18-Sep-2008, 12:57 PM
Alright -a subject not to everyone's taste but am I missing something here!.
We had discussions some time ago about Gormley's sculptures on Crosby Beach and reactions to them. I accept that one definition of Art can be something that causes a reaction whether positive or negative.
But how can a bidder for one of Damien Hirst's pickled creatures say 'It is iconic and inherently British'
What sort of people will pay 2.5 million for a young horse pickled in formaldehyde and displayed in a steel and glass tank.
£111 million plus has evidently been shelled out by 'art lovers' on various animals in preservative.
I am not saying that art should be all flowers and chocolate box scenes' but to me this is a gigantic con.
We had discussions some time ago about Gormley's sculptures on Crosby Beach and reactions to them. I accept that one definition of Art can be something that causes a reaction whether positive or negative.
But how can a bidder for one of Damien Hirst's pickled creatures say 'It is iconic and inherently British'
What sort of people will pay 2.5 million for a young horse pickled in formaldehyde and displayed in a steel and glass tank.
£111 million plus has evidently been shelled out by 'art lovers' on various animals in preservative.
I am not saying that art should be all flowers and chocolate box scenes' but to me this is a gigantic con.