Dee where re you? I have my bunch of Jean Michel Basquiats to sell I don't want them...Ready but please email me for my phone #...o.k. otherwise I will sell them online.
...I'm sorry, but I don't consider ANY of what I saw art. To me, art is something completely different. Something more expressive than any of that.
And technically, at risk of contradicting myself, isn't EVERYTHING technically art in a way? Murder is an art form. Sex is an art form. Painting, Sports, Begging, Stealing, Gaming, Programming, etc. Everything is technically art. You just have to look at it from a creative angle.
@tacosquirrel9 This is the way I see it. Everything is not art, but instead it is possible for everything to be viewed as art by different people. Someone could view something as been art in some way, something you don't see and wouldn't of seen.
Since there is no offical definition of the subject, art is whatever you make of it, it is all down to the way you see it. The way Person A interprets art, could be different to that of Person B.
Truly great and original artists will long be remembered before any two second flash of unoriginal desperation leaves as quickly as it arrived. The neurotic and unoriginal needy beast will suck all sagging financial teats for every last drop of milky art credibility it can get. Somehow over time the terms "modern" and "contemporary" with respect to art, music and culture have become synonymous with childlike agitation and wealth. Only a real moron would spend millions on something so vacuous.
@lionsteve29 its because of assholes like this who copy others are putting the art world on a huge decline. the aim of modernism was originality and seeing as all the top artists are pathetic fucking hacks who don't truly give 2 shits about what art really is. then theres artist who slave and labor over their own work and its considered "inferior" and this pseudo intellectual movement dominates the art market because it appeals to elitist rich people.
so an artistically aware business man 'recreates' some shite by some other 'artists' that many were unaware existed until the 'exposé'. Whether Hirst's or the 'originals' work, it's all a bit crap. The spots were ok but even that is just a mix of Pointilism and Celtic art. Beg, borrow, steal. It happens in the music industry, it happens in advertising. If anything, Try listening to Led Zep and the music they stole. One of the biggest bands on the planet. But they nicked most of their early work.
Hmph. Some of these, like the stained glass windows, are not necessarily stolen, anymore than the first artist "stole" her ideas from a gazillion stained glass cathedral windows.
But Hirst is not especially original or interesting. His preserved animals are nothing but med school dissection specimens that he appropriated and called "art" to make money from Saatchi. Boring. Plus, he just comes across as a cynical little prick who doesn't actually care about "art." Thats my take.
"this is bullshit man. how can u steal dot paintings. i do shit like that, loads of people do. doesnt mean its fuckin stolen. also the shark, the first shark was a casting not suspended in a tank of preservatives. buulll shit. i love hirst"
- Ditto, i completely agree
The artworks are SIMILAR... doesn't make them copied.
obviously someones jealous because damien hirst is extremely. look around at how many things have those kind of dot designs on them, and most of these arent really that similar. ive seen more similar things in science books at school...does that make them stolen? on top of that nearly every single art technique is stolen. theres nothing that hasnt already been tried and tested, id like to see the person who created this to come up with something that doesnt resemble someone elses work.
this is bullshit man. how can u steal dot paintings. i do shit like that, loads of people do. doesnt mean its fuckin stolen. also the shark, the first shark was a casting not suspended in a tank of preservatives. buulll shit. i love hirst
There is nothing - nothing at all - which makes Hirst's work of any more interest than that of just about all the country's 'conceptualist' art students at the time of his graduation. The Saatchis could've picked any one of them and made the same money. Skulls. How friggin' hackneyed can you get? And then, to paint them as ineptly as a bad foundation student. And why paint? I thought conceptualists said painting was dead. Ah, the market's turned to painting for ten minutes, so Hirst 'paints'.
Guy's a cunt, but I can't entirely agree with this video. There are a few pieces where the idea and method seem to be stolen, but the rest are making their own statement. I'm not a fan of Hirst in the slightest but I can't just think he got famous purely by stealing from others.
That would be alright, if there was any acknowledgement of the works he has done his own versions of , but at the moment those precedents are airbrushed out of the story. Compare LeKay's skull with some of those in Hirst's "blue paintings" and you will find a strong similarity.
I think Damien Hirst's version of all of these works are consistently better. The whole point of art is consciously and subconsciously re-interpreting and improving upon the works of those before you. The most pronounced example is John Lekay's Crystal Skull, which looks like a retarded kindergarden arts and crafts project while Hirst's looks shows great attention to detail and craftsmanship.
