Damien Hirst Levi’s Jeans and T-shirts

I love and hate Damien Hirst in equal portions. I love the marketing genius that the man is, but I also dislike him for similar reasons as he has made art all about business. Only a (starving) fool would ignore business altogether in art, but I still find myself clinging to a romantic art that is above money and press releases. There’s all kinds of art though, so I probably admire Hirst more than I dislike him.

The British artist is now teaming up with Levi’s Jeans to do a limited edition collection of t-shirts and jeans. The Damien Hirst X Levi’s® collection uses well known Hirst themes like spots, skulls, butterflies and his spin paintings. The prices start at £55 for tees and £150 for jeans, so now everyone can own a Damien Hirst.. kind of.

Damien Hirst Clothing Collection Levis

Here’s a short Damien Hirst interview about the Levi’s collection..

1. How did the original collaboration between you and Levi’s® come about?

I’ve always worn Levi’s® and I saw a collection that (designer) Adrian Nyman made using Warhol’s art and I loved it so much I bought the whole collection. Adrian heard about it and contacted me and asked if I’d like to work with him, the Warhol estate and Levi’s®, and of course I jumped at the chance.

2. Why did you decide to partner with Levi’s® to create another Damien Hirst X Levi’s® limited-edition collection?

Because I really enjoyed the experience of working with Adrian and Levi’s® and loved the clothes.

3. What was your inspiration for this collection?

I loved the idea of art you can wear.

4. What was the inspiration and meaning behind your iconic imagery of the skull, spots and butterfly?

I live in Mexico and I love the way they celebrate all the bad and good aspects of life there. In life we are here for a good time, not a long time and I hope the imagery communicates that.

Damien Hirst X Levi’s® collection

5. Do you have any favourite pieces or items in the collection you are most excited about?

I love it all.

6. Have you ever provided design inspiration for a clothing collection before?

I painted heavy metal album covers on schoolmate’s denim jackets when I was at school.

7. Have you seen people out and about in pieces from your Damien Hirst X Levi’s® limited-edition collection? Do you like the idea that people can now “wear your art”?

I tried to sign someone’s t shirt I saw in a club but they wouldn’t let me because they didn’t believe I was Damien Hirst, funny huh?

8. What similarities or differences do you find between expressing yourself creatively through art versus fashion?

I don’t see a difference really, anything done well is art, but this way a lot of people get to own my stuff and in a not too precious way.

About Dion

Australian artist and observer of things.. all kinds of things. I like a wide variety of art, from the weird and wonderful to the bold and beautiful.. and everything in between.


  1. Hirst has as much to do with Art as Britney Spears.

    People call themselves artists when all they are is marketing cr*p to consumers gulliable enough to purchase it.

    We have to stop legitimising them.

    They are the reason why the general public think Art is so nonsensical and laughable.

  2. Agree with the love/hate position. It seems everyone thinks that way about Hirst (except possibly the very rich).

    The way you described it made me think of onethousandpaintings.com.

    It is an art work that is all about money and the art market attributing value that is not intrinsic to a work, and it has made money for its creator, but on the other hand it was done not at all for the money (apparently he’s spent it all… I guess it’s earnt him more of an experience).

  3. Hi,

    Quote :

    “5. Do you have any favourite pieces or items in the collection you are most excited about?

    I love it all.”

    C’mon Damien, that’s a cliché….:-)

    When are they going into auction ? :-)

    Kind regards,


  4. I don’t see anything wrong with Damien’s attitude. Why get so caught up about whether an artist is making money or not? It doesn’t mean their art isn’t valid. And I’m not rich but I LOVE Hirst. I think Damien had more reasons besides money to make the Levi’s. If I were in his position I would do the same thing. Just because something makes money and is more available to the general public doesn’t mean it’s “all about” money. All these dumb stereotypes just have to change. I’m not gullible just because I purchase an interesting item of clothing that was designed by an artist I admire.

  5. “All about” money is probably a generalization that I shouldnt make, but he is more about business than art. He has everything but the stock ticker symbol, which may or may not be on its way.

    I’m not a Hirst hater though. The art world would be a lot less interesting without the man.

    Any artist that ignores the lessons of Damien Hirst is probably struggling to pay their bills.

