Talk:Damien Hirst

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Away from the flock[edit]

This article is inaccurate or misleading. At one point it credits "Away from the Flock" as being created in 1994 yet it was also allegedly vandalized or destroyed in 1993.

  • According to the August 1994 Daily Telegraph article which is reprinted in Hirst's book, the artist Mark Bridger vandalized "Away From The Flock" in May 1994. --Wedneswolf 03:53, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Mark Bridger was not given two years 'probation' but a suspended sentence with no fine or costs to pay. MJB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:59A7:8B01:688D:C965:D961:5095 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anagram and joke[edit]

  • Does the Anagram in the Trivia section belong here?

I agree, and have deleted it. Thanks for making the comment. I put it in, because I was covering all aspects, but I felt afterwards it let the article down. I've removed the "joke" too, but it's below if anyone wants it. Tyrenius 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

  • This joke is derived from Hirst's use of employees to make his work:
Q: How many YBAs does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. They get their assistants to do it because they've got a drinking appointment in Soho with Keith Allen.(Hirst superstar, Channel 4 website)

I have added a trivia section, with two pieces of information on his helicopters. I don't have any sources that I can link to, but I am a member of Cotswold Gliding Club and I can confirm that he was there today, as he is regularly The chicken lady 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity[edit]

Direct quotes from Hirst including the words "fucking" and "fuck" had letters replaced by asterisks. I reverted this as it is against Wiki guidelines, as on Wikipedia:Profanity:

A profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; obscene words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. This guideline is especially important when quoting relevant material. Tyrenius 00:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

I have taken the following out of the article. The ref given is a spoof site, but the incident did happen and there is at least one national newspaper mention, which should be used. Also the wording of "took legal proceedings" needs to be confirmed for its precise accuracy. Tyrenius 12:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 2004 lawyers acting on the behalf of Mr Hirst took legal proceedings against Simon Phillips for a website that lampooned the artist. The Damien-Hirst.co.uk files


Just wondering, since I spotted that sculpture photo from 2009(?) (this picture) on this article and was immediately struck by a similarity between that and another piece of... well, I know I'd call it art but people have argued with me about that before, lol (:"D <3)... by Gunther von Hagens this... er... piece (I tried to find the picture on the official Body Worlds site but had some trouble due to my dial-up being obstreperous, sorry) and I was curious if this was a case of artistic/conceptual influence, outright copying (whether sanctioned homage or otherwise), or just "minds thinking alike"? Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.152.111 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spot paintings[edit]

Are the spots really coloured at random, or is that just a loose way of saying "with no obvious pattern"? William Avery 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently colouration is random using household paint charts, so it operates within pre-defined parameters. Tyrenius 01:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Looking at the article on randomness it seems to comply with the "non-scientific" definition. William Avery 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Dots of a colour are fairly evenly spread out over the paintings. DH specified that there should be no pairs of dots. So not random. Random in the sense of a non-mathematician filling in a lottery card "randomly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.231.67 (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies, criticisms of the artist[edit]

I was searching for a picture of Some Comfort Gained when I stumbled across this image: [1] It is a photograph of a miniature parody of Physical Impossibility (the shark tank) made out of LEGOS! It actually looks pretty neat. I was wondering if anyone would like to put a link to it somewhere on the page. There are also these: [2] [3]. --H3xx 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In external links section there is already a link to the Little Artists lego shark tank.[4] Tyrenius 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond skull[edit]

I think that this article needs to include a section on the diamond encrusted skull, as it is an important work of his and if sold for the asking price of £50 million ($99 million) it would be the most expensive piece of artwork sold by a living artist. It's called "For the love of god" if anyone wants to search for it and find out more about it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.212.131.45 (talk • contribs).

There is a whole article For the Love of God (artwork). Tyrenius 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that article was created after i posted that comment, but thank you for pointing that out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.212.131.45 (talk • contribs).

Maybe you were the inspiration! If you put 4 tildes ~ after your post it will sign it automatically. Tyrenius 07:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not do his own work[edit]

"Although Hirst participated physically in the making of early works, he has always needed assistants (Carl Freedman helped with the first vitrines), and now the volume of work produced necessitates a "factory" setup, akin to Andy Warhol's or a Renaissance studio. This has led to questions about authenticity, as was highlighted in 1997, when a spin painting that Hirst said was a "forgery" appeared at sale, although he had previously said that he often had nothing to do with the creation of these pieces." I would not call anyone who does not make the work themselves an artist. More of a businessperson really. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.111.122 (talk • contribs).

