Hirst apologises for 11 Sept comments

Thomas I think you're missing the point.
I mentioned earlier a picture of a vietnamese child running towards the camera.The child is crying and parts of her skin are falling off.In the background you can see the effects of a napalm attack.The photograph is horrific yet to any who have seen it it will remain with them.you probably know the photo.
To those that have seen it it represents something more than the suffering of one child.It stays with you.It becomes iconic.
9/11 is not something to be celebrated.Yet I can not deny that the images I saw that day will stay with me as long as Michaelangelo's David,Monet's water lilies,or Lloyd wright's architecture.

whilst I agree with John I should stress that these are two seperate concepts.

the first, which I utterly agree with, being that 11 / 9 imagery is iconic.

the second questioning wether the images can be examined using conventional artistic criteria.

more over, would we agree that Monets water lillies, are now so well known that they can no longer be regarded as art and have possibly become iconic rather than artistic


[Edited on 20-9-2002 by Lupe]

Ah, I think I see. I don't think of "art" when I think of that poor little girl's world falling apart, but I see your point; it was a moment caught on film. Still, I'd call that documentation rather than art. But I see where you are coming from.

Think people still aren't getting it.

theres documentation, in this instance the process of capturing the event in a variety of media.

like filming a car park or photographing a hedge.

then theres iconic documentation, like the images of the berlin wall coming down or the twin towers.

what Hirst is talking about however is different.

he, and I, ask wether Sep 11 can transcend its human implications and be judged as a piece of art.

now some may argue that art engages us emotionally and thus objectifying it in the parameters of aesthetics, impact, and form devoid of the concept of death or destruction as being a creative act is wrong, whilst others may point to the similarities the even has with good art.

It was accessable yet complex, it had emotional resonance, it impacted on a generation, it created astonishing images and, most importantly it exemplefied my personal deffinition that being "art is a creative thought given form" where the artists in this cases creative thought was to acomplish something unique and political though its form was destructive.

in some senses given that the event has thrust the world into war one could draw parallels with the "happenings" of the 1960's, or, if you will, an anti-woodstock.

i, for one, don't feel it transcends. what i felt and still feel when i see film and pics from 9-11 is senseless loss of life. i'm not detached from it because of the coverage by the media. while some overseas may not feel as emotional about the lives lost as they do about the scene, i'm sure i speak for a large portion of americans when i say it the life is more important than the act and to call the act, art devalues the lives.

call it what you like but i'll stick to plain ole murder.