Art

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

'Are Hirst's paintings any good? No, they're not worth looking at'

If it were not for his prodigious fame, would Damien Hirst's canvases be exhibited at London's hallowed Wallace Collection? Of course not, says Tom Lubbock. The man simply can't paint

LONDON, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 13:  Artist Damien Hirst stands in The Wallace Collection at his  'No Love Lost, Blue Paintings by Damien Hirst' exhibition on October 13, 2009 in London. The collection comprised of 25 new paintings by British artist Hirst is being shown in the UK for the first time. The new works, created between 2006 and 2008 mark the artist's return to the solitary practice of painting.  (Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images) *** Local Caption *** Damien Hirst

Getty Images

Artist Damien Hirst stands in The Wallace Collection at his 'No Love Lost, Blue Paintings by Damien Hirst' exhibition on October 13, 2009 in London. The collection comprised of 25 new paintings by British artist Hirst is being shown in the UK for the first time. The new works, created between 2006 and 2008 mark the artist's return to the solitary practice of painting.

Video: Hirst's paintings go on show

A few quick questions. 1. Are these new paintings, painted by Damien Hirst himself, any good? No, not at all, they are not worth looking at. 2. So why are you writing about them at such length? Because he is very famous. 3. And why has the Wallace Collection decided to exhibit them? Because he is very famous. 4. And why did Damien Hirst even paint them in the first place? Because he is very famous.

Now let me put this at more length. Damien Hirst has painted some paintings, entirely by hand. So far he has made his name with other kinds of art: with assemblages, mainly involving dead animals and pills, and paintings, painted by other people. There have been the spot paintings, the spin paintings, paintings copied from photographs, all done by assistants. But now he has risked his fame, with some paintings done by his own hand.

Anyone interested in Hirst's art to date, anyone simply interested in Hirst as a very famous artist, will probably take an interest in this radical turn in his work. What will they look like? There's another thing. Even now we've learnt to accept that skills needn't matter, still that old question seems to linger over any artist, whatever methods they employ: can they actually paint?

And if that wasn't enough, there's an extra attraction in where these paintings are being shown., The Wallace Collection is a distinguished, old-fashioned venue, and chosen precisely as a traditionalist setting, to stress the way these new paintings have a place in the great tradition. As the artist has said himself, he feels they are "deeply connected to the past." For the public, it's intriguing. If you were expecting some outrage from the master of Brit Art shock, expect again.

Here they are, then, looking like history. In a long chamber, just off the Wallace's main gallery of masterpieces, they hang on walls of sumptuous silk, and held in heavy old-master frames. There are 25 pictures, including two triptychs. Their collective title is No Love Lost, Blue Paintings. And they don't look back that far. As you'd expect, they are most reminiscent of paintings by Hirst's hero, Francis Bacon.

You see it at once. They take their effects, not from Bacon's virtuoso exploding flesh images, but from the dourer Bacons of the 1950s. There's little colour. Blue-ish whites glimmer out of blue-ish darkness. As in Bacon, but more so, the figures are contained within frameworks of straight white lines. The figurative matter consists (mainly) of Hirsty things – skulls, skeleton, a shark's open maw, ashtrays, cigarette packets, flayed bodies, also lizards, thickets of wood. There are grid patterns of white dots.

Video: Hirst's paintings on show

Like Bacons, they're pretty big. Their themes come in repetitive sequences. There's a series of very similar paintings of flayed bodies seen in a thicket, another series of skulls and ashstrays. The subjects may sound harsh, but the painting of them is neither violent nor graceful, simply unassertive and unconfident, caution suggesting uncertainty. There's not a dash of virtuosity. There's an attempt at blurry, glowy etherealness. There's one picture of a vase of flowers with butterflies flying out of it in all directions, and some of the butterflies are quite neatly painted.

But come now. This is ridiculous. To talk in this considered way is to pretend that the paintings can be taken seriously. So let's be clear. Many kinds of paintings get reviewed on these pages, and some of them (in my judicious way) I say are good, and some bad. But in a way they're all quite good, or they wouldn't be getting reviewed here in the first place.

These Hirst paintings are way outside that range. They're thoroughly derivative. Their handling is weak. They're extremely boring. I'm not saying that he's absolutely hopeless. But I'm not saying he's any good either. There are many degrees of painting. There are many painters in evening classes much worse than Hirst. On the other hand, you'd find quite a few who were better, too. To try to be accurate: Hirst, as a painter, is at about the level of a not-very-promising, first-year art student. He is in his mid-forties.