  6. As an artwork this would be really vain so I like to look at it as “not an artwork”.

    As a pair of jeans full of splashy colors, I think it looks nice.

    Hirst is an artist of redundancy. He repeats himself hundreds of time over about 5 or 6 tricks. But once in a while there is an important piece in each one of the “tricks”. He will be remembered for stepping on the edge of possibilities with the readymade for having brought real life (aka dead animals) into the exhibition space, but Beuys had already held a dead hare and a coyote (only they were not meant to be permanently displayed).


    Cedric Caspesyan

  7. Cedric Caspesyan says:

    I just saw that the jeans sell for 15 000 Euros which is pathetic because there was a chance here for the artist to really join the masses. Maybe these splashy jeans could have been popular, but now I see it less an ooportunity for Hirst to have an imprint on fashion and the masses than an opportunity for Levi’s to make big cash because of the imprint of Hirst’s signature.

    Ah well, the clothes don’t look their value.


  8. Donald Frazell says:

    Hirst ripped that idea off also. likes to try an attribute it to Francis Bacron, as he often used a cube like grid behind the subject, almost enclosing, taht he claims is his aquariums beginnings.

    The Stuckists have a stuffed shark in their window gallery, put together, not created, as is a silly assemlbage by MR R Mutt. Hirst jsut took it and redid it himself, packaged nd sold by the Saatchies, and behold. Marketing genius. They are commodities, not art. Fine if thats what you want, but call it what it is. stealing the word art for whatever nonsense you got so it sells better is BS. like soft jazz, thats instrumental R and B, not jazz at all. Fine if thats what you like, but stopp trying to be meaningful by redifining a word that connotes quality to fit your own garbage.

    Hirsts auction was aHappening. for teh obscenely rich, they ahd to participate to be seen as cool. The rich are just as retarded as teenagers. Peer pressure among their tiny sect of humanity.The pickled creatures will spend their slowly decaying lives in some unattended mansion, as in Getty never seeing his Malibu Roman Villa. McCain has 13 houses, theee folks may have more, and put it int thier party house for futre richy rich raves. Also known as debaucheries. Dyonasic orgies, for the impotent, while Rome burns.

    art collegia delenda est

  9. marketing exercise for his designer label. Nothing whatsoever to do with art – not even graphics, just marketing. Bling association no more.

  10. Cedric, I havent seen the 15,000 euro sale, but it was probably one of a few originals that were being auctioned to promote the Hirst Levi’s collection. A few pairs of jeans were given the Hirst spin treatment and sold as original artworks.

    I doubt that the Levi’s collection would have gone from 150 pounds to 15,000 euros in such a short time. I’m sure they will become very collectible over time though.

  11. Allright, so the same jeans (non-originals) are available for 150 pounds? Great, I have nothing against that.

    The T-Shirts look boringly late as the trend of the skull logo has been going on for a while.

    Donald, When Hirst put his first Shark in formal, he had no idea at all this was going to sell. You’re making it sound as if Hirst wanted the money from the beginning. I think the aquarium comes from Koons. And Hirst cites Warhol as an influence.

    I can understand people criticize the anti-aesthetic punchline-art
    of post-conceptualism. Its pretentiousness. Its aim to emulate the museal. To play with the museal. In fact its begging to be found in the museum. But to bluntly reduce Hirst to a money maker is off the track. He’s been very critical of the art market, and very aware of what he is selling and why, which is basically images of death and entropy.

    How can you reduce a dead animal to a commodity? That’s exactly what Damien is asking you through his work: how do you call this art a commodity? This is a frigging dead animal! This work is a critique of mankind’s vanity.


    Cedric C

  12. Donald Frazell says:

    Thats the problem, “art” has been reduced to asking stupid questions that fit into the rich folks focus on marketing and making $$$. Hirst has repeatedly stated that Bacon is his guru, bought tons of his stuff, and he was MARKETED as soon as Saatchi got him and Emin(em), who dated the guy who started the stuckists, and they had that shark already, it was in a hardware store and bought it for their antigallery. The Stuckists are simply those with feeble skills who want to be artists, but are closer to the real path of art than dumbass BYAs.