Personal speculation and interpretation can't be included. You will need to provide a source. Tyrenius 07:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter of definition rather than "speculation" On another topic, I remember seeing "spin paintings" being done in a department store when I was a child. Then they were a gimmick, now they are Art.80.0.124.113
Wikipedia policy means we can only use material which can be verified with reliable sources. Otherwise it is forbidden as original research. Find a source and it can be included. Tyrenius 12:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to dictionary.com he just may be an 'artist.' Definitions that apply have been bolded.
art·ist
–noun
1. a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.
2. a person who practices one of the fine arts, esp. a painter or sculptor.
3. a person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist.
4. a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer; a :public performer: a mime artist; an artist of the dance.
5. a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill.
6. a person who is expert at trickery or deceit: He's an artist with cards.
7. Obsolete. an artisan.

"artist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 17 Aug. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artist>. 24.47.151.201 (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable per WP:SYNTH. Ty 21:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't seem to find any proof that the man is an 'artist' without resort to the dictionary. I guess we may have to edit out this unsubstantiated claim as this is after all the biography of a living person. Perhaps 'alleged artist' and 'often referred to as an artist' would be more accurate language under the circumstances. 24.47.151.201 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:POINT and stop violating it. Ty 23:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre typos?[edit]

"Just before Christmas 2002, Strummer died of a heat stroke. This had a profound effect on his thirst, who said, "It was the first time I felt mortal." Is that some kind of oblique joke? Also, there's one reference to a wife named "Matt," and one named "Maia." Are these the same person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.251.170 (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was vandalism and has been reverted (removed).[5] You can do this yourself, if you spot it, by clicking the edit button at the top of the article, or the edit link at the start of each section. Thanks for drawing attention to it. If you click the history tab at the top of the article, you can see all the edits ever made. Tyrenius 12:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

The link below is dead ^ a b "Damien Hirst skull sells for 100 million dollars", yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.253.221 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it. There's plenty of other sources if someone wants to put one in. Ty 22:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horse in The Cell?[edit]

was the horse in The Cell (film with Jennifer lopez et al) by hirst as well? --77.183.238.181 (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistants[edit]

Removed from article till referenced, assistants: Hugh Allen, Andrew Chadwick, Lauren Child, Alex Crocker, Colin Glenn, James Irwin, Oliver Marsden, Holly Mitchell, Tom Ormond, Laurence Owen, James Porter, Ben Randall, Lawrence Hendra, Samuel Savage, Jackson Sprague, Kevin Storrar, Tim Summers, George Taylor and Sarah Woodburn. Ty 00:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Even if referenced its a list that is peripheral, and best kept out. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it peripheral? This is an article for Hirst not his work, so while the work may be conceptual and their physical making might be deemed unimportant, it's relevant from a purely biographical point of view who his assistants were.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.249.165 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in favour of including the names if there is a reliable secondary source to reference them. This in itself would indicate some significance to the particular names mentioned. Ty 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life section[edit]

This section needs some work, I don't know much about him so all I did was edit the start of the paragraph (it read: "Damien Hirst, an "artist", was born (unfortunately) in Bristol and grew up in Leeds") as it was unsuitable, unfortunately it doesn't read very well as is (my edit makes it worse; the first sentence is now a bit of a fragment :/). Generally the section looks like it could use some references and a tidy up. 86.167.197.43 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had spotted some recent vandalism. Thanks for reverting it. Ty 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation clean-up[edit]

The entry is overall very good I think, but there are some places where a source really needs to be cited. For example, 'His art teacher "pleaded" for Hirst to be allowed to enter the sixth form' gives no citation for 'pleaded', diminishing the entry's credibility. If anyone knows of a citation, please add it. Otherwise, I think we should at least remove the quotes around 'pleaded', or else excise the phrase entirely as too journalistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.213.30 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"pleaded" is a quote from The Telegraph, i.e. it's in quotes in the article, therefore valid here. It's cited now. Ty 23:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images[edit]

Photo of Tracey Emin[edit]

