Persian Rug

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15944327&sa_campaign=twitter/te/ar/hp

Andrea Del Castagno, The Young David, c1450 (Renaissance)

Andrea del Castagno, The Young David, c.1450. Leather on wood, 115.6 x 76.9 x 41 cm. Washington, National Callery of Art Widerner Collection.

This is a rare piece of work on a parade shield that survives the ravages of time. David is beautifully drawn.

Damien Hirst, For the love of God, 2007

Platinum, Diamonds, 1106.18 carat

"For the love of God" is a piece by Damien Hirst produced in 2007 that stirred up much controversy. It consists of over 8000 flawless diamonds encrusted in a platinum cast of a human skull. It was reportedly sold for 50 million pounds which if true, makes it the most expensive art piece by a living artist.

Many critiques call it vulgar and looks more like a piece comissioned by wealthy but uncultivated clients of Graff or Aspreys to exhibit their greatness. This is no piece befitting of an established artist.

There is also much speculation that the whole 'sale' of this work is an elaborate ruse to shore up the reputation and value Hirst's works prior to the Sotheby auction which he reaped millions. (Hirst is the first artist who decided to sell his works through auctions than galleries). Apparently the work was bought by a consortium that included Hirst in it. Whether "For the love of God" actually sold for 50 million pounds was doubted since some critiques observed that there is no tax records of the sale

For me i do consider this art albeit one of a low grade. This is art since you can derive disinterested pleasure out of it. However a jewel encrusted object is nothing original and highly uninspiring. I also feel that as an artist, Hirst contribution is too limited. Where is the passion when he merely owned the concept whilst artisans laboured on his behalf.

Lucio Fontana, Spatial Concept 'Waiting', 1960 (Spatialism)

Lucio Fontana, Spatial Concept 'Waiting', 1960, 930 x 730mm

Fontana is most reknowned for his slashed canvases. A seemingly minimal piece of work, just a slit, is able to convey gesture, force, spontaneity and movement. The work also immediately heightens our sensitivity towards space with the slash beckoning us to enter into the darken portal within the canvas.

Is it art?

Many a times we come across a piece of work and we ask ourselves what is this about? Audiences stand around with hands on their chin in an attempt to look sophisticated...


I define art as a piece of work that either inspires the mind or pleases the eye. On the former, something inspires when we experience a relevation from engaging with the art form or gets invigorated by it. On the latter, I follow St Thomas Aquinas formulation that "the beautiful is that which pleases merely on being perceived." A visual form that does not fulfil either of the criteria is simply not art. If cannot be a case whereby anything that asserts itself as art should be accrued the status of so. Usually visual forms with no substance rely on a poetic explanatory notes and conniving marketing efforts to lay claim to an artistic endeavour. This is dressed-up incapacity or, to quote the art critique John Russell, "rationalised impotence".