    Hirst has no talent outside of marketing, he “appropriates’ as much as the previous edition of ignorant art students, rap did this also during the mid 90s, whihc is why gangsta rap took off, only so many Stevie Wonder songs you can rip off, really plagiaraism with a slight twist, just enough to avoid legal action, just as Hirst does. Garment manufacturers are notorious for this, scouting young talent, then stealing ideas that, after clearing with their legal department, takes over the newly created niche, or just buys the new company.

    Marketing, my dear Ced, pure and simple, nothing fancy about it. Decaying bodies that belong in Natural History museums, or more likely Ripley,s Believe It or Not. Marketing IS the great American art form, Jazz the only pure one.

    Art has been decayed into lesser forms of life. Ones the art schools can use to train any spoiled brat, so anybody can claim to be an artist, and keep asteady supply of kids who jsut dont want to get real jobs and contribute to our econpomy and society. Art is now jsut a big playground of children, Peter Pans flighting around, never growing up. Cannon fodder for teh Academies, adn built in buyers once they have ot get real jobs workng for daddy. seen it over, and over. As i have stated before, and you wont like it, but it is the Truth. Flakes, fools and fairies.

    By the way, you boy Winkleman is all three. Decadent as hell. How old is he? Bet he is over 50, and has a “bambino” who jsut turned 23, stupid as hell too, jsut a dumb puppy. Wants to live the Nabokov life style. I wrote a note as to how to approach the Prop 8 issue here in Cali. I dont care, voted against it, and was invited by a friend to a demonstration Saturday agaisnt it. But if gays dont market themselves better, this will keep on happening, gotta stop being stupid adn doing what one WANTS, do what is needed. The regualr gays who jsut want to ahve a life without teh flamer crap are being harmed by the flamboyant WeHo and Chelsea idiots. Being in drag and high shorts and leather aint gonna sell in America. Be regular folks, like all minorities are, there Is a difference here, and stop comparing to the civil right movement, you just piss people off. Completely different. listen to others, stop beleiving what you Want to believe.

    But thats decadent as hell, winklemboy just an old queen, who bought his lil hoe. Which is what bambino is. You cant have a relationship whit someone half your age. By teh way, many gays here didnt even know much about Prop 8, adn only got pissed when it became hip. many wre sdcdared of it, as they would have to now marry their partnes, many definitely do NOT want to do that,. I would love to see a poll in the gay community, but doubt that can be done. Those who list themselves are usually the extreme idiots one sees on TV. Many are not, being from Long Beach, lesbian capital of the world, this I KNOW. Winkleboy is just an nasty old queen. And trivializes art. Its now entertainment meant to titilate and amuse, not stimulate and arouse, which is power. Decadence. As is Hirst.

  13. “It’d be nice to make lots of money but it’s quite difficult, because every time I make lots of money I make a bigger piece that costs lots of money.”

    Damien Hirst

    (this parallels Jeff Koons, often accused to be a money maker, when he went bankrupt to make some of his art).

    I think Damien was first a fan of Warhol, than Bacon came to visit his first show, and then it was all Bacon.

    Maybe I’m wrong.

    Anyway I’m not sure what was the great marketting idea of selling formaldehyde animals which are some of the most ephemeral artworks I can think about (not sure they will last over 200 years).

    You really really really shouldn’t bring Winkleman here, whom is not here to defend himself. There is no
    relevancy to bringing his personal life in this discussion, and you are just being totally evil and wrong. The Bambino age is an inside joke. He is an older guy that looks young, hence the name
    and fake age (your wife is younger, and gosh I hope you look very good or fuck really well because you sound very annoying to live with).

    ++++Winkleboy is just an nasty old ++++queen. And trivializes art.

    Pfff, his artblog is one of the best out there. He brings his
    subjects with elegancy and he’s actually interested in people’s
    opinions, which is very rare in this field.

    I don’t think the work by Kyrgystan artists in his gallery
    right now is purely about amusement or entertainment.
    But you probably wouldn’t understand it as obsessed you are
    by american college life. You have no idea what you are talking
    about, and you should learn one important word which is
    spelled R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

    Cedric C

  14. Can someone define ‘art’ please?

  15. Art is anything you decide it to be. It’s in the power of reception, not production. When an artist decide that what he does is art, they are being spectator of their own production.

    Likewise you can look at anything around you and decide momentarely that it is art. It will become art for you, in that fragment of time that you decide it.

