Replies

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.

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".

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...