I guess this is a "stuckist" channel and you people apparently agree with me so, of course, my comments are aimed at the artists who crapped out the garbage in this video.
I guess this is a "stuckist" channel and you people apparently agree with me so, of course, my comments are aimed at the artists who crapped out the garbage in this video.
Plagiarism is a good thing as long as it destroys capital. Damien (T)Hirst is a quite untalented artist who is merely an art-business man and marketer riding intestinal worm of the culture industry, a worm forever ready to suckle upon his brand-name. He rips-off others merely to sustain his brand-image and profits. Thus he needs to be either gelded and displayed in formaldehyde, or simply have a Richard Serra sculpture dropped upon him.
Actually, there's no evidence Picasso ever said that. T. S. Eliot said something of that nature, but it has been taken out of context. He was not endorsing plagiarism, but the acknowledgement that all culture and art builds on what went before - as opposed to copying it.
@Stuckstuckstuck I wish I had read this before...I assumed it was a classic case of the Appeal to Authority fallacy (as if it gives someone a pass regardless).
shepard fairey is the king of this. I agree damien hirst is ripping people off, doesn't have original ideas, though he actually paints etc, & has some ability. The work he does differs from the originals somewhat @ least. shepard fairey traces directly from other people's artwork & photos, you can't get much lower than that. Its the epitome of plagiarism. People who buy & support his crap are lames. Its sad this shit gets popular in the so-called art scene while amazing artists go unnoticed...
@XCARTELX Yeh, get on with your life, unless your work happens to be ripped off, so that when you show it, people accuse you of copying someone else's work. Whaaaaaaaa. Feel free to cry whichever fucking river you choose.
The Art Damien Hirst Stole...Boo Hoo. Why are the 'Stuckists' so bitter? Sure, Damien Hirst is certainly not the greatest artist of all time but who cares. The only reason anyone's even vaguely familiar with the stuckists is because of their constant whingeing about other people's work. If you search google for examples of stuckist artwork you'll come across the kind of inept tat that wouldn't look out of place in a low rent vegan cafe in Stoke Newington. Grow up.
@SuperExtender You are very mistaken about the Stuckists. There is no evidence of bitterness - quite the opposite if you go to the Stuckism web site, you will find an article "Damien Hirst the Excellent Painter", a support of his work, when all the critics were damning it. Similarly with the article "Damien Hirst reviewed by Stuckists". The Stuckists have had numerous shows, including The Stuckists Punk Victorian, a major five month show at the Walker Art Gallery, during the Liverpool Biennial.
@SuperExtender This was extended from its orignal run, because of its popularity. Why google to look at work? It's easier to go to the Stuckism site. Well, you'd probably have said the same thing about Monet, Cezanne, Van Gogh et al, if you'd been alive at that time. I don't see how this relates to growing up. You seem to have missed the significant point that certain artists have had their careers sabotaged, because of the way Hirst has used their work. Maybe you don't care.
@deinokyrnos "Sometime in the future people will be laughing their heads off at all this. Actually, quite a lot of people are right now. One of them is Damien Hirst, on his way to the bank." - Charles Thomson, Stuckist co-founder, quoted in the press about Hirst's Sotheby's auction, 2008.
@AnnaAsArtist Do you mean did they have Saatchi's backing? Saatchi bought the Debby Davis work "Visible Pig" (1984) from Doug Milford of the Piezo Electric gallery in January 1986; it was auctioned at Christies, New York, in November 1989.
Saatchi exhibited Kerry Stewart's "The Boy from the Chemist Is Here to See You" (1993) in his Young British Artists shows in the 1990s. The other artists, to my knowledge, had no backing from Saatchi. You will find more information, if you read the full article in The Jackdaw or online.
All art is reproduced in some way.
goodgollymr 2 weeks ago
Nothing is original - just repackaged.
actorsapparel 2 weeks ago
sue him !! he deserve jail !
MrSilagi 3 weeks ago
classic example of history repeating itself.......