    The rest is questions of consensus. People agree or accept a proposal from someone that something is art, as art. We could as well refuse. Thus the artist would remain the only person considering his production as art.

    What is art in the mind of the individuals depends on how that idea was framed by their own personal history. What they read about it. What they saw previously. Art is a cultural concept, it is not something that’s inner your cognition process. What is inner
    are sensual perceptions and processes of thinking and making sense of perceptions. With this evolves a learning process through which you accept notion of art, if your mind permits it (ancient people could not conceive of art because their notion of God could not permit that idea).

    Usually art is categorized by objects or spectacles (they can be musical) that plays on aesthetics and senses to communicate something, with or without a proper definable meaning. Usually these objects are not practically useful (like tools), but some artists tolerate function in their practice.

    How you delineate Fine Arts out of the rest of Arts is an elitist concept that depends on the values of the historical period you’re in. Usually, Fine Arts is not attracted by repetition but is interested by aesthetical and intellectual “advancement”, however you wish to define that.


    Cedric Caspesyan

  16. I should have included, playing with knowledge. Art is playing with aesthetics and knowledges.
    That would include literary arts, which contemporary arts have been heavily borrowing from.

    Cedric Caspesyan

  17. Zooms, are you trying to pick a fight with that question?..lol.

    Donald, I know you can get excited sometimes, but don’t get personal. You can attack art all you want, but not people. People can and do sue, but a painting on the wall isn’t interested in the legal system.

  18. Thank you for your interesting answer Cedric, and, no, I was not trying to pick a fight, I was wondering if I was in the right place. Initially it was just such a disappointment (when you live in a place without a plethora of museums or art galleries and so you come to this excellent blog to be informed and entertained and inspired) to find…………..

    ironic though, that I should receive an excellent definition of ‘art’ at a post about Damien Hurst. I am smiling now.

    A N B, you know exactly what you are doing don’t you x

  19. Donald Frazell says:

    Old queen cant take even some contructive criticism about how to handle the Prop 8 situation, I gave it to him as a supporter who isnt gay, about how it is perceieved by non gays, and he went into his usual hissyfit. And yes, is a perve, as that means a perversion of truth. My wife is fine as hell and gets carded all the time, and shock when they see her age. I have been engaged to a woman 16 years younger, beautiful, but doomed because of it, even though she was very mature for her age. Doesnt work, for gays or straights, it is a user situation always. See Kevin Costner now, thats a divorce waiting to happen when his income goes down. And Winkleman flaunts his relationship openly, which is highly annoying and nothing to do with art, as not much of his site includes any. What they got showing is a National Geographic video, not art. Which is great, but uses it to legitimize the other self absorbed nonsense he puts in his gallery and site. Decadence personified, always worried about APPEARANCES, not truth. No lawsuit, no lies here. And from a public source.

    This is where Cedric is from, he actually has more sense there than most, so i invited him here long ago. Good to have multitple viewpoints. I certainly am not against a free exchange of ideas but that is what it needs to be, not promulgating a lifestyle. Can get that over at the Playboy site.

    ART most certainly is NOT anything we want it to be. It is visual language, and goes in the same direction as novels, separate, but in the same direction. The two languages being different, they should not intersect except in meaning, and perhaps as subject matter for the writers.

    Art as anything means it is nothing, all words are symbols, and symbols mean nothing if they do not have a definition. Art has always been, and will continue to be what you see from mans very beginnings, his first steps towards civilization, on cave walls and archeological digs. Visual art defines that culture, who that people is. The shapes and forms come from its environment and how they interact with it. Their goals and aspirations. Their gods and means of social structure.
    It embodies the soul of that group of people, what separates them from others, ande gives their lives meaning. And would could possibly have more meaning than God. Stop getting hung up on the word, it means many things, and THAT is arts responsibility. Finding meaning in the lives we lead, now, built on our past, as that is in us no matter how much you deny and want yourselvs to be self contained units of god embodies.