A photo of Tracey Emin was in the article in this version. It was removed with the edit summary, "I don't think her portrait adds to the article. Her only place in relation to this article is just one quote comparing him to other artists." It was in the section on "Critical response: For" and accompanies an evaluation of Hirst by Emin. Emin is very high profile and her support of him is significant. It add to the reader's understanding and enjoyment to see an image of a supporter, particularly as the quote from Emin rates Hirst very highly. She says, "There is no comparison between him and me; he developed a whole new way of making art and he's clearly in a league of his own. It would be like making comparisons with Warhol." This gives even more validity to the inclusion of the photo of her, as she is drawing a direct comparison between him and herself. Ty 04:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is her personal appearance relevant to her opinion about Hirst? I don't think anyone is claiming that Ermin's support of Hirst isn't noteworthy but I really don't think her portrait enhances the article at all. It seems like it is just "filler". I would argue that showing an image of her work and comparing it to one of Hirst's would be substantially more informative than just a picture of her but the criticism section isn't really the best place to do that either. Adding portraits of everyone that is quoted in this or any other well written article just draws attention away from the more relevant/significant/important images presented. Cacophony (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It brings the article alive. Hirst doesn't exist as a person in isolation. He is in a world where other people interact with him and react to him. This shows a well known person who does so. It is standard practice in articles to include images that relate to the text. I'm astonished that you question this. It seems a very puritanical approach. The general reader will find it stimulating to relate the message to the messenger. Some people are much more visually than literally based (you are obviously in the latter camp) and need images to make sense of things properly. The images act as a form of summary of the article content. It's a way of getting the gist of things without having to read all the way through the text. There is a dialogue between the main picture of Hirst as the subject of the article, and then the two opposing reactions to him, summed up by someone praising him (Emin) and a group ridiculing him (Stuckists). Emin's work in this case is not relevant to that dialogue. It is her as a person with her words (which are in the image text). Images should sit well in the article, so to have images of all those people would crowd it. One works well. None is deficient. Ty 07:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. The photo should be removed. Just because there is a quote by someone famous about someone else famous doesn't mean their photo belongs on the article. At all. If the person is dating the article's subject, then sure. If the article subject took the photo, then sure. Otherwise, this is a superfluous use and looks bizarre. If we did this on other articles, it would junk up pages. --David Shankbone 08:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's relevant to the section it's in, which is about external response to Hirst. We're not discussing other articles. We're discussing this one. Ty 08:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing WP:MOS#Images. Just because a person talks about Hirst does not mean they need a photograph of herself on his article. It's not like this article lacks images. Look, if anyone on this site is a supporter of photography, it's me. But this makes very little sense. I just eyeballed the page and it stuck out like a sore thumb. It also elevates Emin's words above all others, when you have provided no evidence that Emin's critique/support of Hirst is any more or less noteworthy than the multitude of other art world people who have commented on his work. Commentary about a subject does not mean photographic representation is necessary. Additionally, there's no need to see what a critic looks like on an artist's article. --David Shankbone 08:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic.

