make some relevance with Hirst’s bling by allowing him to select from their collection at his whim. Hello? What is the curator being paid to do?
Hirst seems to be astutely aware of this also, as he seized upon the opportunity presented by curator for him to make any inane comment he desires regarding the artwork he’s selected from Rijksmuseum collection. Is not the curator embaressed, or do they find him so witty? It would seem to be that Hirst is at his provocative best insulting the museum and its curator bald faced, and have them love it. “I will tell you are fools, and have you agree and tell me how genius I am for telling you so.” This is the same tactic with his artwork.
Before finally departing the Rijksmuseum shaking my head, I made a last stop by the Hirst space setup in the garden. Here you can buy all manner of diamond skull merchandise, and if you feel so inclined, leave your comments about the exhibition. Perhaps the museum, was being cautious and testing the waters. Perhaps they weren’t really so confident about their display. Why else ask for visitor feedback?
I left my comments, asking why they feel the need to copy all of the other museums. As a museum for Dutch cultural heiratage, this made them unique. As museum of modern “block buster” exhibitions, they are like all of the other me too Mc Donalds museums francised across the world.
This is unreal! Just about everyone, except maybe Museum Curators (and perhaps nouveau-riche people with too much money and lack of brains) are on to Hirst being a fraud. And yet, the circus continues!
The sad thing is that he siphones off a considerable amount of money from museums and collectors that could be spent on REAL ART!
Here is a poingnant column by Maclean Magazine’s Andrew Potter Snarkiness about sharkiness misses the point
Cheers
Otto
That’s a brilliant article Otto.
Poor Damien is worried that galleries can no longer afford his artwork for posterity, meaning he’s worried he might be forgotten, because the public won’t see his artwork as it is stored away in private collections.
“And when you have some Russian squillionaire who started buying art three minutes ago but has the GNP of Georgia in his pocket, how can museums compete?”
Leo: I also blogged your entry, along with this one – read it, you will truly enjoy it:
Robert Hughes critique of Damien Hirst
Thanks Otto for blogging my post.
The other by Robert Hughes is rather sharp. He does have a rather acid wit that is very entertaining.
Well, the saga doesn’t stop there.
Hirst has his defenders. Germaine Greer thinks Hughes (and the rest of us poor and unwashed masses) simply “don’t get it”. My question to Greer would be: “What is there not to get?” Nothing he does is really very clever (other than his uncanny ability to bilk nouveau rich people and con curators) – I believe the ‘work’ is simplistic to the point of childish exhibitionism, and perhaps that is the appeal for Greer and the moneyed Lemmings, much like the stockmarket investors getting fleeced by BRE-X Fools Gold (the then corporate Headquarters Sign in Calgary looked as if designed by bling-artist Hirst).
Post-Modernism is gasping it’s last breath, with Guillermo Vargas Habacuc and Piero Manzoni as ‘fine’ examples of it’s decline. Hello Tate Gallery: How about a group show with Hirst?
Greer lectures us from a podium of superiority, the “illuminati literati”, which is laughable and sad at the same time.
The Guardian also ran a poll, titled: An artistic licence to print money? And guess what: 87.7% thought Hirst was a Huckster.
But Greer and her ilk know better, of course.
I wonder if former BRE-X VP John Felderhof owns a Hirst – naw, he is to smart for that. But what is conceivable is that they could probably be neighbors in the Cayman Islands (as long as Hirst and his rotting fish are located downwind, I guess).
Actually, Germaine Greer does have a point, and one I made in my previous post on Hirst. https://leoplaw.com/2008/09/09/damien-hirst-like-rembrandt/
Hirst’s artform is selling, nothing more. Its hard to glean whether Greer approves or disapproves, she seems more intent on lampooning Hughes.
But if Greer thinks hand crafted artwork is a thing of the past she’d better think again. There are other rising tastes and fashions that are turning heads opening wallets. Venosa has a valid point in his discussion with Peter Gric. Street art (read graffiti) and Low Brow (read comic) are starting to move off the streets and pages into the galleries. These have a heavy graphical and hand crafted approach. Paint will have its day and take shape again.
So as for starving dogs and cans of shit, that’s all they ever will be. Like heavy hangover from a binge and wondered at what ever inspired it, swearing never again.