Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:39 pm Posts: 3528 Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
According to the article, the artist used $28 million of his own money.
As far as the NEA is concerned, I personally think it's less controversial to spend tax dollars on art than on religious services, but that may just be my take on things.
I agree with gemnoob, why would we ever ban our princess???
... from what I heard he spent £12,000,000 on the gear then sold it for £100,000,000 this was the story in the British press. I haven't followed all the links since I am on a 56KPS dial up connection. I have though reported what the British people believe. They also believe that the initial £12,000,000 came from his own pocket and that the £100,000,000 was reached as a sell price. (I do not for a minute think that if this is true then the British goverment failed to make £17,500,000 as a 17.5% VAT tax.
Still he made a profit... I agree with Barbra. When impressionism arrived all it's adherents were thought to be mad,
When cubism arrived they were even madder.
etc etc etc. The only people who can keep up with what's current in art are the critics and the students.
The rest of us only hope we have bought something which will become marvelous. (silly ignorant assshole civilians)
i thought it was kinda cool, too, richard. even though mr. hirst's other art work is a bit on the "strange" side.
there's been a lot of "famous" skulls in history, for example, the crystal skulls, and there's a few posted with the link i posted from anthropology.net
Search deeper... Almost all the crystal skulls were found to be forgeries... truth is as far as I know they were all forgeries... they were bought in the Victorian age as examples of south American art... all the European museums bought examples... all were later found to be fake... there was one man (I can't remember his name and can't be bothered to look it up) who sold them to the European museums... the American Museums later bought some examples... All were fake. In spite of the latest Indiana Jones film... It is all a myth... Modern tools were proved to have carved them... so they are all fakes...
... If anyone can prove a single one was real than I shall publicly... well at least cybernetically eat my hat.
Alsa, it is true...the crystal skulls were forgeries. Still, they held a lot of facination for the recieving public. The Aztecs did use the skull frequntly in art and religious items. Often they were covered in turquoise chips. Can't afford any of those either...
_________________ It's worth a cup of water in the desert...if you're lucky.
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:47 pm Posts: 2505 Location: Eastern Europe
I'm fonder of that skull then of Koons's overblown tchotkes. What could be more charming then a pile of pointless wealth?
Besides, it was an act of historic justice: human carcases have been covered with precious crust many times in history, in many cultures... only modern times were deprived of such monument - at least, by my count - until this bit came along. (wonder why the model wasn't incorporated in the sculpture - technically difficult ? Pretext for Take II - two would make sense!)
[PS: agreed that it would be nice to know EXACTLY where my tax money goes... It seems to be either truly hard work, or quite the luxury these days.]
_________________ Vorba multa - saracia omului.[RO]
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:22 pm Posts: 1117 Location: Virginia
And then, Georgia O'Keefe had a whole thing about steer/beef/cow skulls that were pretty spectacular.
I like the one's (cow skulls) done with turquoise - some times.
Several years ago, I was in the Smithsonian with my parents and nieces - we were in one of the modern galleries. My father (in his late 70's at the time) insisted we leave because he was sick of looking at all the "junk art." The kids were loving it!
In my opinion - oh no, not that -
- it's about the execution.
Peace, Empress.
_________________ Soil is not dirt. http://hmmdesign.net
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:22 pm Posts: 21602 Location: San Francisco
Morning Dove wrote:
My (Cherokee/Iroquois) ancestors' decorative choices were primitive, to be sure, but I'd sure choose them over this more modern "art"
I get it, MoDo, you don't like the diamond skull and you feel there is no creative salvation in the modern world...on any level....under any circumstance.
I get it.
You must feel that contemporary jewelry design has redemption. You sell it.
Or do you feel only the pieces made hundreds of years ago represent true artistic integrity?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum