

Are Hirst's paintings good? They're not worth looking at. But he is famous. - unalone
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/are-hirsts-paintings-any-good-no-theyre-not-worth-looking-at-1802080.html

======
petercooper
I can't believe Tom Lubbock - a long time art critic - could sound like such
an art debutante. Hirst is one of the most significant artists of the last two
decades regardless of his technical prowess.

Being a good artist doesn't demand technical prowess any more than being a
good Web developer demands you have a strong knowledge of computer science.

I'd dread to imagine how this reviewer would have approached the works of
Rothko or Picasso in their respective times. This reviewer is just another
modern day naysayer and we've had too many of them throughout history.

~~~
unalone
Tom Lubbock. Says so right up top. He also writes the Great Works series.

My opinion is separate from Lubbock's, but I'll chip in and say that
"significance" is a crock of shit in the art world, up there with "important".
Art is either good or it's bad. In my opinion, Hirst's is bad, and I've never
seen a good argument explaining otherwise. He sells controversy. He's like
Warhol but less inspired, less attractive, and less witty.

Picasso was controversial, but it was never doubted that he produced bad
artwork. He was a master of realism in his before he attempted anything more.
Rothko I don't understand myself, but I saw a gallery of his work over the
weekend and it looks impressive hanging on walls. It doesn't speak to me,
because I don't get what makes his work impressive, but I see it and can
imagine there's something I'm missing.

Hirst's paintings here look like paintings by my friends. That's the point of
the article. Whether or not his other work is good, these paintings are bad,
and they're shown here only because he is "significant". Lubbock isn't
necessarily saying Hirst is talentless. He's saying his _paintings_ lack
merit. No amount of significance detracts from a bad painting.

