Hirst sorry for praising September 11 hijackers (HOLD MUH BEER, IT'S ART ALERT)

The Daily Telegraph ^ | September 19, 2002 | The Daily Telegraph

[MadIvan]

Damien Hirst has apologised unreservedly for congratulating the September 11 hijackers on a "visually stunning" work of art.

Thanks to pressure from some New York art dealers no doubt - Ivan

The British artist, famous for displaying animals in formaldehyde, said he was sorry if he upset families of the victims by calling the terror attacks "an art work in its own right".

Proving yet again he wouldn't know real art if it bit his bum off. - Ivan

He said on the eve of last week's first anniversary of the New York and Washington attacks: "Of course, it's visually stunning and you've got to hand it to them on some level because they've achieved something which nobody would have ever have thought possible - especially to a country as big as America.

And people say the use of illegal narcotics has no long term effects; well maybe in comparison to what being a pretentious prat can do - Ivan

"So on one level they kind of need congratulating, which a lot of people shy away from, which is a very dangerous thing."

Dangerous only if you say that to someone outside of Hampstead or Greenwich Village you prat; just another left wing altar boy, paying homage at the Church of Socialism - Ivan

But today he issued a statement through his Science Ltd company backing down and saying he in no way condoned terrorism.

Hirst said: "Concerning statements I made about the atrocities committed by terrorists on September the 11th, I feel it is important to make my feelings clear.

"As a human being and artist living in the civilised world, I value human life above all else and abhor all acts of terrorism and murder.

Unless it's "visually stunning" apparently. - Ivan

"I apologise unreservedly for any upset I have caused, particularly to the families of the victims of the events on that terrible day.

Translation: "I made even left wing art dealers in New York upset, and so they'll invite me to cocktail parties in the future, I hope you'll ignore that I'm a pompous idiot." - Ivan

"I in no way condone terrorism of any kind and I deeply regret any offence caused by the misrepresentation of my thoughts and feelings."

Translation: "I'm sorry that people found out what a total git I am." - Ivan

[Teacup]

I still say we ought to drive a friggin' railroad spike through this bastard's forehead and into the white painted line on Broadway and call it "Art"!

Let'stick this guy in a loo full of urine and call it art.

[Lizard_King]

Myself, I actually like a lot of so-called modern art, especially when it comes to certain types of architecture. However, Mr Hirst makes a vast mistake, in my opinion, in thinking that the appreciation of any work can be separated from the context in which it was created. Would he also praise a soap sculpture made from murdered Jews in 1945?
In the mess of moral relativism in which so many artists dwell, I can understand why these often evil persons would sympathize with the WTC bombing on the side of the terrorists. But it is a far cry from understanding where they are coming to accepting it as a valid, moral, or remotely humane viewpoint, especially when they claim it is an ideologically neutral one.

I think the idea of a "piss Koran" is groovy. I wish someone would do it, if only to push the monsters at the NEA into a corner...I'll even volunteer the urine...

[MadIvan]

I like contemporary art, and Hirst is a moron and a fraud.

We have a few of those artists here. There was that other artist who sold her unmade bed for £500,000.

Regards, Ivan

[nothingnew]

Let'stick this guy in a loo full of urine and call it art.

Mr. Hirst...Suggestion for your next piece of "art":

A hermetically sealed jar of shit.

Title:

"My Brains On Art"

FMCDH

[Salman]

One day a wag — what would the wretch be at? —
Shifted a letter of the cipher RAT,
And said it was a god's name! Straight arose
Fantastic priests and postulants (with shows,
And mysteries, and mummeries, and hymns,
And disputations dire that lamed their limbs)
To serve his temple and maintain the fires,
Expound the law, manipulate the wires.

Amazed, the populace that rites attend,
Believe whate'er they cannot comprehend,
And, inly edified to learn that two
Half-hairs joined so and so (as Art can do)
Have sweeter values and a grace more fit
Than Nature's hairs that never have been split,
Bring cakes and wines for sacrificial feasts,
And sell their garments to support the priests.

-- Ambrose Bierce

[ARCADIA]

Mr Hirst makes a vast mistake, in my opinion, in thinking that the appreciation of any work can be separated from the context in which it was created.

I understand what you are saying. But, I disagree. Art is value neutral. The pageantry of the Nazis represents horrible values, but it was "visually stunning." You can disagree with "Triumph of the Will" but it is a hypnotic film, that communicates an ideal (however reprehensible) and evokes strong feelings in the viewer. In fact, it holds one enthralled and knowing that it glorifies murderers does not diminish it's impact.

I read somewhere that the Holocaust was, in its way, a work of art. It's a view worth considering. Perhaps it was the ultimate expression of man's capacity for evil. How else to explain the fascination it holds, unless it was expressing something important about all human beings.

The WTC attacks fall into this category. They were visually stunning, people were glued to their TV sets, even when the incident was replayed over and over again. Compare the WTC attacks to the Pentagon attacks and note the difference. One was hypnotic and the other was not.

Whoever denies that part the human soul that is enthralled by evil and destruction - when presented in a "visually stunning" way, foregoes any chance of understanding it.

Art is an expression of the human condition. Not an expression of moral values.