CapnDumpsterDiver 1 month ago
oh come on. this is stupid. i don't particularly care for Hirst's art either but some of these claims are a bit brash. uneducated.
chrizz123 1 month ago
"cry me a fucking river" is right. some of this is simply absurd. "christmas card"? really?
housefannn 2 months ago
Dee where re you? I have my bunch of Jean Michel Basquiats to sell I don't want them...Ready but please email me for my phone #...o.k. otherwise I will sell them online.
repelghosts 2 months ago
...I'm sorry, but I don't consider ANY of what I saw art. To me, art is something completely different. Something more expressive than any of that.
And technically, at risk of contradicting myself, isn't EVERYTHING technically art in a way? Murder is an art form. Sex is an art form. Painting, Sports, Begging, Stealing, Gaming, Programming, etc. Everything is technically art. You just have to look at it from a creative angle.
tacosquirrel9 2 months ago
@tacosquirrel9 This is the way I see it. Everything is not art, but instead it is possible for everything to be viewed as art by different people. Someone could view something as been art in some way, something you don't see and wouldn't of seen.
Since there is no offical definition of the subject, art is whatever you make of it, it is all down to the way you see it. The way Person A interprets art, could be different to that of Person B.
There is no right or wrong.
GhostWarePC 2 months ago
@GhostWarePC You sir, have earned my respect. Your logic is simple, and in this instance, flawless.
tacosquirrel9 2 months ago
Not only does he rip off the work of others, he pays other people to create the work for him.
An example, the spot paintings, he had 2 people who painted 300 of them, only doing 5 himself because he ''couldn't be fucking arsed doing it''.
chaosproduction 2 months ago
Truly great and original artists will long be remembered before any two second flash of unoriginal desperation leaves as quickly as it arrived. The neurotic and unoriginal needy beast will suck all sagging financial teats for every last drop of milky art credibility it can get. Somehow over time the terms "modern" and "contemporary" with respect to art, music and culture have become synonymous with childlike agitation and wealth. Only a real moron would spend millions on something so vacuous.
spontina 3 months ago
hey,the man marketed himself.. succeeded.. copied..so what... dont like it? go and do it yourself instead of sitting their complaining..
lionsteve29 3 months ago
@lionsteve29 its because of assholes like this who copy others are putting the art world on a huge decline. the aim of modernism was originality and seeing as all the top artists are pathetic fucking hacks who don't truly give 2 shits about what art really is. then theres artist who slave and labor over their own work and its considered "inferior" and this pseudo intellectual movement dominates the art market because it appeals to elitist rich people.
b0mbcityrocker 2 months ago
I've never found anything interesting about Damien Hirst, ever.
bellevuefineart 3 months ago 3
good artists copy, great artists steal; stuckist complain and not paint as high as their egos.
MRJPPEGGETT 4 months ago
I saw his lets eat outside today peice. smelt to the high heaven, made me phisically sick and i couldnt eat for three days. discusting
Dharkhaze17 7 months ago
Comment removed
savingbeauty 8 months ago
Comment removed
savingbeauty 8 months ago
so an artistically aware business man 'recreates' some shite by some other 'artists' that many were unaware existed until the 'exposé'. Whether Hirst's or the 'originals' work, it's all a bit crap. The spots were ok but even that is just a mix of Pointilism and Celtic art. Beg, borrow, steal. It happens in the music industry, it happens in advertising. If anything, Try listening to Led Zep and the music they stole. One of the biggest bands on the planet. But they nicked most of their early work.
poundtumbles 8 months ago
That hirst yeah i dont consider him as a real artist. He´s really pathetic and he just show us how lame is this contemporary art so uninteresting
sweetblooddarkness 10 months ago 3
Hmph. Some of these, like the stained glass windows, are not necessarily stolen, anymore than the first artist "stole" her ideas from a gazillion stained glass cathedral windows.
But Hirst is not especially original or interesting. His preserved animals are nothing but med school dissection specimens that he appropriated and called "art" to make money from Saatchi. Boring. Plus, he just comes across as a cynical little prick who doesn't actually care about "art." Thats my take.
almishti 11 months ago 2
@almishti It isn't just stained glass. It's made of butterfly wings... that's what he stole, the idea to do stained glass out of butterfly wings...
mcmahal 11 months ago
@almishti It isn't just stained glass. It's made of butterfly wings... that's what he stole, the idea to do stained glass out of butterfly wings...
mcmahal 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"this is bullshit man. how can u steal dot paintings. i do shit like that, loads of people do. doesnt mean its fuckin stolen. also the shark, the first shark was a casting not suspended in a tank of preservatives. buulll shit. i love hirst"
- Ditto, i completely agree
The artworks are SIMILAR... doesn't make them copied.
