Comments on: Not Dotty About Damien: Hirst’s Spot Paintings Go Global

By: ethel lebenkoff

ethel lebenkoff — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 05:13:24 +0000

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Pamela Talese

Pamela Talese — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:10:27 +0000

Thank you for the elegant and insightful pensé on dot.commerce which both surveyed Hirst’s eouvre and put it into the context of this trend of Six-Flags museum culture. As one part of the art market continues to invest in this approach, the less the art itself needs to resonate. No “Persistence of Memory” here, which is why I also appreciated your reply about the earlier abstractionists who pursued the possibilities of ‘rule based art’ and left a more enduring mark despite a lack of funded fanfare.

By: Henry McMahon

Henry McMahon — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:05:56 +0000

Dean,

Thanks for the comment. The question of what separates Hirst’s paintings from those of the “Minimalists” is a good one. For me, Ryman’s paintings invite a more attentive attitude toward looking. Their subtle variations actually clue me in to the phenomenon of visual experience. Martin’s do a similar service. If Ryman asks us to pay attention to the importance of our visual perception, Martin’s paintings seem to use the visual as an entry way to something more emotional or spiritual. I’ve never seen a Stella grid in the flesh, but his project from that time seems to be rooted in a similar desire to trigger our awareness (and ask us to consider the meaning) of our own perception.

For me, the fact that Hirst’s dots don’t spark any reaction (be it phenomenological, emotional or intellectual), is a testament to his desire to use paint “to do nothing”. This is what separates him from Ryman, Martin and Stella, who were all keenly engaged in exploring the communicative possibilities of painting.

Henry

By: dean aldrich

dean aldrich — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:47:39 +0000

Yours was one of the most sane critques of the Hirst Show to date. Thank you. There really has been a lot of reaction to this exhibition and rightly so. But when I came across a video of the artist speaking about it, suddenly everything else seemed like so much muffled blah blah blah.

My point here, is that the other night I came across the 60′s geometrical works (especially the squares) by Frank Stella and it seemed to put all this in perspective. So really, what’s the difference between a Stella squares-within-squares paintings and Hirst’s dots? It’s just a different day, a different color and shape. The biggest problem with Hirst is that he doesn’t take the time to act humble.