    Art is about exploring our world, our palce within it, emotionally, physically, and mentally. Art has been split into the three parts individually, and so lost all power. Art uses relationships of all three together to create a work that has life in it. Creates a false world that replicates the one we are in, so we can view it, see it, feel it, and know it is us. WE, the people of now Earth, not just a separate city or group within it. That has happened and been preached by art schools so they can sell their crap, that is easy to attain, and separates, not unifies. And so contemporary art is lifeless and souless and lacks anykind of intelligent interest, separating the three leads to sterile self indulgence, where one can manipulate for ones own desires. And claim to be an artist, when few have ever existed. Art now is marketed, both as a product of material, and teaching. But these folks are hacks, worthless fools, as those who can do, those who cant teach, and they are far more interested in paycheck and career than truth. Again, watch Art School Confidential, John Malkovich nailed it. when you are beng made fun of by Hollywood, you really are in trouble.

    To discover art is truly simple, if you are capable of feeling it, visualizing it, hearing it, relating it to life.

    Lay out all the great art of five thousand years of human history, and view it as a whole, take hundreds of works of pottery, jewelry even, sculpture, paintings, architecture, and play Bach or Miles Davis while viewing it, moving them around, finding patterns, for that is what art does. Finds multiple overlapping relationships, which leads to life, as we are, and seeing where it leads for you. Throw out all work of you generation and the previous one, that is filled with trendiness and fashion, ephemeral things of vanity. Find those trends, those patterns of meaning, and you will find art for yourself. Its simple, and with absolutely no need of art school. Purpose will lead your way, your technique, with tons of hard work, self discovery, but more importantly, our peoples needs and passions. Continue our past, update it to right now, this very moment, but you must know our history and the times we lives in thoroughly, not flippantly and arrogantly.

    Do this, and art will be there before you, what it means, what it does, where it comes from, where it is going, this last part your role. These are Gauguin’s questions, and all artists have alsways asked. Art is now philosophy and theology as much as simple visual decoration, which is just the starting point, not the goal.

    You define art for yourself, but based on who we are, our joined needs adn past, our future growth and how to bind us together, not separate, find our common humanity, within the knowledge of life you bring to it. But always remember, it is never, Never, NEVER about you. But updating all within the sum of your knowledge, and emotional attachment, how great you do this and are able to will determine the quality of your art, but not necessartily its popularity. That you have no control over. And should not. Live your life and grow, and if it is good, it will come, in its own time, not your desires.

    Art collegia delenda est

  20. Cedric Casp says:

    ++++ART most certainly is NOT ++++anything we want it to be. It ++++is visual language

    That’s because you refuse to see Duchamp’s urinal as art. A lot of people are like that. They see the urinal and only think “URINAL”. They are not interested in the pure
    visual language that stands outside of the urinal. Which by the way, is hypothetically
    godly, as under these prospects, all forms and movements should be.

    ++++The two languages being ++++different

    What about theatre? I think visual arts took from literature very much
    by way of theatre. Think Artaud, Weill or Beckett. It first became a theatre of the object, than it got interested in language itself.

    ++++Art as anything means it is ++++nothing

    I never said “art is anything”, or not in these terms.
    It only exists as long as you can sustain it. If
    you cannot sustain for long the idea that Duchamp’s
    urinal may be art, than it is not art to you. But it’s really important in art that notion of acceptance, and of cultural acceptance. Because what you think
    as an individual don’t have great impact in the long run.
    Which means, Donald, that if your ideas about art are not shared and you aren’t able to convince me,
    than you aren’t holding big grounds on the Big Definition of ART. I’m only describing the process here, I’m not saying for people what art should be or
    should not be. THEY decide.

    ++++Art is about exploring our +++world, our palce within it, ++++emotionally, physically, and +++mentally.

    I like your 3 words, emotions, physicality and mentality, which I will equal to my terms
    of sensuality, aesthetics and knowledge (thought), but they are ways to explore the world
    which are non-artistic. Art begs for the user’s permission: “hey dude, can this be art now?”.
    Because art relies on this sort of mental permission, than some objects will fluctuate in
    between art and non-art, depending on the foot you woke up that morning. This is the syndrome of the “Yeah…But is it art?” category. See Levi’s above.

    ++++Art has been split into the +++three parts individually.

    There has been many attempts at that split. But it’s not
    possible I think. Conceptualists tried to ignore or deconstruct
    aesthetics, but ended up creating an aesthetic of their own
    (the visual image we have of what a conceptual work can
    “look like”).

    But hey we are not in the 60′s anymore. This is pluralism.
    Artists can actually do what they want now.

    ++++ (art) it is never, Never, +++NEVER about you.

