Hirst came on to the art scene by using animals in his works. All his animals in Formaldehyde solutions fetch huge amounts of money still (The Kingdom, Shark in a black frame, was estimated for auction at $4-6 million USD) and a little over a million will get you a decapitated white foal's head with a unicorn-like horn affixed to it, called The Broken Dream.
I have never seen any of his pieces in person, but I do like his animal works in which the animals are cross sectioned, and then juxtaposed with other animals or their other halves. I like The Golden Calf, where the calf has been fitted with golden hooves and horns. And I dare say it, I like The Broken Dream.
I do not quite see the difference between these works with animals and with the butterflies (except of course the allegations of using endangered butterflies). And for once, the money is not going to him, it is going to charity.
The use of already dead animals to make a statement within art is okay by me. Butterflies are a symbol of recovery and regeneration which is why I assume they are being used for a Lance Armstrong bicylce. They represent the survival of cancer and regeneration and flourishing of the body.
I do not support killing animals for the sole purpose of art. I'm looking at you Guillermo Vargas; purposely starving a dog while it is tied to the wall in an art gallery, in order to make a statement about how all the starving street animals go unnoticed... yeah not so much.
That's nothing. Last week I killed an entire heard of Polar bears and covered the exterior of my car with their kidneys. Then, I used the fur to make foot cushions on the breaks, and the eyeballs I used to decorate my antenna. Later, I shot down several Peregrine Falcons and used their talons to decorate my hubcaps. For funsies, I used their feathers to tickle-torture a group of homeless and orphaned children.
In all, I collected 242,235,122 pounds of game. I was able to carry 12 of it back to my wagon. PETA was mad, but you should have seen how the local Native Americans reacted.
That "you were only able to carry x pounds back to your wagon" crap always annoyed me. I was like, can't I get my lazy-ass family to help? Make a second trip, perhaps? Share with other wagons? Buffalo cookout party at my campsite tonight! Be there or die of dysentery.
I hate to agree with PETA, but this is deplorable. I honestly don't care if these butterflies died of natural causes or they were bred from his personal collection (as was suggested further down), we don't have the right to use them for "art." They are (were) delicate, living beings and they deserve to be treated as such, not as commodities for our viewing pleasure. This makes me absolutely sick.
@girlyQ: I'm disgusted by the use of animal skin in general, but especially for art. No function, just form.
It's presumptuous of us to believe humans have the right to use the corpses of other creatures. Would you not be disgusted if he covered the bike in cat fur or human skin, even if those cats or humans died a natural cause? I mean they're just rotting there, so why not?
@Beets.Go.On is one cold lady: Why? Humans have had a long history of using dead objects in art. Hell, basilicas HAVE to display the bones of dead saints and what are dried flowers if not art created out of a dead life form. Do you object to people wearing insects incased in amber as jewelry?*
*I'm not trying to bitchy or combative, if you could hear my tone it would be "gentle inquisition".
@Beets.Go.On is one cold lady: No, I wouldn't. Not really. Just like I'm not offended by bodyworks or whatever it's called. For humans, I would prefer permission, by and large. But I find it difficult to ask a butterfly how it feels.
@Beets.Go.On is one cold lady: I wouldn't. People are turning their loved one's cremated remains into diamonds. It's not that far-fetched to use a corpse as art or decoration, even human ones.
This is no more gross than using feathers, assuming he didn't gas a bunch of endangered butterflies to do it. God, the things people get upset about...
While this seems sort of gross to me and I'm picturing wings flying off everywhere as Lance is riding, if the butterflies died naturally, I don't have a problem with it from an animal rights perspective. This doesn't seem like a disrespectful way to use remains.
But I'm really surprised by the statements here about Hirst as an artist. I don't like everything he's done, but he has definitely created some interesting and beautiful things. Modern art pushes the envelope. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes it's stupid. Sometimes it's cruel. Sometimes it's purely for shock value. But sometimes it makes you think something completely new and see beauty in ways you've never experienced, and in things you've never thought of as beautiful. His segmented cow, which I've seen in person, was so fascinating and incredible on so many levels. I didn't perceive it as trying to be shocking at all, and I found a great deal of meaning in it, as a vegetarian and someone who cares about animal rights. (As far as I'm aware, the animals aren't killed for the artwork. If they were, I would have a problem with it on those grounds, of course.) I just feel like a lot of the things being said here in terms of his art and his "lack of talent" could be said about almost any modern artist, and it strikes me as a little intellectually dangerous.
The British, and many other cultures, have a long tradition of making art from butterfly wings. Google "butterfly wing art" and check out some truly beautiful pieces.
So it's not like Mr. Hirst is just rubbing his hands together and cackling at the thought of which innocent creature to vivisect next. I hope.
I see a lot of people in the comments who are angry and agree with PETA, but does it say anywhere that Hirst killed the butterflies? They may well have already been dead.
@Dwangela: You are right. In fact he is specifically NOT saying where they came from because I think if he did, there would be no controversy. I mean, they have a life cycle of a day. I can't see that he would actually catch butterflies and KILL them when he could wait a day and harvest the wings. Plus, how would you kill a butterfly without harming the wing. It just seems like much ado about nothing and exactly what Hirst wants in the first place.