Tracy Emin is not "significantly relevant" to Damien Hirst. --David Shankbone 08:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are making an excessively restrictive interpretation of WP:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature (correct link). If someone famous makes a strong comment about another, then they become significantly relevant to the other person. They are part of that other person's story and are especially appropriate to feature in a section which is dedicated to responses. If a reader saw the image with the quote, they would understand perfectly well why it was there, and it would make that section of text more coherent to them. As far as elevating Emin's words is concerned, judgement always has to be made on such matters. The inclusion of any quotes or responses in the first place elevates those above others which are not included. The relationship between Emin and Hirst is an obvious one to draw, as they are the most notable exponents of Britart. The fact that she has made a statement that he is superior to her in his achievement is a very significant one, so its highlighting is justified. Ty 08:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can invite other editors, specifically User:Durova, who is very well versed on image use, to comment. I think you are violating WP:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity (I provided the correct link above, and quoted from it), and in a way I think degrades the article. The photograph is jarring to look at it for its color and subject's expression. It overwhelms the section, it does not add to it. Regarding judgment on on such matters, the judgment comes from outside sources as to whose criticism is elevated, not our own judgment. A photograph of Andy Warhol on Jean-Michel Basquiat? Sure. A photo of Charles Saatchi on this one? Sure. A photo of Henri Matisse on Pablo Picasso? Maybe. A photo of Tracy Emin on Hirst? Not at all. There is an abundance of images on this article, and this one degrades it. I'm fine with the one of Rachel Howard, although it should probably be reduced in size.--David Shankbone 09:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you linked to the article on images, not the guideline. I've posted at WPVA. We can't exclude images because they're the wrong colour or we don't like the person's face. It's a fairly typical Emin expression. That end of the article is fairly sparse on images. I think there are plenty of outside sources to show that Emin's pronouncements are given prominence. You have established in your argument that in principle it is acceptable to have an image of another person on an article about someone. Surely you are now exercising subjective judgement about this article and this image by wishing to exclude, since I don't think anyone familiar with the protocols of the artworld would find it a surprising or inappropriate presence. She does tend to get in everywhere and attracts considerable media coverage in the process. Ty 13:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to both guidelines, and they are cross-referenced (it's all up there above for you to see). I don't know what you mean by "protocols of the art world" but there is no protocol that saying "If one person makes a quote about an artist, then their photo should go on their Wikipedia page." You are subjectively elevating Emin's words above all others, so it would be helpful if you didn't raise WP:KETTLE arguments. I'll pop over to Durova and ask her to give an opinion. --David Shankbone 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been asked to comment here. The photograph is marginally relevant but I wouldn't get too hung up about that one way or the other. Specifically I've been asked to comment whether it distracts, and it does distract in two ways. First, Wikipedia's crude default sizing operates by width only, which results in portrait orientation photographs getting more total area than landscape orientation photographs. Second, the bright background on this portrait cries for attention. It's a fine portrait in its own right, but in a biography about another person this creates the visual suggestion that the individual being visually depicted carries more overall importance than she probably does. Suggest searching for an alternate portrait in low tones more harmonious with the article's surrounding imagery, or manually adjusting the sizing so this doesn't get more total area. DurovaCharge! 16:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. That is such a strange picture. Ty 01:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the picture, it's a sharp picture and the caption is short and sweet. It adds something to Hirst to have her comment and the picture lends weight to her words...I'd like it to stay in the article...Modernist (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a different crop of the photo with toned down background. It also comes up smaller. I hope this meets all the requirements, but, if not, please comment. Thank you everyone for your participation in the discussion. Ty 01:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons Tyrenius gives in supporting inclusion look like advocacy and not neutral. When we look at Emin's picture, what do we learn about Hirst or his work? Her picture would brighten up a magazine article. Photographs of people are slippery as vehicles for facts, and decorating articles with irrelevant pictures should be avoided as they can operate as a kind of rhetorical trick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthordare (talk • contribs) 13:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "look like advocacy and not neutral", nor what basis you have to make any implications. This is an implied WP:NPA. What we learn is that a very prominent figure has praised Hirst highly: Nor do I know what you mean by "rhetorical trick". There is no trick. She has praised his position in art, and that is what the image with caption communicates: there is no trick. There is above a consensus to include the image, and if you think it shouldn't be there, then you will need to gain a new consensus against it. Ty 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What we learn is that a very prominent figure has praised Hirst highly". This is not in dispute, but it cannot be derived from the photograph which is a good image for the Emin entry. "this is significant and worth highlighting" Important points can be stressed in typographical ways. How "neutral", as an editorial activity, is "highlighting" using photographs of a subject's celebrity friends and supporters? Regardless of who likes the picture, the question is whether the picture's presence in this article is in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia. It is not strictly relevant."The picture lends weight to her words" maybe, but the "weight" is not an objective quality and that is why it is doubtful in an encyclopaedic entry which is not a brochure for promoting work. Also, in a work of reference, redundant photos take up space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthordare (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) The post was not intentionally unsigned.truthordare (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have wisely removed your comment "The consensus here is a consensus of fans who are not concerned with whether the picture is in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia."[6] I find it extraordinary that you should even post it in the first place. You are talking about some very long term established editors, including the most accomplished visual arts editors with a track record of featured articles.
We are not basing anything on "who likes the picture." It is not a question of liking but conveying information to the reader. One way of doing that is through text. Images are also information, and that is another way of communicating to the reader, and for some people a more effective way. The photograph with its caption does indeed show "a very prominent figure has praised Hirst highly."
All editorial activity is a form of "highlighting" or selecting. We have to make decisions which sources to use. The guidance for this is WP:NPOV, namely that major sources should be given prominence. The same principle applies here. It is not a wikipedia editorial preference to use the image, but simply following the majority viewpoint as expressed in sources that Emin is a major figure. This is objective. Obviously this section will feature a supporter, as it is a section "for" Hirst, just as the following section illustrates opposition to Hirst. The two sections are thus balanced.
Wikipedia "is not a brochure for promoting work". Correct. It is an encyclopedia which is a digest of existing sources. Whether that happens to have the effect of "promoting" something or not, is irrelevant.
According to the guideline, Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. A map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath would provide more information to readers." This image adds to the variety and is placed near relevant text.
Also in Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." The image is relevant to the topic because the person shown has made a very strong comment on the topic, which is in the text and referenced from a reliable source.
A rule of thumb is to "Try not to overwhelm the text with 'too many' pictures—one image or infographic every 250 words is a good guideline."[7] This ratio is advocated by others also.[8][9][10] This section is 285 words, so an image is appropriate. It should be an image that makes sense in the section and illustrate support for Hirst, which it does. If you have an image which you think would be better for this section, you might like to suggest it.
Note also: "Images aren't a requirement for any Featured Article, but asking for specific parts of articles which would benefit from having an image to be more illustrated is a valid objection."[11]
Ty 12:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the photo. Seeing it you imagine that Emin must have collaborated with Hirst, not just said something about him. it's very misleading. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An FYI for the art world types arguing above: the average person who comes to this page doesn't have the slightest idea who Emin is. If Warhol had said that, and you put his picture above that quote, oh, and if there were more than just that quote over in the section, then you'd have something worth keeping. People skimming the article would see that and maybe pause to learn a bit more about what someone they are familiar with had to say about the subject. Right now all this photo says is, "Someone you never heard of said something about Hirst. This is what she looks like. Interested in hearing some more about that? Too bad, there is no more. What are you waiting around for? Go back to scrolling, we're done here." This reminds me of times when people will add pictures of towns to articles, because the subject grew up there. But the picture bears no relation to the subject. It's not the house they grew up in, or even the right part of town, maybe not even from the right era.

You may as well add a picture of construction workers on a building site, and caption it: "He worked for two years on London building sites."