There are dozens of youngsters who turn up at our art schools each year, doing this turgid teen-angst stuff. And many of them are deluded enough, in their innocence, to think that their work is "deeply connected to the past." Their teachers have to scold and embarrass them out of these bad habits. These kids may come to something. At that point you can't really be sure. But you can be sure that the Wallace Collection, in its kindness, wouldn't offer them a gallery to display their work. And I too, in my kindness, wouldn't write about this present show, if it wasn't for the level of public interest.

As for what Damien Hirst thinks he's doing, it's not my business, but anyone may wonder. Yearning to be among the masters, and blinded by self-belief? Maybe. And I could imagine another famous artist, who had made their name in assemblage, and who decided to try their hand at painting – but when it turned out like this, realised it simply wouldn't do, and sighed, and put it away, their fame not having warped their judgement.

And I could imagine another famous artist who did a similar thing, but who wasn't quite sure, and realised that their fame was likely distort both their judgement and the public's. So they submitted one of their new paintings, under a pseudonym, to the biennial John Moores Painting Prize competition, to see what would happen. Hirst could have done the same.

Well, the artist can make a fool of himself, and it doesn't matter. I'm sure the pictures will sell for a packet anyway, and if the critics are rude – I jolly well hope they are – the buyers need only be reminded of Van Gogh, rejected by all in his time, now seen as great. (Ignore the slight circularity of this argument.) No, it's our poor little art world that I feel sorry for. We just look so bloody stupid.

I mean, here is the director of the Wallace Collection – no names, no pack-drill – and what she says is: Hirst's paintings are "very classical in nature" and "his ethereal other-worldly treatment of the memento mori subject evokes centuries of great art... a comparison can be made to the Wallace Collection's great Poussin, A Dance to the Music of Time."

Actually, the Wallace thinks so highly of its great Poussin that currently it exhibits it with a statuette plonked directly in front of it, so you can't see it properly. Never mind. You can see those Hirst paintings clearly enough, and then imagine what could have moved the mind of this director. Was she dazzled by stardom? Can she really not see anything?

We're all blinded, I suppose, somehow. So many things obscure a pure attention to good art. The spectacle of blazing fame and self-delusion, the joy of people talking utter rubbish, and writing rude reviews: the freak show goes on. At least today I have detained you long enough.

No Love Lost, Blue Paintings, Wallace Collection, London W1 (020-7563 9500) to 24 January

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Louche
[info]dplexi wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 04:48 am (UTC)
While walking through this exhibit I felt like a haruspex coming across a particularly uncommunicative piece of fecal matter. Flat, soulless. Close to weeping in their inadequacy. I've gathered more emotional strength from velvet paintings see by the side of the road.
Re: Louche
[info]acidpen wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 05:34 pm (UTC)
well said! they remind me of mediocre student work with perhaps one or two spots of well executed brushwork in amongst sketchy paining and bizarrely meaningless construction lines.....
Re: Louche - [info]acidpen - Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 05:35 pm (UTC) Expand
Cartrain could have done better
[info]bunnyjones wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 06:59 am (UTC)
At this point I'll simply say Cartrain could have done better and I hope to goodness the lad has not handed over the filched pencil.
Re: Cartrain could have done better
[info]badalandabad wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 09:58 pm (UTC)
Last I heard was that the w@nker set the police on the lad.
Hubris in spades
[info]gothic_quarter wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 07:04 am (UTC)
I am reminded of the age-old story of the famous clown who was sick to death of his shtick, of his pat routine - what he really wanted to do was to play Hamlet. So, the big night came, and he stepped out onto the stage. Oh, how the squashed tomatoes and brickbats rained down upon him! You should've stuck with your bits of flesh in formaldehyde, Mr H.
Hirst
[info]oomigoolies wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 07:19 am (UTC)
Can't paint. Can't draw. Poor draughtsmanship.

