Friday, November 13, 2009

CBC - 10 of the most significant visual artists of the 2000s

Lists are of course arbitrary, especially when it comes to art. I guess that's what makes them interesting? Anyways, when I read this I immediately wondered what you guys thought.

Just a side note, I had no idea that Damien Hurst had sold one of his collections for $198 MILLION US. And he's still alive!


D.Macri said...

These are all great artists, but like you say, it has to be a some what arbitrary selection. It would be really hard for me to leave some people off the list. Like Chris Burden for example:

(maybe he's not 2000 enough?)

D.Macri said...

Some cool Damien Hursts are

1.sliced up horse
2.shark in a tank
3. blood head!

D.Macri said...

And who does that car accident scene out of ceramics? There has to be piles of stellar artists overlooked when you're only selecting 10/6 billion. Really, the world currently has enough crazy amazing art/artists, that you could spend your life studying it and never run dry.

Could we each make a list of our 10 favourite artists? That might be fun/excruciatingly painful!

c-antilist said...

I h-te lists, especially when they're supposed to be official-like.

I understand lists from the point of view of scientific and artistic 'facts' (I use that term loosely, especially with the pom(c)os around), but aesthetics, imo, is not list-able to a large extent.

D.Macri said...

Yea, I started writing my list and got to #4 before I realized how stupid it (my list) was. =P


renamaphone said...

Yes lists are kinda silly, but only when we try to invest "truth" in them. It's really the people reading them uncritically who are silly...

As for this one, I noticed that the cbc called this list 10 "of the" most significant artists of the 2000s.

Didn't someone post something about David Altmejd earlier this year? Denis? I thought this looked familiar, or the style at least.

As for Hurst, I just think that's such an obscene amount of money. I know that non-visual artists make that kind of money all the time, so I know it's nothing new, but wow it really makes me think. Would I want my art/creativity/voice to be commodified in such a way? And I'm not trying to promote that starving artist baloney. In my perfect world artists would have the same respect and standard of living as doctors (teachers would get in on that too). It's just that...this Hurst example seems like his art became just another plaything for those competing for more status and more expensive objects. Where's the meaning? Or rather, what's the meaning? Did the buyer see the beauty?

I suppose any artist with massive success would go through this sort of some point wondering if people even know why they love their pieces so much.

c-dog said...

Uh oh, truth in quotations.

mondotrasho said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
renamaphone said...

haha, yes, truth in quotations.

mondotrasho said...

This list is ridiculous. Who cares what Damien Hirst's sales record is? I liken this to being in awe of Walmart's gross annual sales. Crap is crap. Just because McDonald's has served billions does that make it good food? No. Hirst now indulges his patrons in what's can only be described as kind of "productionism". Failing to make anything good or thought provoking he now make things expensive gold plated or diamond encrusted (and then when they don't sell he secretly, and nervously, buys them back).

culleton said...

I think a list like this is just meant to inform, not be definitive, and like most media is to make you question it. It tells you about artists you may never had heard of before, and gives you a reason to check them out.

Oddly enough, Hurst is making oil paintings of flowers now.

I like Hurst because he was able to sell all of his work himself in his last go round, setting up an auction for himself and making a killing! Incredible, not as art)or maybe), but never done before.

Thanks for posting Renee.

The only thing I odn't understand about the list is how they forgot to mention the greatness of this art blog. Humpfff.

mondotrasho said...

The only thing Hirst is painting the last time I checked are Francis Bacon rip-offs. His existence began as a construct for the Saatchi's aspirations to control the British art market. The Saatchi's found in him a street level hustler (a damn good one) that they could work with. He is an Art-Star not an artist, the same way that pop-stars differ from an actual song-writer/performer. His purpose is to make money for himself and his masters from an audience and nothing less.

micro said...

You don't think Damien Hurst believes in his own work? I bet he thinks it's important, communication, and has many values the same as all your good artists. Financial success (measurements) shouldn't be used to qualify OR dismiss an artist. If you don't like his work Mondo, let's hear why (tell us what you really think =P). I'm not asking if he deserves his massive pay, but if he communicates with people. I think he does.

Also, last time I checked, most artists enjoy making money.

Did I mention I get a kick out of his 'blood head'. It's so gnarly. And it's funny that people are scrambling around trying to keep it frozen, haha. And the sliced up horse? And the shark? It's like going to the carnival!