Damien Hirst: Genius Artist or Genius Con?

It is for certain that Damien Hirst certainly knows how to grab our attention and many people find it hard to accept him as an ‘artist’ due to the facts that;

He shamelessly spends his money extravagantly. For the Love of God is one of Hirst’s most scandalous pieces; where he has purchased the 18th Century skull of a 35 year old European man to which he explains was in response to his mother’s common saying of “For the love of God, what are you going to do next!”, further justification of his piece was to represent the embracement of death that was demonstrated by Mexican culture- most predominantly shown by the Aztecs. Hirst states ‘you don’t like [death], so you disguise it or you decorate it to make it look something bearable- to such an extent that it becomes something else.’, this statement certainly voices out our reactions towards his piece, we focus more towards the fact that the skull has been encrusted with diamonds more than the concept it is trying to serve. But are his intentions really just to achieve the idea of accepting death? Isn’t he just showing off his excessive use of spending? Was it really necessary for him to do such a thing? What does this say about his character?

Death is viewed differently by different people. How does Damien Hirst view it or how he feels about it? Taken from an interview (http://www.damienhirst.com/texts/20071/feb--huo), Damien Hirst expresses his hate for death and views it as though it was a person, a rival of his. Considering the fact that Hirst does not create the artworks himself and makes other people to implement his ideas into reality- illustrates the reason as to why he may hate it; purely because he cannot control it. “but you can always rely on something like a cigarette – which punctuates your whole existence time and time again – to be the same. It’s almost like you’re cheating death. But it’s killing you, so then, smoking becomes even sexier.” To summarise of what was said by Hirst is enticed by the action of smoking due to the fact that it seems as though you are mocking death and saying ‘Ha ha ha, I’m smoking but I’m not dead yet.”, this illusion of power appeals to Hirst very much so. By taking into account of Hirst’s attitude towards death, it makes it easier for us to understand his concepts in much more detail. Referring back to For the Love of God, the excessive adornment is a means to question why people euphemise and disguise death to make it look pleasing. To Hirst, death is an opponent of his which stops him from being an artist. His hate for death and his love for illusions becomes an obsession of his, it is apparent through all his works throughout. As I have said earlier, Hirst likes the idea of cheating death- so by embedding diamonds into the skull is his form of rebellion against death and the idea that ‘we leave behind our wealth behind when we die’.

Hirst views his method of working by making other people produce his work acceptable because he ‘love the idea of a company’, according to the interview- his way of handling things was inspired by Warhol’s Factory, where they were done by the people who work with you. So perhaps one could say that Damien Hirst is not an identity of an individual but it is a brand, an identity of a company- a company which creates art works of a man. So in reality, Damien Hirst wouldn’t be considered to be an Artist but a designer.

It is obvious that Hirst goes beyond the ethics in the name of Art, so isn’t it time to put restrictions before things go too far? Is it permissible just because he has money? What right does he have to put the animals in that position?

Damien Hirst’s intentions could be to extend his fame so much that it will continue on even after his death which explains why he carries out such extreme ideas, especially with cutting the animals in half which is saddening because it seems as though the animals will be in that state for eternity. Really, it just makes me want to take all those animals away from being displayed as playthings and just bury them, to where they belong.

Damien Hirst is by far, not an artist- he’s just merely a man who follows his own interests and can do so because he has the extra money. It’s certainly not fair to brand the work of others as his when he himself has not contributed a single bit in the production of the work and should at least give credits to the makers. You could say he is an educated con man, a salesperson so to speak. And coming from an educated and rich background, he understands the rules in the art world and how to bend them.