conflict.. Oh really?

In passing through the other exhibitions in the Tate modern, Liverpool, I had my attention caught by a few photographic exhibition in one corner by a northern Irish photographer, Willie Doherty, looking into conflict. My first reaction to one piece was to laugh uncontrollably. The artist had chosen a black and white shot of the Alexander bridge in Derry city. The whole exhibition was centered around areas of conflict in northern Ireland and cited the bridge as "a flash point" between opposing sides on each side of the water. I found this amusing and a fair reflection of artists attitude about northern Ireland. Coming from Derry myself I can categorically say that the bridge in question was NEVER a flashpoint as it is only close to the largly protestant population of the waterside and is surrounded by shops. It is ugly, industrial and an eyesore but a relic of our troubled past it is not. It seems to me that artists are war profiteers using the troubles as an opportunity to ride a wave of public interest to launch their artistic careers. The irritating thing is that it has worked, it is hanging in the Tate! How can anyone take this seriously? The more irritating thing is that as long as people are still interested in northern Ireland as a site of unrest, people will continue to produce this unfounded tripe to please people who will take meanings from a piece that are not there and believe it to be saying something that never really happened. I feel mis-represented.

http://moodle.blackpool.ac.uk/file.php/blog/attachments/3547/P78746_8.jpg

Damian Hirst... money grabbing cunt

Yes – I said it, and if he comes asking... I will say it again. The more look at the work of Hist the more I realise just how important it is for an artist not to be successful in their own time. The more successful you are, the more you play to the masses. I fully believe that Hirst has a talent and some of his pieces are quite striking but his lust for money far outweighs his quest for genuine work with a message or aim. A diamond encrusted skull.

The guy is a fine example of how art is becoming a commodity. The more a piece is talked about and discussed then it invariably becomes a part of modern culture. Like or loath his work it gets people talking and generates its own publicity. This drives the values of the work up and lines his pockets.

All of Hirsts work seems to centre around death and escapism from reality. He creates grim and morbid work to startle and challenge his audiences. It is no secret that death is mans biggest fear in life, countless religions have been created to assure and reassure people about death. Hirst plays on these fears and creates striking images of death and brings you up close and personal to it. You cannot help but question your own mortality. I do think that he has became a victim of his own success, not unlike his great friend Joe Strummer. The more shocking he makes a piece then the more it gets talked about. Controversy breeds debate. Debate breeds interest. Interest fills the exhibition. Full exhibition equals high value art. All in all he benefits. My solution would be to shoot Damien Hirst or at least give him an spine transplant.. good god man have some principals!

I ve been away a while

Yea.. I have decided I must rant again! It has come to that time of year again that I must hold my silence no more. Expect more regular posts! and much much more ranting that ever before! Time will tell if it amounts to anything, but we shall see.