Tuesday, 3 April 2012

Damien Hirst's work 'For the Love of God' and Mercantilism



For the Love of God(2007) Damien Hirst


1. Describe the work, giving details of the form and materials. 


Damien Hirst uses Platinum and diamonds that have been encrusted into a skull formed object
There are 8,601 diamonds encrusted into the platinum skull, he used real human skull from the 18th century which he bought from London.
-
2. What does the work mean? What is Damien Hirst communicating in the work?


Damien Hirst's art focuses around the subject of death and he follows up on his artwork by using the same theme and idea. The "For the love of god" was his remake of another piece of work he found interesting which was based around a Mexican art work which focused on the deoration of a skull. He then decided to recreate his own style that was on death because it was a heavy subject.
-
3. How does Hirst's diamond encrusted skull relate to Mercantilism and to conspicuous consumption?


The diamonds encrusted into the skull relate to Mercantilism because of the pricing and antiquity of it on its own. Diamonds are thought of as being a merchandise and are of a high standard with how much it would be worth. The skull itself is a merchandise, the 18th century skull holds the past and other historical aspects which would cost a fortune and for Damien Hirst to put the two of diamonds and skull together to conjoin was an interesting idea which revolves around the antiquity of the piece.
-
4. How much did the work cost, and how much was it sold for, and who bought it?


"For the love of god " was sold for 50million in euro's.His work was sold anonymously and has not given out information on who bought the skull.


-
5. What are some of the differing opinions of the journalists in the newspaper and blog articles?
   What did they think of the work?


"Richard Dorment, art critic of The Daily Telegraph,  "If anyone but Hirst had made this curious object, we would be struck by its vulgarity. It looks like the kind of thing Asprey or Harrods might sell to credulous visitors from the oil states with unlimited amounts of money to spend, little taste, and no knowledge of art. I can imagine it gracing the drawing room of some African dictator or Colombian drug baron. But not just anyone made it - Hirst did. Knowing this, we look at it in a different way and realise that in the most brutal, direct way possible, For the Love of God questions something about the morality of art and money."






-
6. Based on your research, what is your opinion of the work, as an object or a work of art.


Damien Hirst has a very unique way of thinking how to contribute how criticism is like now days and found a way the media would be intrigued in the making of his art work and idea. not only did he involve media but grabbed the attention of the people in high riches who are familiar with this type of work and focused the artwork more around the merchant of the piece and also created and an object from an historical artefact and made it worth more than it already is including an expensive supply of diamonds which attracts the gazes of eye upon his work with how the world sees art and objects of how expensive it looks. I see his work as art and also an object of jewels.




References:



www.telegraph.co.uk › Culture › Culture News
www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/.../01/hirstsskullmakesdazzlingde
boingboing.net/2007/06/02/damien-hirsts-diamon.html 
www.gagosian.com/artists/damien-hirst/ 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God#Media_reporting_and_reviews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God#cite_note-Yahoo_Music-6
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/magazine/03Style-skull-t.html

1 comment:

  1. Nice research Hina and great information on the work of Damien Hirst. I agree with your opinion on the work, where you said that Hirst had a target audience. He was aiming to grab the attention of wealthier people doing so by using the media. I also agree with your view that "For the Love of God" can be seen as art but at the same time viewed as a jewel.

    I also find your quote in question 5 very informative, a good point is brought out by the critic where he point out that the work "question something about the morality of art and money."

    Also well done on finding how much the piece actually sold for $50 million dollars?! Thanks for the post!

    ReplyDelete