open your eyes people.
equishaz01 11 months ago
obviously someones jealous because damien hirst is extremely. look around at how many things have those kind of dot designs on them, and most of these arent really that similar. ive seen more similar things in science books at school...does that make them stolen? on top of that nearly every single art technique is stolen. theres nothing that hasnt already been tried and tested, id like to see the person who created this to come up with something that doesnt resemble someone elses work.
emibabyx 11 months ago
this is bullshit man. how can u steal dot paintings. i do shit like that, loads of people do. doesnt mean its fuckin stolen. also the shark, the first shark was a casting not suspended in a tank of preservatives. buulll shit. i love hirst
johnnyXsniper 1 year ago
There is nothing - nothing at all - which makes Hirst's work of any more interest than that of just about all the country's 'conceptualist' art students at the time of his graduation. The Saatchis could've picked any one of them and made the same money. Skulls. How friggin' hackneyed can you get? And then, to paint them as ineptly as a bad foundation student. And why paint? I thought conceptualists said painting was dead. Ah, the market's turned to painting for ten minutes, so Hirst 'paints'.
CultureJudge 1 year ago
Guy's a cunt, but I can't entirely agree with this video. There are a few pieces where the idea and method seem to be stolen, but the rest are making their own statement. I'm not a fan of Hirst in the slightest but I can't just think he got famous purely by stealing from others.
zenodoros 1 year ago 2
That would be alright, if there was any acknowledgement of the works he has done his own versions of , but at the moment those precedents are airbrushed out of the story. Compare LeKay's skull with some of those in Hirst's "blue paintings" and you will find a strong similarity.
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago 4
I think Damien Hirst's version of all of these works are consistently better. The whole point of art is consciously and subconsciously re-interpreting and improving upon the works of those before you. The most pronounced example is John Lekay's Crystal Skull, which looks like a retarded kindergarden arts and crafts project while Hirst's looks shows great attention to detail and craftsmanship.
alicapwn 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@crabula
I guess this is a "stuckist" channel and you people apparently agree with me so, of course, my comments are aimed at the artists who crapped out the garbage in this video.
crabula 1 year ago
@crabula
I guess this is a "stuckist" channel and you people apparently agree with me so, of course, my comments are aimed at the artists who crapped out the garbage in this video.
crabula 1 year ago
What the hell? This video shouldn't exist.
DesireSpasm 1 year ago 2
None of this shit is art.
None of it.
It's all deliberate crap done by spoiled, privileged rich kids who wasted their parents money on "art school".
All of this fucking crap (both the originals and the bites) are a disgrace to the definition of the word "art".
These people and the people who ride their nuts should just hurry up and OD on whatever the fuck it is that they're on already.
motherfucker21fith 1 year ago 5
Plagiarism is a good thing as long as it destroys capital. Damien (T)Hirst is a quite untalented artist who is merely an art-business man and marketer riding intestinal worm of the culture industry, a worm forever ready to suckle upon his brand-name. He rips-off others merely to sustain his brand-image and profits. Thus he needs to be either gelded and displayed in formaldehyde, or simply have a Richard Serra sculpture dropped upon him.
doggkokk 1 year ago 4
Bad artists copy. Great artists steal.
-Pablo Picasso.
thatdudebro 1 year ago 5
@thatdudebro
Good artists borrow, great artists steal, crap artists get caught stealing.
-Charles Thomson
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago 24
@thatdudebro ^Appeal to authority.
daingore 3 weeks ago
Bad artists copy. Great artists steal.
-Pablo Picasso.
thatdudebro 1 year ago
@thatdudebro
Actually, there's no evidence Picasso ever said that. T. S. Eliot said something of that nature, but it has been taken out of context. He was not endorsing plagiarism, but the acknowledgement that all culture and art builds on what went before - as opposed to copying it.