Or, a picture of a big stack of pound notes, and caption it: "Hirst's work was titled The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living and was a shark in formaldehyde in a vitrine, and sold for £50,000."

Not everything needs to be illustrated. When you do illustrate it and grab my attention, it better lead to something more substantial in the article than just a rehash of what the caption says.

Remove. On the grounds that the way the image is currently used is inept and rude to the reader. 23.242.135.196 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove: Photos should be illustrative of the article topic, not just "nice additions": this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. Emin's quote is worthy of inclusion, but it clearly doesn't require a photo to get its point across. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Rachel Howard[edit]

A photo of Rachel Howard was in the article in this version. It was removed with the edit summary, "she only receives a passing mention and is not significantly related to this article." This is in the section on "Work philosophy". It relates to Hirst's spot paintings, which are some of his most recognisable works. Far from a passing mention, there is a paragraph related to her:

Hirst said that he only painted five spot paintings himself because, "I couldn't be fucking arsed doing it"; he described his efforts as "shite"—"They're shit compared to ... the best person who ever painted spots for me was Rachel. She's brilliant. Absolutely fucking brilliant. The best spot painting you can have by me is one painted by Rachel." He also describes another painting assistant who was leaving and asked for one of the paintings. Hirst told her to, "'make one of your own.' And she said, 'No, I want one of yours.' But the only difference, between one painted by her and one of mine, is the money.'"

This places her in a key position in relationship to the work, and the reader will be more informed by being able to see an image of the person who is being discussed. She is significantly related to the subject of the article by Hirst's own statement about her. Ty 04:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more relevant than Emin. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of An Oak Tree[edit]

I think that this should be included in a sections on works that have affected Hirst's head.

"He said of his teacher Michael Craig-Martin's piece An Oak Tree 'That piece is, I think, the greatest piece of conceptual sculpture, I still can't get it out of my head."Telegraph Magazine Michael Craig-Martin: out of the ordinary 24/11/2007Research Method (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This statement does not say it influenced Hirst. It just says he thought it was a great sculpture. That is valid. Influence is editorial interpretation. Ty 10:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says that he thinks An Oak Tree is the greatest piece of conceptual sculpture. This is important in understanding hirst's conceptual sculpture. I am new to wikipedia. Please add it to the article in the relevant place.Research Method (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it. That section would be better with some more info about Craig-Martin's influence on the YBAs. Ty 01:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a valuable insight into Hirst. It would help if we knew when he said it, as opposed to when it was quoted. I think it works when juxtaposed with his encounter as a student with Craig-Martin at Goldsmiths, and have placed it there, unless any more appropriate location can be ascertained. Please note the formatting of the reference. Ty 00:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Research Method (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a photo of this work could be included, as "still can't get it out of" his head?Peas & Luv (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pictures are free, and there should be more of them!Peas & Luv (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wife?[edit]

Hirst and Maia Norman are not married, according to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article5040058.ece ( “Marry your best friend,” she says. “Although we haven’t even got married! Because we both come from divorces, it’s not an institution we were quick to run to.” She says she would marry him — “Of course!” — if he asked, but one gets the impression that Hirst is calling the shots...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View[edit]

There are a number of phrases and sentences in this article that are un-sourced and may be personal opinion and/or POV. We have to keep in mind that Bio articles are held to a higher standard even than other Wiki articles. WP:BLP "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous". Here are some examples below that may need immediate attention. What do other editors think? *is the richest living artist to date

  • dominated the art scene in Britain during the 1990s and is internationally renowned
  • increasing frictions came to a head in 2003
  • he took an unprecedented move
  • It was nevertheless seen as the formal acceptance of the YBAs into the establishment.
  • This brought a developing strain in his relationship with Saatchi to a head (one source of contention had been who was most responsible for boosting their mutual profile).
  • Hirst disassociated himself from the retrospective to the extent of not including it in his CV.
  • He was angry that a Mini car that he had decorated for charity with his trademark spots was being exhibited as a serious artwork.--Kbob (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first statement now referenced. All the other statements are derived from sound sources and can be referenced if required. It is not POV if such sources affirm the statement: NPOV applies to editors, not sources. It would be POV to exclude what sources say. If a statement is in the lead, then it should be a summary of the article content, and you may find the source is in the article, as it's not obligatory for it to be repeated in the lead. Ty 16:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ty, thanks for adding the ref about the richest living artist. On another point if info in the article is not sourced it has the potential to be the writer's POV. Wiki is for the benefit of the reader not the writer. For this reason we always hold Wiki copy to the standard of Reliable Sources WP:RS otherwise it can be suspected as POV. Without verification there is no way to know. We can keep these points in mind as we proceed in our discussion of the lede and other aspects of the article. Thanks for your help.--Kbob (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. If it's not sourced it can be POV or it can be false information. Thanks for digging into the text to prise out some statements that need further attention. I'm familiar with the statements from reading sources, so I don't feel the need myself for immediate removal. If you disagree, please post the removed text here, so it can be reinserted (or adapted) with refs. This can only improve the quality of the article. If you bear with me, I'll find the refs and add them, but I will need time, as I'm under a lot of RL demands right now and especially for this week at least. Ty 01:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ty, will post here if I remove anything so it can be re-inserted when proper citations are available.--Kbob (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lede[edit]

