Charlie Rose

hamilton-david  07/15/2012 02:28 AM Report

It's as if a vacuum would exist if someone didn't fill it, and this particular vacuum involves those who attain stardom that is ill-deserved and mystifyies us for that reason. "Art" has earned its poor reputation since mass media has proliferated. Mass media is the inverse of a personal, beautiful, human 'art' production. The various mediums of the media fare poorly in delivering an emotional, personal presentaion, so they simply do not present such works. Instead they delight in 'celebrating' the crows of the "industry" who feed on the scraps of modernity, denying the vestigial beauty that begs representation... despite the manic will to kill Spirit in any of Its forms. Art is no longer esteemed to be noble, but nobility lives quietly where Damien Hurst has yet to tread.

classical  03/12/2012 04:31 PM Report

After listening to your interviews with Robert Hughes, which are a delight by the way, It´s realy ofenssive to listen to this person, who can only strike someone with common sense, as a fake. He should read "Manifesto Romantico", or some of Mr. Hughes,or Mr. Roger Scruton art books, Roger Scruton to see how he sounds like. This is a comment with all respect, even though, Hirst himself does not have any respect for the inteligence of the viewers.

Thank you

CAnderson  03/09/2012 08:28 AM Report

Having just listened to 8 minutes of this interview I have to turn it off due to a kind of cranial implosion feeling. It is the least thoughtful or considered commentary that I have ever heard. What a contrast to the fascinating and thought provoking interview with Francesco Clemente. I realise that I have not listened to the entire interview but really, baboons would be more well informed than this. Charlie Rose ought to be given a massive pay rise for this kind of challenging work! Thanks so much for the other great interviews though.

beenthere2460  01/27/2012 10:08 AM Report

Now I remember, his work reminds me of PUT ME IN THE ZOO by

Robert Lopshire, (Dr. Seuss kind of stuff).

Maybe that is his greatest influence for his art.

beenthere2460  01/26/2012 10:03 AM Report

@Tim, thank you for the insight, no wonder the titles for his work.

He could have done it through photography, but he chose painting in a rather cryptic manner to assert his idea.

OK, --NEXT!!

TimHolton  01/25/2012 05:27 PM Report

Does Charlie Rose not realize that Hirst is a conceptual artist and that his real work isn't "spot paintings" but playing the art game? He is, famously, a trickster. It's no secret. He's deliberately and skillfully demonstrating the decadence of the art system by selling nothing for something (sound familiar?), aided and abetted by art critics (ratings agencies) and coverage like this interview (an insufficiently skeptical media). His spot paintings, like all his work, are deliberately vapid -- an enervating tonnage of pills, "controlled substances"; note the pharmaceutical names -- thrown at the world. This isn't a criticism of his work; it's exactly what he means it to be -- substance only to the extent that it numbs us to reality (if it doesn't kill us). But his "art" is not his point. His real work, at which he's triumphed, is playing the game so well as to get himself anointed by the very Art World (self-proclaimed) that he's mocking. Hirst's become the vanguard figure (alleged) not with the actual work but by this entirely conceptual aspect — which the interview strangely avoids.

The question is why? Everyone else gets it. Why doesn't Charlie Rose?

You've been played, Mr Rose. Sad to say, you've been played. Meanwhile, the arts, civilization, go on being turned into a game for the exclusive pleasure of the rich and famous.

Now, THAT'S something we should be talking about.

veropa  01/20/2012 03:38 PM Report

Read the Village Voice review of Hirst show, it is written by Christian Viveros-Faune. RIP. :-)

JohnHanley  01/19/2012 01:58 PM Report

When I was a child, I would have understood instantly the appeal of this artist's work. When I saw it last Thursday on T.V., I had a much more mixed reaction. Candidly,, I'm not sure if it appeals to me, but I see why Charlie brought up Death in the interview.

"I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear my trousers rolled..."- T. S. Elliot.

Globoman  01/18/2012 08:34 AM Report

In the vein of many great artists, Hirst demonstrates an instinctual urge to make a new path... again and again (bypassing the galleries is a great example of that). To dismiss him too quickly is naive. How much he owes his fame to gallerists and collectors may be a function of the market, despite or because of his role as an artist. As he said, his work became bigger in scale because of Saatchi, thereby gaining more attention. Plus, he makes no qualms with using the system to manipulate the system to reveal truth. Reviewers, take a chill pill.

DanAdams  01/15/2012 02:25 PM Report

After viewing, my opinion of Hirst as an artist is the same, not very talented but very lucky. However, I must say that he is at least honest, as far as luck & his love of money & fame are concerned. Hirst is where he is because of collectors, gallery owners, & the media which creates & supports people that they anoint. I don't blame Hirst, but the sad shallow state of the artworld. HOWEVER, it might be better if Hirst followed Warhol's example to answer questions with just an 'I don't know' attitude.

lpr  01/15/2012 01:37 PM Report

I'm sad to see M. Rose who usually has excellent taste and comprehension when it comes to art take a repeated interest in , and even worse, give publicity to a man as vapid and morally bankrupt as this one. To even suggest a sense of kinship with the New York School of the 50's is so insulting. As we know, those were artists for whom the commercial perversion of art and general culture was deeply painful . It just feels like Hirst is pissing on their graves. Furthermore, to anyone familiar with the complex thoughts artists such as Rothko or Reinhardt had about color, and what their art represented, watching this man speak , and say nothing, can only infuriate. I'm 25 years old and when I'm confronted with the state of successful contemporary art I can not help but feel very worried about what my generation will produce.

And really, what's with the outfit?

veropa  01/14/2012 01:59 PM Report

This man is not an artist, a con-artist I would say.

RGreen  01/13/2012 02:23 PM Report

I am apalled by the seriousness accorded to this "spot painting," especially on a program of this quality. Clearly it's a cynical celebration of money and mindless prestige consumerism. On any scale of human endeavor it surely must rank near the bottom.

beenthere2460  01/13/2012 01:58 PM Report

From Van Gogh to Hirst in just a couple of days, how art has changed! It goes to show that art is everywhere, and it is really a sort of mystery (rather illogical) how people "make it" in that field.

At the same time, it takes quite a bit of dedication to paint spots, be identified as a "spot man" in your work, and just have a serious face when getting a good deal of money for your spots.

I will look at spots in different way now, I always considered this type of work very graphic, but that's about it.

I don't think I can wish him luck, he already got it.

REMant  01/13/2012 01:17 PM Report

I doubt this fellow is in need of any promotion. I don't think he even did the vast majority of the painting.