Damian hirst is not an artist!

[partis]

Eh..art is subjective.

I thought the same thing of Andy Warhol for years and a couple years back I started having a bit of appreciation for his "pop art"...it started to make me think about commercialism....and maybe that is the beauty of some art...

when i think of andy warhol i think of soup… or him, not his art.

[East]

when i think of andy warhol i think of soup… or him, not his art.

As I write this I am looking at his Chanel No 5 print in my shop and although it is aesthetically and graphically pleasing to the eye...I never thought of it as "art"...but it got me to actually think about art and what the purpose was which led me to consider that anything that makes you think might actually BE "art" as it takes a special kind of talent to inspire someone to think about things in a different light sometimes.

[partis]

Everything makes you think, the point is theres a scale 0-10… 0 being mediocre… 10 being excellence… Something thats timeless, universal, anyway im sure damian hirst is laughing his way to the bank, i would, why not, though i see what your saying east.

[Festino]

Let the man have his joy fooling others, politicians and bussines guys do it all day long, why cant an "artist"

[MisterTinkles]

Eh..art is subjective.

I thought the same thing of Andy Warhol for years and a couple years back I started having a bit of appreciation for his "pop art"...it started to make me think about commercialism....and maybe that is the beauty of some art...

NO.

An artist is a person with a specific talent that most people do not have or can acquire.

Anybody who does something that ANY 3-10 year old can do, is NOT an artist, they are HACKS, QUACKS, and CHARLATANS.

They might as well be out in the streets selling "snake oil" from the back of a covered wagon, for all the "talent" they have.

[Festino]

NO.

An artist is a person with a specific talent that most people do not have or can acquire.

Anybody who does something that ANY 3-10 year old can do, is NOT an artist, they are HACKS, QUACKS, and CHARLATANS.

They might as well be out in the streets selling "snake oil" from the back of a covered wagon, for all the "talent" they have.

That would be the definition of a "talented" artist, but anyone can be an artist.

[VileKyle]

That would be the definition of a "talented" artist, but anyone can be an artist.

I'll side with this quote right here. Otherwise, I wouldn't be considered an artist. If you work in the field of art, you are considered an artist. The real question is whether or not people appreciate your art or not. Just consider how Vincent van Gogh's art was considered absolute trash back in his day before you say that art is crap because YOU don't like it. Sometimes it just takes the right perspective in order to enjoy it. As far as talent goes, there are techniques that will help. Some people are trained into those talents, and others grow into them on their own.

[partis]

I fail to even compare this to van goth who was a genius whos work has increased value in time to hirst whose work has decreased, nice sentiment kyle but time and perspective wont change unless people realise how crazy it was to fill the tate with painted circles

[VileKyle]

I fail to even compare this to van goth who was a genius

But that's exactly what I'm trying to say. We consider him a genius NOW. When he was alive, he was considered the craziest wacko around, and it was a well known fact at the time that he had no talent. They said the same thing about him back then that you're saying about Damian Hirst now. It wasn't until well after his death that anyone gave half a damn about him. Everything changes with time.

[partis]

He recieved no fame or sucsess during his lifetime, bearing in my mind he shot himself at a fairly young age and just before completely one of his most famous works. Damien hirss has recieved all the sucsess and now his work is falling in price. They are not the same. What you say is true in some cases i dont think it,ll be true in this case and many others.