Sanford Robinson on Damien Hirst

In response to this post, Sanford Robinson wrote:

Hirst’s presumption is that he’s entitled to have it all. With meticulous craft and at astronomical expense, a human skull is encrusted with diamonds. This objet d’art, commissioned by Hirst, transforms the memento mori and invites us to see ourselves as creatures doomed to die, obsessed with money, and entranced by trinkets. It is intended to become his icon, his brand, his logo, like Warhol’s can of soup. But more than just a way to enhance his artistic reputation–such as it is–the diamond-studded skull is primarily an instrument by which to increase Hirst’s already considerable personal wealth.

And so,pouts the art star, how dare this upstart oik, this Cartrain person, appropriate the image of such a fabulously expensive, unique object–MY object!– for his own purposes? He dares, sir, he dares! He does it because the image itself has already been commodified, reproduced endlessly in the media and on the net, and it has, for better or worse, entered the culture.

Accordingly, Cartrain and for that matter anyone should be entitled to use it to make whatever statements they want, and Damien Hirst should have nothing to say about it. Does the estate of Walker Evans sue Sherrie Levine? Does the estate of Pablo Picasso sue every cartoonist who sends up Guernica? The court decision is breathtakingly stupid. Let street vendors in Shanghai hawk blatantly cheap copies of the diamond skull to anyone with a few yuan to spare. Let children make Christmas tree ornaments out of it. Let the ironies proliferate and beget more ironies, world without end, amen!