According to Wiki guidelines WP:LS the lede section is to serve as an introduction and summary of the article. The first paragraph is a good introduction but subsequent parapraphs should elaborate on the items in the first paragraph instead of going into details about specific aspects of his career. Any comments or suggestions?--Kbob (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be improved and enlarged. There is too much about the race with Johns. If someone reads the lead, they should be able to get all the main aspects of the article. It is legitimate to include details where these are relevant to understanding the main aspects properly. Ty 16:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP policy the lede should be held to a high standard of sourcing. Also the size of the lede is limited to 4 paragraphs, which we already have. Just a few points to keep in mind. I look forward to additional comments and input.--Kbob (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEADCITE allows some editorial discretion. However, I prefer a tightly-referenced lead. 4 paras is agreed. They are short paras at the moment, so can be enlarged. Maybe you could have a go at rewriting it per WP:BOLD or post a suggested text on the talk page for discussion. There may be material incorrectly put in the lead which is not in the main text. It would probably need to be moved elsewhere in that case and might need referencing. Ty 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Net worth[edit]

The "net worth" section does no more than repeat things stated in the lead. Or vice versa - perhaps the lead could be pared down to mentioning his wealthiness, leaving out detailed stories about an individual auction, for instance. Huw Powell (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Material needing citation[edit]

Copied from above for convenience. Ty 22:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • dominated the art scene in Britain during the 1990s
  • and is internationally renowned
  • increasing frictions came to a head in 2003
  • he took an unprecedented move
  • It was nevertheless seen as the formal acceptance of the YBAs into the establishment.
    • "Next month, the Royal Academy intends that this piece and 99 others, by Lucas and 39 of her contemporaries, will fill its Georgian halls with all the modern cheek and confrontation that has coursed through this decade's young British art. The exhibition, Sensation, marks the final mainstream acceptance of Damien Hirst and Gary Hume, Gavin Turk and Tracey Emin, Rachel Whiteread and Mark Wallinger - none of whom has been shown at the Royal Academy before." "Shock art to shop art" The Guardian, 28 August 1997; Andy Beckett, p. T.002.
  • This brought a developing strain in his relationship with Saatchi to a head
  • (one source of contention had been who was most responsible for boosting their mutual profile).
    • to be done
  • Hirst disassociated himself from the retrospective to the extent of not including it in his CV.
  • He was angry that a Mini car that he had decorated for charity with his trademark spots was being exhibited as a serious artwork.


Nice work Ty :-) --Kbob (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Hirst and the indigenous rights activism[edit]

I understand the concern over me being bias and publicizing a book that I obviously like. But can someone impartial explain to me why it is not appropriate to give a brief description of a project in which the subject of the article was involved; especially given his involvement with survival's campaign and the fact that he was one of the authors who gave a writing contribution that was previously unpublished. Maziotis (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very minor part of Hirst's activities. There is no secondary source given, which indicates no one else has taken any notice of it. Only the publisher is given as a source. Hirst has contributed to numerous such projects - charity art auctions etc. A section on this area of his activities would be justified, but not the stress on this one alone. Where is the reliable source to validate the statement "Damien Hirst is a supporter of the indigenous rights organization, Survival International"? Otherwise it's just an editorial interpretation, i.e. WP:OR. Ty 12:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Right Livelihood Award link provides a reliable and secondary source that validates the statement "Damien Hirst is a supporter of the indigenous rights organization, Survival International". If Hirst has participated in other "charity" projects that were covered by reliable sources, you are also free to add them to the article. Maziotis (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit Bowl / Plant Pot[edit]

The Early Life section quoting the Telegraph says "[His mother] heated one of his Sex Pistols vinyl records on the cooker to turn it into a fruit bowl."

This is contradicted by a more recent source(http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/nov/14/damien-hirst-interview) In which he says "My mum made Never Mind The Bollocks into a plant pot – she put it on the gas, with a rock in the middle, and it just went whooosh! – because it said bollocks." Kwenchin (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plant pot added to the article as an alternative, as both outcomes are stated at different times in sources. Ty 23:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Rich list/personal wealth[edit]

I think there is a case to make here for mentioning the level of Mr Hirst's wealth in the lead; to some extent he is noted precisely for the size of the fortune that he has amassed and specific information on this may well be the very information that general reader seeks.--Artiquities (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead (see WP:LEAD) should be a summary of the main points of the article, in this case the main point being his large wealth, not his place in the rich list. That is an ancillary point, and as such can be found in the main text for those who wish to investigate further. Ty 06:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS It's helpful to format references, rather than just put in a bare URL. See Wikipedia:REFB#Information_to_include. Ty 06:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richest artist[edit]

