Damien Hirst: Diamonds in the Rough
When Shit Turns to Gold
By: Charles Giuliano - Jun 14, 2007
As a kid I loved to read the illustrated factoids of Ripley's "Believe It Or Not." There was also the early TV show "You Asked for It" that regularly featured the implausible. Perhaps you are old enough to remember the film "Mondo Cane" (1962). We are always fascinated by what stretches the limits of imagination.
Now the bad boy of British Art, Damien Hirst, has pushed the envelope of outrageous materialism by creating, at least for now, the most expensive work of contemporary art. The asking price for a diamond encrusted skull "For the Love of God" is being displayed and offered for sale at London's White Cube Gallery for 73 million pounds or roughly $100 million for an American willing to write a check. Of course the attraction is that the buyer will instantly be linked to the potential fame and reputation of the object. Rather like the owner of the fabulously notorious Hope Diamond. Perhaps Hirst will have his skull strung so the owner may wear it while strolling along the red carpet at some star studded event. Stopping for that inevitable Joan Rivers interview, when asked, the individual will state that "Tonight I am wearing Damien Hirst." To which Rivers would respond "Damien Hirst? Never heard of him."
Which is to say that for all the stunts of Hirst, Jeff Koons, Matthew Barney and their ilk, they remain unknown to the general public. Americans are more focused on the latest pratfalls of Paris Hilton who is a better known conceptual artist. But this may be his ultimate trick now that he appears to be bored with selling out shows of bad representational paintings of smarmy, sensational subjects cranked out by a staff of studio assistants of varying ability. It must get lonely at the top. How to come up with yet another scam like embalming a great white shark in an enormous vitrine or cutting up cows and sheep? What next? Will creating the world's most expensive work of art be just a blip on the media radar screen?
Is gilding the lily, or diamond encrusting a skull, just an art world equivalent of a chef jazzing up a recipe with such expensive ingredients as foie gras, Beluga caviar and truffles? Is there something greater than the intrinsic value of the elements that go into a creation? In the worst case scenario once that the Hirst object has been deemed to be aesthetically worthless it can always be recycled for its materials said to cost some 18 million pounds. Considering that the artist had the idea, but was not involved in the crafting of the object, he is getting a nice markup. After costs and commissions he should walk away with a few million which will keep the elves in his workshop busy for some time. But, as they say, the publicity is priceless. Just ask Christoph Buchel who is currently hijacking Mass MoCA in a ploy for PR. But, as we say, Hirst and Buchel are nobodies compared to Paris Hilton who is really, really famous and a much better artist.
Of course the notion of making extravagant objects out of the rarest and most exotic materials is not a new idea. Think of the gold and semi precious stones that went into the exquisitely crafted mummy mask of Tutankhamen. The Russian Czars ordered those phenomenal Easter eggs from Faberge for their family members. The Romanovs got snuffed by the Bolsheviks but the Faberge eggs survive in museums and private collections. They remain as signifiers of all that was wrong with the ancien regime. Rather like the thousands of shoes found in the bedroom of Imelda Marcos during the revolution in the Philippines. Perhaps some brutal dictator or Colombian drug lord will step up to the plate and scoop up Hirst's skull. Were Richard Burton alive today no doubt he would buy it for Liz Taylor. When not squabbling he liked to make up with diamonds.
And what of the obvious symbolism of a diamond encrusted skull. Here Hirst proclaims "For the Love of God." So what does God have to do with this? Why not think big seems to be the bent of Hirst's idea. God? Why not? Go for it. Like John Lennon proclaiming that the "Beatles are bigger than Jesus." Which they were at the time. As Ian Fleming would say "Diamonds are forever."
The skull in art is as old as mankind. Think Hamlet "Alas poor Yorick I knew him well." The memento mori skulls in Dutch vanitas still life paintings. Or those jade encrusted Aztec skulls. How about the Tibetan skull bowls? Captain Jack Sparrow sailing across the summer screen under the Jolly Roger. All those Yale guys like Bush and Kerry from Skull and Bones.
The real problem with Damien Hirst is that he is not very interesting. Aside from its "Sensation," the title of the Saatchi collection show which caused such a fuss when it was shown at the Brooklyn Museum, and its occasional shock value, there is little about the work that has real legs over the long haul when compared with say Rembrandt or Titian. On the open market a first class Vermeer would fetch more than Hirst's little bauble.
No, a far more interesting artist was the late Piero Manzoni who managed to turn cans of his own shit into gold. Originally the objects, about the size and weight of canned tuna fish, were sold at the then price of an ounce of gold. Significantly, today, these objects, there is one on view at the Museum of Modern Art, far exceed the current value of their weight in gold. So Manzoni has proved to be the ultimate alchemist turning base into noble. He managed to transform the reviled and worthless, as in, "I don't give a shit" into something precious and fascinating.
Compared to the genius of Manzoni, Hirst is silly and obvious. Like Paris Hilton. Who is famous for being famous. Hirst is just a wannabe. Blood diamonds. What price glory?