Just like that other pseud Tracey Emin, then.
Re: Hirst
[info]chrisp666 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 05:35 pm (UTC)
Re: TE - couldn't agree more. Ghastly pseud...as another poster says, talk about Emperor's new clothes!
You don't see it do you?
[info]living_fossil wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 07:55 am (UTC)
This is intended to be weak in appearance. It is hidden and you must really concentrate on what Hirst is trying to do with his art to understand.
Re: You don't see it do you?
[info]starlingnl wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 09:00 am (UTC)
LOL! You don't honestly believe in such rubbish, do you?
Re: You don't see it do you? - [info]ryko25 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 09:50 am (UTC) Expand
Re: You don't see it do you? - [info]georgesign - Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 02:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: You don't see it do you? - [info]pinhut - Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 07:31 pm (UTC) Expand
hirst
[info]alanburden wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 08:02 am (UTC)
Nether Hirst or Emmons have the slightest talent except in self promotion and self delusion.Hirst, in particular can be accused of plagiarism, indeed has so been. The real problem is the art critics and art world generally who seemingly have never heard of the 'Emperors Clothes'' I went to a show of four artists.one of them being Tracet Emmons It made me wish I could get a show with Emmons ,or Hirst, come to that. The other three artists were not particularly good and there they were hung with the incredibly famous Tacey Emmons. She made them look great.
sour grapes
[info]brinksman wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 08:09 am (UTC)
seems like an awful lot of lemons and sour grapes being sucked here. Love him or hate him, there is no ignoring the fact that Hirst has tremendous talent. What a boring waste of space the art world would be without him...
www.millarcrime.com
Re: sour grapes
[info]zipplews wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 12:35 pm (UTC)
Hirst really does not have tremendous talent; he has a good sales pitch and we fall for it, more fool us.
Re: sour grapes - [info]pinhut - Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 07:33 pm (UTC) Expand
Spatial elegance?
[info]llossius wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 08:28 am (UTC)
I read the article. Intelligent and scathing (but what else would do?). I looked that the pics. I quite like the spatial elegance and relative simplicity of these pieces, but as I haven't seen them properly couldn't say if there are any depths to be found.
If I were a slightly melancholic thinking man's crumpet I'd have one of them on my feature wall (here's me showing my patronising claw :-).
Wallace collection
[info]cepelli wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 08:43 am (UTC)
If this artist (not artist at all) murder 10 people in the gym and nobody knows why ? then if they see these paintings then they might consider he is really disturbed individual.

We are lucky that not all of us an art lovers otherwise there would be revolt demonstration and revolution in Great Britain.

maybe this exhibition is a test for mass to see how stupid the public become!

Its rubbish it will make mentally ill people more disturbed.
Just a thought
[info]gothic_quarter wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 08:58 am (UTC)
It's just occurred to me - if only Damien had painted these in his teenage years, he could have sold them for use as Emerson Lake and Palmer album covers! What a chance he missed.
Shame on you Independant.
[info]bradphelan wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 09:23 am (UTC)
This review was a rather flat-less officiation don't you think? It is not redacted that we can't fathom the under-cretin of Hirsts' catharsis. Hirst makes us all fear our climate, a reflection of his appeal to Jupiter. To be or not to be. Hirst is Hamlet in his night like umbra but teen spirit in his fall. He is genius but not on hallowed ground. The classic movement has become grounded and only through the quantum of relativistic rotation revisited on the old masters can we truly appreciate the downward spiral that Hirst has so omnisciently given through the exegesis of his soul.
Re: Shame on you Independant.
[info]ohayeyes wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 03:29 pm (UTC)
bradphelan - you are rumbled. You are an acutely aware 16 year old with a sense of humour!
Re: Shame on you Independant. - [info]bradphelan - Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 06:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Shame on you Independant. - [info]oomigoolies - Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 07:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Vomit from a real artist
[info]gaius_godd wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC)

I'm a real painter and I can produce vomit. If I frame it will the Wallace Collection be interested? I stress that as yet I am not famous. Interested? I can paint!

Cynically yours.
A talent for self-promotion
[info]martingowar1 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
I seem to remember Picasso being allowed to exhibit his paintings (based on previous Masters) in the Louvre whilst he was alive.
What Hurst has done is to bribe his way into the Wallace in order to give his paintings credibility.
The difference is that one of them had a great talent for painting, whilst the other has none.
art teachers
[info]martynb9999 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
'Their teachers have to scold and embarrass them out of these bad habits.'

You seem to know as much about art college as Damien knows about painting.
Have a Art you critics
[info]snotcricket wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 10:35 am (UTC)
I think you forget Damien Hirst's work with formaldehyde will undoubtedly stand the test of time.
Re: Have a Art you critics
[info]therealsomniac wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 10:59 am (UTC)
It won't have any choice.
[info]myfanwyclogau wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 10:54 am (UTC)
"Even now we've learnt to accept that skills needn't matter, " ??

