At least 1,000 Damien Hirst artworks were painted years later than claimed
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/article/2024/may/22/damien-hirst-artworks-painted-years-later-currency-artist?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Posted by ClassicFlavour
At least 1,000 Damien Hirst artworks were painted years later than claimed
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/article/2024/may/22/damien-hirst-artworks-painted-years-later-currency-artist?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Posted by ClassicFlavour
8 Comments
> The Currency project reaffirmed the authenticity of art. It was premised on the idea that unique pieces – whether in physical form or a blockchain token – were as immutable as money itself.
AFAIK, the image usually isn’t stored on a blockchain. A reference to the image is, meaning that the art is lost the moment the server stops hosting the image to which the URL points. This also means the art isn’t immutably stored, as you can change ‘(or discard) the underlying data to which the token points. You’re trusting the company controlling the server to not do this, i.e. this system actually adds additional middlemen you need to trust.
In addition, the art isn’t “unique” either as a blockchain is not a storage mechanism but a permission-less ledger expressing ownership of tokens. Anyone with access to the link in the token (usually everyone), can use it to endlessly replicate the art.
In short, “uniqueness” (which isn’t the correct term) and immutability are properties of the ledger and the associations between tokens and their owners it contains, not the things referenced by those tokens, i.e. the digital representation of the art.
I thought this story sounded familiar.
> Hirst and Science used a similar argument in March, after the Guardian revealed that several well-known formaldehyde sculptures made by pickling animals were dated by his company to the 1990s, even though they were made in 2017.
>
> At that time, Hirst’s lawyers said he sometimes used different approaches when dating works, adding: “Artists are perfectly entitled to be (and often are) inconsistent in their dating of works.”
And there was me thinking he was just a talentless twat
He’s a grifter and a hack. I have no sympathy for the type of troglodytes who buy “art” like his.
This charlatan’s never produced a piece of art in his life. Talentless wanker.
Never forgot finding out he paid his studio workers next to minimum wage – and they were the people creating the artwork that sold for multiple millions.
He laid a bunch off recently. Whilst taking in tax payers money.
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/07/29/damien-hirst-laid-off-63-people-last-autumn-while-claiming-pound15m-in-government-covid-19-loans
I honestly almost like him for how much of a shameless grifter he is. Shows up how absolutely stupid the world of commercial art is. Anyone stupid and rich enough to buy anything of his deserves to be conned so good on him for taking the piss I guess.
Tf my graphics teacher literally just made start doing a case study on him yesterday😂