• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

For The Love of God

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,909
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Religion and Politics
Discussion of Religion from a political, societal, or cultural stand point.


4ARBd6f.jpg



Damien Hirst
For the Love of God, 2007
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God



What does this sculpture say to you?

Is it worth $50 million?

What does the title of this sculpture mean?

Is this sculpture religious in nature or intent?

Is this sculpture political in nature or intent?

Is this sculpture artistic in nature or intent?

Where do art, politics, and religion meet?



...
 
It's a bedazzled human skull. It's religious, because, without humans, there'd be no religion.

It's political for the same reason.

Not particularly thought provoking. I consider this "bad" art.
 
It's a bedazzled human skull. It's religious, because, without humans, there'd be no religion.

It's political for the same reason.

Not particularly thought provoking. I consider this "bad" art.

B-but it's got bedazzles inside the eye sockets and nose! That means it's great art, right?
 
"Bad art"? "Great art"? Maybe, maybe not. Is it art? That's another question.

Whatever it is aesthetically speaking, as a concept it delivers a rather powerful message, I think.
As a memento mori, a diamond-encrusted human skull offers an image to conjure with.
Whether political or religious depends, it seems to me, on how one takes the title -- as idiomatic and exclamatory or as declarative and cautionary.
 
Last edited:
When did Hirst ever produce any great art?
Hirst aside, whatever art is, "great art," it seems to me, is a product of time. In this light no contemporary art is ever "great art."
 
When did Hirst ever produce any great art?

Hirst aside, whatever art is, "great art," it seems to me, is a product of time. In this light no contemporary art is ever "great art."

W8M0qgI.jpg

Is this "great art"?

I don't know. But 100 years later it is still with us.

Indeed:

In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British art world professionals. The Independent noted in a February 2008 article that with this single work, Duchamp invented conceptual art and "severed forever the traditional link between the artist's labour and the merit of the work".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
 
It's a bedazzled human skull. It's religious, because, without humans, there'd be no religion.

It's political for the same reason.

Not particularly thought provoking. I consider this "bad" art.

Well said! :)
 
Only if they were bedazzled, that is. You heavily underestimate the power of glittery studs.

Tracey Emin's silly tent and bed with tampons and other junk didn't have much glitter.
 
4ARBd6f.jpg



Damien Hirst
For the Love of God, 2007
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God



What does this sculpture say to you?

Is it worth $50 million?

What does the title of this sculpture mean?

Is this sculpture religious in nature or intent?

Is this sculpture political in nature or intent?

Is this sculpture artistic in nature or intent?

Where do art, politics, and religion meet?



...



I find it mildly interesting at best. I suppose it is art. It's message, if any, is subject to interpretation so many different ways I wouldn't bother to guess what the maker intended without more clues than the name and the image.

Worth 50 million? No clue. Valuing art is not a skill I possess. Also I am not over fond of diamonds, due to the artificiality of their valuation. (Without DeBeers/etc controlling supply diamonds wouldn't be worth much at all really).


In conclusion: Meh. An object of but momentary interest. Trivial and pedestrian in comparison to, say, David or the Sistine Chapel.
 
In conclusion: Meh. An object of but momentary interest. Trivial and pedestrian in comparison to, say, David or the Sistine Chapel.

True. Not one of these modern "artists" could do what Turner did.
 
Just guessing here...

He made the skull, couldn't think what to call it. Invited a dear friend over to help him brainstorm.


Friend took one look, and cried out "For the love of God! You call that art??"


Artist: "THAT'S IT! EUREKA!"

:lamo
 
I am also reminded of Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, and the Skull Omphal...
 
Last edited:
He has made his name in the world of modern art. If he glued toilet rolls together some people would call it great art.

One of the few times I passed through the contemporary art section of a museum, I saw a room with a rope hanging from the ceiling. That was..... "art". So, too, was a broom leaning against a wall, some wooden blocks on the floor, and an arrangement of copper squares in *gasp* a square configuration *swoon*.



Not that any of these has anything to do with religion...
 
Damien Hirst
For the Love of God, 2007

Ugh. THIS guy.

(Hirst, not the OP)


What does this sculpture say to you?
That Damien Hirst did too much cocaine in the 00s. And 90s. And 10s.


Is it worth $50 million?
Let me put it this way. If I was a billionaire, I wouldn't pay $50m for it.

Apparently, lots of other billionaires agreed. Apparently, it didn't sell. So, it's probably worth more like $10m, based solely on the materials.


What does the title of this sculpture mean?
It means that Hirst has turned his rut of attempted provocation into a 6-foot deep trench.


Is this sculpture religious in nature or intent?
No.


Is this sculpture political in nature or intent?
No.


Is this sculpture artistic in nature or intent?
No.

Its job is to make money for Hirst. Wah wah....


Where do art, politics, and religion meet?
Nowhere near Hirst's output.

By the way, that human skull encrusted in diamonds has nothing to do with religious art, which has a long pedigree in art around the world. Seems like just about the last thing you'd want to hold up as a good example of the intersection of the two. Try this one next time:

Sistine_Chapel_Vatican_Museum_Rome_Italy.jpg
 
True. Not one of these modern "artists" could do what Turner did.
Actually, lots of contemporary artists, even conceptual artists, have a great deal of craft and skill.

Sometimes they deliberately eschew that type of work. In other cases, the skills involved are not obvious to non-painters because they are making abstract work. Sometimes they delegate the skillful portion to assistants.

There are definitely some contemporary art charlatans; at this point, most people would put Hirst in that category. However, demanding technical facility hardly guarantees that the resulting art will be any good, as one can see from the "Academic Art," such as what is collected by the Dahesh Museum.
 
Back
Top Bottom