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago 9
@Stuckstuckstuck I wish I had read this before...I assumed it was a classic case of the Appeal to Authority fallacy (as if it gives someone a pass regardless).
daingore 3 weeks ago
@thatdudebro Just because he produced 'great art' doesn't mean we have to hang on to his every word.
bovinicide 2 months ago
shepard fairey is the king of this. I agree damien hirst is ripping people off, doesn't have original ideas, though he actually paints etc, & has some ability. The work he does differs from the originals somewhat @ least. shepard fairey traces directly from other people's artwork & photos, you can't get much lower than that. Its the epitome of plagiarism. People who buy & support his crap are lames. Its sad this shit gets popular in the so-called art scene while amazing artists go unnoticed...
ogfandangler 1 year ago
Comment removed
ogfandangler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
whaaaaaaaa, cry me a fucking river. This is the shit you're worried about? Get on with your life already.
XCARTELX 1 year ago
whaaaaaaaa, cry me a fucking river. This is the shit you're worried about? Get on with your life already.
XCARTELX 1 year ago
@XCARTELX Yeh, get on with your life, unless your work happens to be ripped off, so that when you show it, people accuse you of copying someone else's work. Whaaaaaaaa. Feel free to cry whichever fucking river you choose.
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago 7
@XCARTELX Quoting a Justin Timberlake song in combination with the linguistic phenomenon known as 'tmesis' seems to negate your whole comment.
bovinicide 2 months ago
Q: You have repeatedly been accused of plagiarism. Is there any truth to the claims?
Damien Hirst: It's just gibberish, isn't it? Just ridiculous. It's nothing really.
The Observer (26.9.10). Watch the video for gibberish and nothing really.
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago
anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-art
Arangony 1 year ago
Comment removed
MidoriNoSaru 1 year ago
The Art Damien Hirst Stole...Boo Hoo. Why are the 'Stuckists' so bitter? Sure, Damien Hirst is certainly not the greatest artist of all time but who cares. The only reason anyone's even vaguely familiar with the stuckists is because of their constant whingeing about other people's work. If you search google for examples of stuckist artwork you'll come across the kind of inept tat that wouldn't look out of place in a low rent vegan cafe in Stoke Newington. Grow up.
SuperExtender 1 year ago
@SuperExtender You are very mistaken about the Stuckists. There is no evidence of bitterness - quite the opposite if you go to the Stuckism web site, you will find an article "Damien Hirst the Excellent Painter", a support of his work, when all the critics were damning it. Similarly with the article "Damien Hirst reviewed by Stuckists". The Stuckists have had numerous shows, including The Stuckists Punk Victorian, a major five month show at the Walker Art Gallery, during the Liverpool Biennial.
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago
@SuperExtender This was extended from its orignal run, because of its popularity. Why google to look at work? It's easier to go to the Stuckism site. Well, you'd probably have said the same thing about Monet, Cezanne, Van Gogh et al, if you'd been alive at that time. I don't see how this relates to growing up. You seem to have missed the significant point that certain artists have had their careers sabotaged, because of the way Hirst has used their work. Maybe you don't care.
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperExtender 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperExtender 1 year ago
Here is how GodDamian Hirst would reply: You know that bank i used to cry all the way to? I bought it.
deinokyrnos 1 year ago
when the reviews are bad i tell my staff that they can join me as i cry all the way to the bank Liberace
deinokyrnos 1 year ago
@deinokyrnos "Sometime in the future people will be laughing their heads off at all this. Actually, quite a lot of people are right now. One of them is Damien Hirst, on his way to the bank." - Charles Thomson, Stuckist co-founder, quoted in the press about Hirst's Sotheby's auction, 2008.
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago
Comment removed
deinokyrnos 1 year ago
success is the sole earthy judge of right or wrong. Adolf Hitler
deinokyrnos 1 year ago
@deinokyrnos Good artists borrow, great artists steal, crap artists get caught stealing.
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago
well, these artists had Saatchi's backs as HIrst did?
AnnaAsArtist 1 year ago
@AnnaAsArtist Do you mean did they have Saatchi's backing? Saatchi bought the Debby Davis work "Visible Pig" (1984) from Doug Milford of the Piezo Electric gallery in January 1986; it was auctioned at Christies, New York, in November 1989.
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago
Saatchi exhibited Kerry Stewart's "The Boy from the Chemist Is Here to See You" (1993) in his Young British Artists shows in the 1990s. The other artists, to my knowledge, had no backing from Saatchi. You will find more information, if you read the full article in The Jackdaw or online.
Stuckstuckstuck 1 year ago
I'll Be Watiting!
milcho 1 year ago
Brilliant.
EdgeworthJohnstone 1 year ago