[schmelvin]

Just because people are fascinated by things that repel them, and can't take their eyes off things that shock or awe them, that doesn't mean that what they're viewing is art.

I'm not going to try to define art; too many people have already tried it and failed. I do believe that art is an embellishment, an expressive vanity of sorts, that is done knowingly and through force of will. What I'm saying is that the artist has to deliberately set out to create art before his work can even begin to be considered art. I mean that in this sense:

You may drive by a mangled car on the side of the road and think you're seeing a work of art because you find it "visually stunning", but if the driver wrecked his car, because he slammed on his brakes to avoid hitting a deer, not because he wanted to provide you with an exhibit of his artistic genius, then you are not viewing art. And, if you think you are, then you are a sociopath, so detached from the reality of another's pain and suffering that you could see an up-close tragedy as something distant and surreal, and declare it a work of art.

You said: "Art is an expression of the human condition. Not an expression of moral values."

Using your definition, the basest pornography would fall under the heading of "art".

[ARCADIA]

What I'm saying is that the artist has to deliberately set out to create art before his work can even begin to be considered art.

Well the WTC attacks were deliberate. The targets were chosen for their visual appeal. Certainly NOT for military strategic reasons. In addition, many of what are now considered works of art were created with different intentions in mind.

Using your definition, the basest pornography would fall under the heading of "art".

Not really, most pornography has no artistic value. Not because of the subject or context, but because the execution is so shoddy.

[Lizard_King]

Keep in mind that I never said that it was impossible for such things as the WTC to be objectively considered art. I just think in 99% of cases like these the concept of art criticism is used as a facade for expressing indefensible, immoral, and stupid points of view. In this case, I think it is plain that this goofy bastard has a deep-seated hatred of America, and thought he had the backing to say so in public. He didn't (for once), and hence this "retraction".

I think it is a big jump from saying something is a work of art to being in a position to appreciate it. I watch the "Triumph of Will" with detachment, because I cannot separate the images from what they represent. I would certainly never observe any images of the Holocaust for their artistic value...

[ARCADIA]

I would certainly never observe any images of the Holocaust for their artistic value...

Not the images, although some of these have artistic value. But it is the photographer's art not the art of monsters who reduced the subjects to such a state.

The Holocaust as art has to do with the act itself. As a an expression of evil. I don't agree with this completely but it is worth considering.

[schmelvin]

Well the WTC attacks were deliberate. The targets were chosen for their visual appeal. Certainly NOT for military strategic reasons.

I do think the WTC and Pentagon were chosen for military strategic reasons. It's hard for the Western mind to view it this way, because for us it's taboo to purposely target innocent civilians when we wage war. I suppose I should include the Eastern mind in this category, too. At least the Japanese had the "decency" to attack a military target, when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

It's the Middle Eastern/Islamic Jihadist mindset that stands out as the anomaly. When Westerners deliberately commit atrocities against civilians during war, as does sadly happen sometimes, these acts are considered war crimes, dishonorable, and disgraceful to the folks back home. When Islamic fanatics do the same, the Middle East celebrates and candy gets passed out to children. Their religion dictates their politics, their warfare, everything down to which hand they wipe their own @$$es with: American civilian = infidel = legitimate military target.

So, yes, the WTC was chosen as a strategic military target. It was not chosen as an art project. The goal was not to have Americans standing around holding champagne glasses, Ooing and Ahing, and critiquing the artistic abilities of Mr. Atta and his gang of thugs. The goal was to kill as many Americans as possible, to terrify the rest of America into submission, and to rally Muslims around the globe to take up arms against the "infidel" West.

The terrorists committed a notorious act that would be undeniable, unable to be swept under the carpet as a mechanical malfunction (like TWA flight 800), a brazen act that would shake America to her core and put the eyes of the world upon the terrorists and their cause.

Not the images, although some of these have artistic value. But it is the photographer's art not the art of monsters who reduced the subjects to such a state.

I can agree with you on this. The photographer's choice of framing, focus, whatever, for the purpose of immortalizing these atrocities in the most powerful way possible so the world could never forget or ignore these events, could be called art. The atrocities themselves are not art.

The Holocaust as art has to do with the act itself. As a an expression of evil. I don't agree with this completely but it is worth considering.

I'm trying to understand the thinking behind this. Is it because: since art is a form of expression, and acts are a form of expression, that then it can be concluded that acts = art? I don't agree. "Art" is a subcategory that falls under "Acts". All art is an act, but all acts are not art.

[ARCADIA]

Is it because: since art is a form of expression, and acts are a form of expression, that then it can be concluded that acts = art? I don't agree. "Art" is a subcategory that falls under "Acts". All art is an act, but all acts are not art.

I am confused. It was just something I read to the effect that the Holocaust was so completely evil, and so perfectly evil-ly executed that it might be evil art. A half-baked notion perhaps, but something to think about. I don't know enough about art theory to debate "what is art."

[schmelvin]

Hi ARCADIA!

I hope I didn't give you the idea that I was refuting you personally. I just disagree with some ideas you've brought to the table for discussion, ideas that I fully understand you may not agree with either. I enjoyed considering and addressing these viewpoints. Thanks for mentioning them. I don't have any problems with you personally at all, and I hope you don't think that I do or have any problems with me.

Wishing you all the best,

Kellyliz