    Nah, a part of every art is about the artist. Your art tells me
    about who you are. As far as notion of art being from what you allow it to be, of course if you are going against the grain of everyone you will soon be meaningless. You define art but it helps to look around and see what other people think. Art is a social construction.

    Everything about technique are actually issues that interest
    young artists. People are fed up with conceptualism.
    It doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good idea. But ideas have been tried out in every ways and artists realize they need to find other ways to catch people (or
    their own) interests.

    Cedric C

    PS: The stuff in caverns that we call art today was not art, originally. That concept didn’t exist then, certainly not the concept of Fine Arts that we apply to it.

  21. Donald Frazell says:

    Dont have to answer all the previous questions, i have many times, you just dont see it, or agree with it. Thas fine, and your right. But how i see it leads to art, yours doesnt, the only thing that matters. No one cares about contemporary art, except the drones produced by sterile academies for their own interests. it is irrelevant to society. Graphic arts, applied arts, design are far more relevant to civilization, sports far more passionate and creative. Art has not been needed for awhile, and so taken over by the self absorbed.

    Look at the painting I just did of my wife in our bathroom. Is it about her or me? Of course somewhat, the departure point, and as we painted our small but comfortable and beautiful bathroom together, in colors she loves, it is about her, and us. But that is just the motif, the starting point. I looked at Bonnard repeatedly while both drawing and painting, but could never paint like him, it is not of our time, or the life I know. We both are products of our past and enovironments, but neither of us are painting strictly what we see, it is our motif. The departure point. He loved his wife as I do mine, and you can or should feel it. But it would just be an illustration of our love and life together, which is all contemporary art is, ilustrating silly limited ideas of self.

    I wanted far more. I used every trick in the book to make it alive, to bring it forward and be in the room with the viewer, as all true creative art does. Things are drastically reorganized, tilted, perspectives twisted, to make it feel real, but when you analyze it, it is far from the reality. I made a painting. It must have far more than what i saw to be real. To give of emotions and a life force of its own. Thaht is my job, one held in derelict by artistes, as they only illustrate their own lives and desires. This was a close as I will ever get to autobiography, but still it is not. I am painting more nudes of her now, but also those from life drawing. They are no different, except she is my model, as Bonnard used his wife, and Picasso used his women. As motifs, for other things.

    Its like the Blues, unlike country western which is mostly about the dog and the truck and the drinking, Blues is far beyond the words they use. It is a complex spiritual state, built from the Man’s not allowing any true rebellion of heart or mind, let alone physicality. And Jazz is as James Brown said, a higher evolution of the Blues. They have their own developed, instictive, but highly structurred language, which any of open heart can feel. For it is not about the artist, it is about triggering vast emotions of humanity in the viewer, ones the artist needs to severe his own particular life from, and find common ground with others.

    My other work is very far from my own life, in its particulars, and about what I see and feel in it, feelings not about me, but ones I think I share with others, ones core to humanity. Contemporary art no longer seeks this, but its own elevation as artsites, being special, and different, when they are really self absorbed and boring. Useless. Singular, and only particular to the artist, and when succesful in marketing to elevate the buyers own view of himself, and his preciousness, his self worth, his mental issues turned into greatness.

    As far as the caves of Lascaux and elsewhere not being art, pffft. You’re nuts. it is the first surviving forms of true art. Fine art is for the rich, to amuse them, to fulfill their desires for power and control, to justify their situation in life. Creative art, what I see and others like to boast they are, when really lower forms of psychological illustration and decoration, is of the highest and most important role we have as artists. These ancient paintings show the stirrings of awe and need to be one, with each other, and nature, of god. It doesnt get more Art than that.

  22. Today I bought the black and white t-shirt with the guy with a skull mouth, it’s pretty decent and quite cheap. However, I was expecting something a little more from Damien. I don’t know, he hasn’t made anything new. It’s easy to find skull print shirts, the jeans too. I like the shirt I bought, but that’s the only piece I like. I’d never give the others a second glance if I didn’t know Hirst designed them. I’ll give them a second glance, but I won’t buy them.

  23. Cedric Caspesyan says:

    The terminology and idea of Fine Arts did not exist culturally for the Cavemen. It is a good debate to ask what were these drawings meaning for these people. Not to assume they looked at them the same way we are.

    But earlier when I talked about Art I mean to include all arts and I specifically described the phenomenon of “Fine Arts”.
    You are making me sound like a defender of Fine Arts and Contemporary Arts when I was speaking about all arts.

    Contemporary Arts has become irrelevant aesthetically because it is always late on other forms of design. That was the whole bang about the urinal. It was a constatation (this is my idea, Duchamps never saw it like this) that the industrial revolution had taken over in the realm of aesthetics.

    But they are other realms than aesthetics in art, and a lot of the art in the past 40 years was saying “there’s too much stuff to look at, let’s think about the stuff for a while”. Hence deconstruction. Which was relevant.

    Cedric Caspesyan

  24. Donald Frazell says:

    Acadmic art terms are irrelevant, they should stay in the Academies, where the autopsies of art are performed, not the creation of such. Of course cave dwellers did not use this terminology, thats a strength not a weakness. Words are just symbols, man created things that have no meaning in and of themselves, being caught up in them is a definite dead end in itself.

    Word worship is the main problem in life, religion and academia. Distrust them, recognize them for what they are, an artificial means of communication, created by man, for man to store and share knowledge, not wisdom or intelligence. Words can be USED to share intelligence, for those who are open to it, but The Word in religion is its downfall. This is what brings pogroms and crusades, Inqusitions and dogma. God did not create the word, man did, and so filled with falacies and limitations, fine if taken as such.

    And why literalisim in art is always bad. As is following a literary course, the fool in the other thread was just as captive of the word, he wanted perfection, failing to find it in a Seminary, he went to Logic to fulfill his desire for absolute truth. No such thing, just another manmade self deception. And Academies are nothing but. All great art has been musical, of poetry, where images arise, and inner peace fulfilled, not by telling one how to find it, but allowing one to find ones own by going in the direction of creativity, of humanities needs, of growth and passion, that of love, not desire. Again, there is no love without sacrafice, which was made literal in the story of Yeshua. It is a great story when not used literally. By taking it for oneself, to get rid of ones selfish desires, and tend to mankinds needs.

    I have preached repeatedly to my kids about finding peace and contentment in giving, but that takes making onself strong first, of mind, body and soul. To put oneself in a postion to give, and find true meaning in life. it works. Academies are all about career and how to get, not to find iinner peace, which leads to great art. For one must pursue it constantly, without end, and this keeps one busy and out of trouble, great for teenagers, til one can accept life for what it is, and not make it into something we WANT, but to make it better.

    That is perfection incarnate, for the perfection of the dogma is a dead thing, perfection of words is a constant, which is death. In real life there is decay that leads to life. Neverending. As far as man is concerned, the end of the universe and that stuff good to know for humilitys sake, but not for how we lead our lives practically.

    Words are just symbols, the caveman had no need of them to create visions of ones soul, they were no different than we are. Except at the very beginning of history, we must continue what they started, but realizing all along that is the path, one we simply add to, their passions no greater or lesser than our own.

    Intelligentsia is just a sliver of man, in our overspecialized lives, Art is the last jack of all trades field. It is philosophy and theology, with no knoowledge to those, one cannot be an artist, but one must know of science and history and even a dabble of psychology, though that is filled with words and organic theories that are all true, depends on the person involved, and even then life changes, and evolves, or dies. dont take it to seriously.

    Art is messy, but simple at the same time. Those who try to tidy it up ruin it, make it less, silly, limited to mans literary vocabulary, when sight and sound are our languages. And word when they evoke, rather than attempt to capture and limit. Never trust words. Noting is more deceiving. Including mine, I cant describe exactly, one must feel, and find for oneself. Its all a matter of asking better questions, ones that led to ever better questions, then you are on the right path. Answers are all lies. They limit, confine, kill. Words are tools, not reality.

    Dont be too fond of your academic art, it is not a living thing. it is illustrative of academic theories, not creative art. They are trained by doing stupid master thesis projects, to demonstrate their lack of understanding of life, and be one of them, not of the world. It is training, to be mediocre, a puppet, a trained poodle. Limited, and so of the business of art, a tiny insular inbred world the rest of us laugh at. And ignore. It is full of itself. Raw Serrano. We got better things to do. Like make art.

    art collegia delenda est

Speak Your Mind