I see, thanks for these links and clarification. I still wonder if, "and is reputed to be the richest living artist to date," is not a bit too vague--esp. as that ref. is not a live link .--Artiquities (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Print or online referencing is just the same. The source text is: "Having already become the richest living artist in all of history, with a personal fortune in the region of $1 billion": Graham-Dixon, Andrew. "Artworld insanity", The Sunday Telegraph, p. 28, 21 September 2008.
User:Johnbod inserted the weaselly "reputed to be" in the article,[12] questioning Graham-Dixon's authority. However G-D is a reputable source and therefore meets WP:V, so I think we should follow his text. Ty 14:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of GD having any expertise on world economic history, which is the relevant field for that statement. Has Hirst let him see his investment statements? Somehow I doubt it. Jan van der Capelle, who we don't even have an article on though he was a very good artist, was, entirely from inheritance, one of the largest industrialists in 17th century Europe (dye-works), & probably far richer than Hirst. GD's 2008 figure is 2-3 times that of the more specialized Sunday Times "Rich List" (2009), and their claimed £235M could only buy about 10 large houses in Central London after all. "has been claimed to be" would be better perhaps. We don't have long to wait for the 2010 ST Rich List - I wonder what that will show? One imagines these wild figures are largely based on a) Hirst boasting at the Groucho, and b) back of the beermat calculations of the value of his stock, now clearly far lower than in 2008. I'm not sure Picasso's estate wasn't worth much more than £235M or $1 billion in current terms. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of his wealth was calculated reasonably reliably for The Times Rich List. As I inserted a while back: in 2009, the annually collated chart of the wealthiest individuals in Britain and Ireland, The Times Rich List, placed Hirst at joint number 238 with a net worth of £235m. As far as I can see their assessment is way more reliable than AG-D's obvious hyperbole. --Artiquities (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if most of the "wealth" is the stock of work, or bank shares come to that, 2008's "$1 bn" might be not so far away from 2009's £235M. Personally I think it's best to sell it first, then count it. I changed the lead to "and has been claimed to be the richest living artist to date" - perhaps it would be best to locate the claim pre-crash as well. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see today's Sunday Times reveals - p. 4 story - he will be down to £215M in the 2010 Rich List, coming soon. This despite the benefit one would expect from the weaker pound vs the $. I will be doing an article soon on that bloated plutocrat Jan van de Capelle - 500 Rembrandt drawings and a big yacht, now that's what I call rich. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to that article. I have heard it said, anecdotally, that following one of the more "difficult" days last year—during the turbulent markets—Damien capitulated and made a new plan. The next morning he let-go more-or-less his entire team of production staff (which had got up to the high-thirties), and proceeded with the new scheme, that is, as we know, paintings made by his own hand without any staff or budget required ... you gotta love him, I know I do. --Artiquities (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this can potentially be addressed in the article, but only if done so according to what is contained in reliable sources. It was reported around the time of the auction that he was laying off some staff, because, said a spokesperson, a particular series of works was ceasing production. At the time of No Love Lost, Hirst said that staff who had been retained had been occupied in framing his paintings. If I recall correctly, they were also employed in manufacturing canvases. Ty 13:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the "net worth" section above I added to "lede" - right now the two sections are completely repetitive. I think all but a brief mention should be pulled from the lede. Huw Powell (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Dunphy[edit]