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: Yes, I agree. Armstrong has had an artist design his last-day bike for the past 4 or 5 Tours he rode and never has it gotten this much, or any, attention. Why he decided to partner with Hirst, who is obviously not low-profile or in need of a patron, I don't know, but I feel like the entire "controversy" is, as usual, being generated by Hirst's very talented PR team. Other people have commented about Hirst's keeping of butterflies and that he does not kill them. I mean, I don't support it, but there are much more serious issues to call attention to when it comes to animal rights. Sometimes I wish PETA wasn't so easily manipulated by other PR hungry types.
That makes me want to throw up. I long ago put Hirst firmly in the group of commercial whores masquerading as artists, but this is just disgusting. It's like covering a car in kitten fur.
@SomeAuthorGirl: Fair point, although there are a lot of people who wear, say, snakeskin, and don't eat snakes. Or, I suppose, vegetarians who wear leather. I generally agree with your point about Hirst's art, but if the butterflies were dead already I don't so much have a problem with him harvesting the wings for aesthetic purposes.
@smallc: Regardless of how he got them, it just seems nasty for the sake of being nasty. His work shocked me for about five minutes nearly two decades ago. Since then I have found it unnecessary and even a bit exploitive.
@SomeAuthorGirl: Yeah, he has his schtick, and he's ... schticking to it. But if it's still commanding millions per piece, I can see why he hasn't bothered to move on.
I don't know if this is the case in this particular piece, but I went to a Hirst exhibit a few years ago and he had a large glass room for breeding butterflies. There were flowers of all sorts inside for them to enjoy. Butterflies only live for a day or so before they die, so they would go in and collect the dead ones and then take their wings for art pieces.
I can't say much for the other works of Hirst, but if this is the way he collects them, I don't have a problem with it.
@everythingsfree: I was going to ask about this. The bike sort of makes me go "ick," but if the butterflies died naturally I don't see the problem with using their wings. (And I'm a veggie and animal rights proponent.)
@Eriu: I agree. It is hard to say whether I find this ethical or not, since I do wear leather and eat meat, so I can't criticize him too much. But I do hope that he used butterflies that were already part of his art, however, I doubt that is the case.
It's possible to create "iridescent wings that reflect the light" without sacrificing a bunch of insects. Anyone here ever own a Flutter Pony? Shimmering wings, and they were so thin and brittle that there was no way they'd add any weight to anything.
Damien Hirst is such a cad as an artist. He's such an envelope pusher that it becomes totally boring and ordinary when he does something like this. His art has no exploratory essence left, it is pure commercialism at this point. I suppose his argument could be that his embrace of crass commercialism is itself some kind of conceptual comment on society but honestly? I find him to be utterly irrelevant and boring. What would be shocking for him at this point would be to create a piece of artwork that isn't trying to shock or piss off anyone. Something intimate, personal, meaningful.
07/24/09
I have never seen any of his pieces in person, but I do like his animal works in which the animals are cross sectioned, and then juxtaposed with other animals or their other halves. I like The Golden Calf, where the calf has been fitted with golden hooves and horns. And I dare say it, I like The Broken Dream.
I do not quite see the difference between these works with animals and with the butterflies (except of course the allegations of using endangered butterflies). And for once, the money is not going to him, it is going to charity.
The use of already dead animals to make a statement within art is okay by me. Butterflies are a symbol of recovery and regeneration which is why I assume they are being used for a Lance Armstrong bicylce. They represent the survival of cancer and regeneration and flourishing of the body.
I do not support killing animals for the sole purpose of art. I'm looking at you Guillermo Vargas; purposely starving a dog while it is tied to the wall in an art gallery, in order to make a statement about how all the starving street animals go unnoticed... yeah not so much.
07/24/09
In all, I collected 242,235,122 pounds of game. I was able to carry 12 of it back to my wagon. PETA was mad, but you should have seen how the local Native Americans reacted.
07/24/09
That "you were only able to carry x pounds back to your wagon" crap always annoyed me. I was like, can't I get my lazy-ass family to help? Make a second trip, perhaps? Share with other wagons? Buffalo cookout party at my campsite tonight! Be there or die of dysentery.
07/24/09
07/24/09
I kind of think using them for something beautiful is better than letting them rot.
07/24/09
It's presumptuous of us to believe humans have the right to use the corpses of other creatures. Would you not be disgusted if he covered the bike in cat fur or human skin, even if those cats or humans died a natural cause? I mean they're just rotting there, so why not?
07/24/09
*I'm not trying to bitchy or combative, if you could hear my tone it would be "gentle inquisition".
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
But I'm really surprised by the statements here about Hirst as an artist. I don't like everything he's done, but he has definitely created some interesting and beautiful things. Modern art pushes the envelope. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes it's stupid. Sometimes it's cruel. Sometimes it's purely for shock value. But sometimes it makes you think something completely new and see beauty in ways you've never experienced, and in things you've never thought of as beautiful. His segmented cow, which I've seen in person, was so fascinating and incredible on so many levels. I didn't perceive it as trying to be shocking at all, and I found a great deal of meaning in it, as a vegetarian and someone who cares about animal rights. (As far as I'm aware, the animals aren't killed for the artwork. If they were, I would have a problem with it on those grounds, of course.) I just feel like a lot of the things being said here in terms of his art and his "lack of talent" could be said about almost any modern artist, and it strikes me as a little intellectually dangerous.
07/24/09
07/24/09
but deep down I think I dislike Hirst in a much more profound way, I mean, look at those glasses, ew.
07/24/09
07/24/09
So it's not like Mr. Hirst is just rubbing his hands together and cackling at the thought of which innocent creature to vivisect next. I hope.
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
I can't say much for the other works of Hirst, but if this is the way he collects them, I don't have a problem with it.
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09