Having realised that we would stand no chance of getting into Frieze and having been refused entry (despite paying an extortionate £100.00 application fee) to Zoo; thanks but no thanks from The London Art Fair; we have decided to put on our own exhibition at RSA House on the 29th and 30th of October. Our feelings are, that the "Art world" is still only interested in talentless non events such as Creed, Hirst, Emin, (list too long for this comment) and continually ignores people who actually "Have" an ability, a talent for their Art. People who "Know" how to manipulate their choosen media (not the fourth estate) with great skill and artistry.

With Emin threatening to leave these shores (please hurry up and take your ugly everything with you) and Hirst sueing "real Artists" for copying a skull! (since when did he have the copyright on that? surely that one belongs to God?) We are seeing the real "Artistry" in these people. Pull the ladder up, I'm OK.

If you want to see some genuine Art/Skill/Talent, turn up at RSA House 8 John Adam St London on the 29th or 30th October> That is a challenge to all you Art Critics/Journalists; here is your opportunity to talk about those outside the clique.
Shameless Publicity
[info]redsnowdeep wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 11:00 am (UTC)
Could it possibly be that Wallace Collection know exactly what they are doing and agreed to show these purely for publicity purposes, in order to raise their profile and attract interest in their other works?
reflecting the zeitgeist
[info]leedsrob wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 11:05 am (UTC)
Intentionally or not Brit Art has represented the Zeitgeist of the last 10 or 15 years extremely well, an age where appearance has triumphed over substance. An age where the Prime Minister was a con man, the government built on smoke and mirrors, the England football manager (Sven) an imposter, the culture a mixture of celebrity hype and a transient non-entity called cool Britannia and the whole economy built on a fraud. The dominant art movement of this period was Britart, a fittingly noisy and attention seeking movement based on very little talent except for that of effective publicity seeking. After Iraq and MP’s expenses and the financial crisis people are sick of this greed and dishonesty infecting every walk of life. Hirst has exposed his paltry talent up to the light and been found out, Tracey Emin’s taking her unmade bed to France. Surely the game is up, time to move on.
Re: reflecting the zeitgeist
[info]therealsomniac wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)
At least Hirst painted these. Unlike Gormley who gets the public to make his art.
Butterflies
[info]dougie11 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 12:13 pm (UTC)
Love that comment! "There's one picture of a vase of flowers with butterflies flying out of it in all directions, and some of the butterflies are quite neatly painted". Sounds like one of my old school reports.
Butterflies
[info]dougie11 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 12:14 pm (UTC)
"There's one picture of a vase of flowers with butterflies flying out of it in all directions, and some of the butterflies are quite neatly painted".
Love this comment as it reads like comments on the bottom of my art home work 15 years ago.
They are very clever
[info]drahcir38 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 12:28 pm (UTC)
How clever of Damien. He displays something which either I am too thick or insesitive or not clever enough to understand and appreciate, or something which is shallow, has no real meaning and should never be displayed in the Wallace Collection. Unfortunately, unlike a mathematical problem or a scientific experiment, there isn't an answer only an opinion, therefore does this make it art anyway, because it is open to such individual interpretation?
i like em...
[info]daves23 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 12:30 pm (UTC)

but then what do i know...

give ya 50quid for one...
but seriously..
[info]daves23 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 12:34 pm (UTC)
"...There are dozens of youngsters who turn up at our art schools each year, doing this turgid teen-angst stuff. And many of them are deluded enough, in their innocence, to think that their work is "deeply connected to the past." Their teachers have to scold and embarrass them out of these bad habits..."

says who? says mr lubbock? who defines taste?

what a load of claptrap.
Empty Spaces!!
[info]sqldoc wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 01:31 pm (UTC)
Hmm! Boring Empty Spaces...Hasn't another "artist" done just that recently, a big empty box.

Sorry boys an girls art is dead. Its been strangled beheaded and shoved in a tank.
Commercial art is the only art worth any note, it succesfully links to our feelings an sensibilities, after all these talented people can take a subject matter of frozen peas and make them desirable.
Hats off to them Hurst and other "modern" artists can only dream of such talent, they're only match is to try and shock us.
Unfortunately other than the selling price of these offerings they consistently fail to shock, we have become un-shockable.

Art is dead.
Art xxxx sake
[info]farfromgruntled wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 01:51 pm (UTC)
All is explained thusly.

The huge majority of art collectors don't buy art because they *like* it - they buy an artist's work because *someone else already has*.
Re: Art xxxx sake
[info]abcd101 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 02:15 pm (UTC)
and because they hope it will increase in value...art as commodity; art as currency; (art) as (is) crap! I think this is what the writer was trying to infer from his circular (inverted) Van Goch reference...
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular