For the Love of God Hirst, get some content in: my reflections on Damien Hirst’s reflections on death

Even those who do not consider themselves art enthusiasts most likely have heard of Damien Hirst , whose works in Astrup Fearnley Museum (Oslo, Norway) were recently exhibited for the first time together with his famous diamond skull, For the Love of God (2007). I would not dare to call myself an art enthusiast. However, I have always had an interest in more conceptual art and studied Philosophy of Art as part of my Bachelor. The point here being that I always had an urge to try and elucidate the concept of art itself. What is it, that makes something a work of art? Well, even a basic philosophical discussion of this is way, I mean way, beyond the scope of this blog. But, I would like to share some of my reflections on the Damien Hirst exhibition through the eyes of a curious overthinker, somewhat lacking in art education.

Upon entering the first room of the exhibition one is greeted with his ‘Mother and Child (Divided)’ (1993). The name is rather acurate. Two animals, now artifacts, a cow and a calf bisected and preserved in four tanks of formaldehyde. I have to admit that I generally have a weak spot for grotesque aesthetics and on this level the artifact was appealing to me. At first viewing the morbidity of the dead flesh and insides nicely contrast with the blue glass.The creature is placed in an artificial environment, not only a formaldehyde tank, but also the art gallery, and this triggers some confusing feelings. Furthermore, it surely sparks curiosity, since bisection of an animal is something few of us have seen before. Idea-wise, however, I find the work slightly lacking valuable content. I feel I get the topics the artist is hinting at: fragility of life, being confined in flesh, inability to accommodate the concept of death in life, inability to grasp that we are just physical entities, brutality as a necessity for evoking feelings, cycle of life etc.

But none of these thoughts are new to me and I did not feel like the artwork added any content or insight to these thoughts. I began to suspect a gimmick..Art is meant to communicate an idea in such a way that merely descriptive words cannot. It is more immediate, more emotion-based and hence a more powerful expression. However, if one suspects a gimmick this immediacy is removed. Knowing that Hirst requires quite some assistance in production of a lot of these artifacts makes the value of Hirst’s art even more questionable.

I am sorry if my scepticism offends someone (ok I‘m not), but my point can perhaps be better illustrated by reminding you of the Danish Zoo which recently publicly dissected a lion for educational purposes in front of 400 people. Such public dissections in Denmark are very common. Is it an oversimplification on my part to ask whether these dissections have a similar artistic value? They are even more revealing, the flesh is fresh, and real, and has a scent. The animal being dissected has previously been viewed with childish curiosity and wonder by the same kids now seeing it sliced apart with scalpels. Would it not be natural to expect that this experience should evoke similar reactions and reflections in the speactators as Hirst’s ‘Mother and Child’? In addition, the communal nature of this event can be argued to give an additional layer of meaning to the dissection — that of a ritual, or an illustration of the human impulse to observe obscenity.

However, it is mostly agreed that for something to be an artwork someone must have intended the artifact/performance to be a work of art. The dissection of a lion was intended to have only educational purposes and under this definition would not be classified as art. But is this the only real distinction in value between Hirst’s piece and the Danish zoo’s dissection? If so, it‘s somewhat unsatisfactory.

I found less shock value in the works depicting, and literally made of, insects. For example ‘Euology’ (2008) is at least a nice looking canvas. It is in a way hypnotizing, with it’s colour and repeating patterns. This effect is further enhanced when you realise that the canvas is covered in real butterflies, or rather their corpses. As with ‘I feel Love’ (1994–1995), butterflies seem to be a perfect choice for capturing the ephemeral nature and intangibility of love and joy in life, their fragility contrasting death and the beauty of life without being quite so gimmicky.

The main attraction of this exhibition however was the diamond skull titled ‘For the Love of God’ (2007). It‘s a platinum skull covered in diamonds weighing a massive 1,106.18 carats. To enter the room (which was essentially a big black box) one had to go through a security check up. The opening time of the gallery was drawing to an end, so I rushed in..and found myself in complete darkness. The tunnel like entry was pitch black and so was the room in the middle of which a glass cabinet containing the diamond skull was. Some tray of light from somewhere obviously fell on the skull since it seemed like the whole room was lighten up by it. People were huddling together around the cabinet in a very excited and hasty manner.

The exhibit was cast from a real skull, dating from the 18th century, and the teeth inserted are taken from a real corpse. So, no new motifs and allusions then. However, after entering the display room I thought, Hirst has got this one right. I was immediately struck by the sight of what looked, so much, like insects huddling together around a lamp. Blindly flying to the light. Suddenly everything came together for me: the insects! We are part of this work of art, crawling to this shiny skull like the flies rushing to the source of light. Isn’t this the best way to illustrate how we disguise our fear of death with vanity. Such a clever idea and a great finalle to the insect motifs of the previous works, I thought.

Then I thought some more and then I discussed it with my friend, who had been my conmpanion at the museum, and I came to the realisation that I was overthinking, as usual. This was not part of Hirst’s vision. Later reading about the origins of the name of the exhibit only added to this understanding. In his early days as an artist Hirst was describing this idea of the future work of art to his mum and she exclaimed ‘For the Love of God!’. Yes, it is just a diamond skull, another gimmick.

Now don’t throw stones at me, figurative of course, but I would say Hirst produces art for the masses. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Art resides in the interaction of an artifact and an individual, and Hirst’s art serves, somewhat, as an education for the kind of people who are too shallow to feel the need to fill the void in their lives by anything more than exercising in the latest designer line sport’s clothing– please stop throwing those figurative stones. If, however, you are an analytic type who is preoccupied with reflecting on mortality and the ways we choose to escape it, you will not be moved by Hirst. Which isn’t to say Hirst can’t be a be a gateway drug to more powerful artistic experience.