It is interesting: in "the industry" it is well known that Mr Frank Dunphy controls Damien's "choices" but in the article the name of the man running Hirst's brand does not appear whatsoever—hence the impression is given, and even stated, that Damien's business model is along the lines of a classical Renaissance studio, i.e., that Damien is at the helm making the key decisions, etc; whereas, in truth, it is Frank running the show. Without some mention of the significance of his influence, particularly his (crucial) ruthless attitiude towards CS and LG then the article remains incomplete and insidiously POV.--Artiquities (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources that cover this topic? freshacconci talktalk 20:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is this: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/mr-10-per-cent-and-hes-worth-every-penny-934238.html But where to insert these matters? Lower down and out-of-the-way, I know that, much as the case of the brazen selling-works-back-to-themselves scandal was downgraded in this article too. I'm just saying.
--Artiquities (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you just saying, exactly? Are you implying some kind of agenda to whitewash the article? Things are not put "lower down and out of the way": they go wherever they are appropriate. The sell-back wasn't "downgraded". I've previously explained to you that the LEAD section is a summary of the main text: it does not introduce new material. The relevant main text reads, "It didn't sell outright,[39] and on 30 August 2008 was sold to a consortium that included Hirst himself and his gallery White Cube.[39]" Such a brief mention hardly merits summarising. If it were longer, then maybe it would. If it is something you wish to pursue, I suggest you start by doing a good job at For_the_love_of_god#Sale_to_consortium, which is currently rather poor, then taking the key points and putting them in this article.
I would also point out that your "summary" is: "In 2007 Hirst was involved in controversy when he appeared to purchase his own work For the Love of God through a private consortium led by himself."[13] This introduces aspects not mentioned at all in the main text, namely "controversy", "he appeared to purchase his own work" and the consortium was "led by himself", none of which is referenced either (though you put a "citation needed" tag on the existing preceding sentence).
You have made very serious and contentious statements above, namely: "Mr Frank Dunphy controls Damien's 'choices'", "in truth, it is Frank running the show", "his (crucial) ruthless attitiude towards CS and LG". Asked for a reference, you supply one that supports none of these statements.[14] This is a contravention of WP:BLP. The article is not POV: it is simply not complete. Yes, Dunphy should be mentioned, either at such points as are relevant chronologically or in a dedicated section. However, your personal observations have no place in the article. If material about living people is not accurately derived from, and clearly supported by, reliable sources, then kindly do not post it anywhere on wikipedia.
Ty 01:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment of not complete. I also agree (upon reflection) that the claim I made was grand and relies upon purely anecdotal personal observation and hence should not have been offered. I think, what I was trying to "just say" was, that I will leave it to another editor to get to grips with how and where to include Dunphy, as I am not ready (i.e., experienced enough on Wikipedia) to make a good judgement about it, but I am certain, as you now are, that he needs to be mentioned in some shape or form.
The journalist in the The Independent opens with:

"It was Dunphy who first came up with the idea of the 'straight-to-auction' sale, by-passing the traditional route of an art gallery and a hefty dealer's commission, two years ago. The accountant then persuaded his reluctant client [i.e., Damien] of the merits of seeking to clear his stock of spot paintings, butterfly compositions and beasts from a zebra to a tiger shark preserved in formaldehyde, in a single orgy of seven-figure bids." [Emphasis added]

Here then is a powerful voice who has the ability to influence Damien in a career defining decision, hence would suggest an insertion beyond, say, simply, "Hirst has an accountant named Frank Dunphy." Having said that, where is the journalist's evidence of the supposed persuasion? --Artiquities (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you know why there is no mention of Dunphy to date: "I will leave it to another editor"! Check out WP:SOFIXIT and WP:BRD... But feel free to raise points here if you would rather discuss a suitable approach for content initially. The obvious thing is to use the source for info where the auction is already mentioned.

Wikipedia is a digest of existing sources, and per WP:V seeks verifiability, not truth. We represent the viewpoints of reliable sources from a NPOV. NPOV applies to editors not sources, so in Sam Taylor-Wood "amicable" should be stated,[15][16] because it's what the source says, and to not follow the source would be contrary to NPOV, because the editor would be exerting POV. The sources are assumed to have POV; editors are not allowed to. Where sources conflict, then we represent the conflicting positions according to the significance of the sources per WP:UNDUE; we do not umpire as to who is right, or seek to ascertain the definitive view, but present the reader with the facts, so they can make their own judgement.

If the source is counted as a reliable one (which The Independent is) then "where is the journalist's evidence" is not our business. However, see WP:REDFLAG, but in this case, Dunphy's significant influence has been covered a number of times in different sources, so this is not such an extraordinary claim.

I have inserted [Emphasis added] at the end of the text you quoted above, to make it clear the italics were not in the original.

Ty 12:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to add these links and clarifications. Your patience and thought is undoubtedly causing me to improve, slowly.--Artiquities (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rachelhoward.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Rachelhoward.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey[edit]

Could somebody update the last para in the Artwork section, perhaps by using this link: [17] I'd do it myself if I knew how. Regards. 81.83.137.37 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hirst vs Rembrandt[edit]

  • Compare me with Rembrandt! What sacrilege! With Rembrandt, the colossus of Art! What are you thinking of, my friend! We should prostrate ourselves before Rembrandt and never compare anyone with him!
    • Auguste Rodin, in Art: Conversations with Paul Gsell (University of California Press, 1984), p. 85 [Translated by Jacques de Caso and Patricia B. Sanders]. Originally published as L'Art: Entretiens réunis par Paul Gsell (Paris: Bernard Grasset, Éditeur, 1911).
  • I gave up painting by 16. I secretly thought I would have been Rembrandt by then. I don't believe in genius. I believe in freedom. I think anyone can do it. Anyone can be like Rembrandt... Picasso, Michelangelo, possibly, might be verging on genius, but I don't think a painter like Rembrandt is a genius. It's about freedom and guts. It's about looking. It can be learned. That's the great thing about art. Anybody can do it if you just believe. With practice, you can make great paintings.

Famous for being famous?[edit]

Hirst has been praised in recognition of his celebrity... Valetude (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Damien Hirst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Damien Hirst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Damien_Hirst&oldid=1218551765"