Comments on: The Twenty Million Dollar Golden Calf http://betweentwocities.com/2008/07/28/the-twenty-million-dollar-golden-calf/ "Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the lover of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self." St. Augustine, DE CIVITATE DEI, Book XIV, Chapter 28 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:41:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: davidlarkin http://betweentwocities.com/2008/07/28/the-twenty-million-dollar-golden-calf/#comment-389 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:23:36 +0000 http://davidlarkin.wordpress.com/?p=116#comment-389 Thanks, Norm. Is Houllebecz’s work translated into English?

]]> By: norm zamcheck http://betweentwocities.com/2008/07/28/the-twenty-million-dollar-golden-calf/#comment-388 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:13:42 +0000 http://davidlarkin.wordpress.com/?p=116#comment-388 This is a fascinating discussion Dave. You might be interested in knowing that
Michel Houllebecq’s “La Carte et le territorie” deals begins with a disillusioned painter
working purely for money, who paints a sterile and stylized portrait of Koons and Hirst discussing their profits in Abu Dhabi. Houllebecq’s work, on the surface cynical, is highly spiritual.

]]> By: davidlarkin http://betweentwocities.com/2008/07/28/the-twenty-million-dollar-golden-calf/#comment-118 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:35:36 +0000 http://davidlarkin.wordpress.com/?p=116#comment-118 Thanks for your comment. We seem to disagree about what is blasphemous, or whether something that might be blasphemous is good for the artist, and his audience. It is easy to make light of the trinity as Hirst did. I was not offended, thought it was clever and humorous personally, though I wouldn’t speak for God as you do. The question is whether it is blasphemous to make light of the Holy as Hirst did. To the extent that it leads people to underestimate the Holy, then it is clearly dangerous, and likely sinful, even though done in jest or to make a point about science and religion.

If art is a matter of “cleverness” then Hirst is quite an artist. You seem to elevate the cleverness aspect by his art being a metaphor or comment on current culture. It is like an editorial. However, if art is “creation,” then it is not clear whether this is inspired art, rather than technical manipulation of symbols in a professional and clever way to make a statement. I am not one who is so conservative to disregard modern media because it is not a painting or a sculpture. I just visited the new Broad Contemporary Art Museum at the Los Angeles County Museum complex. I was very much impressed with Jeff Koons work which I had never seen in person. Nevertheless, it is empty of spirit, other than the spirit of a materialism that is not really spirit, but despair, rational, but desperately looking for meaning. I am sure I would be impressed with Hirsts work in person, but whether it is great art is another question. I love some pop music, but I don’t think it compares with some of the great music of the past, including some early path-brreaking rock and roll.

My concern about blasphemy is actually directed at the artist and his relationship with God. The works I described and included that I spoke of being perhaps blasphemous demonstrated a person who was not concerned about his relationship with God or Christ, which is in my opinion, very dangerous, and to the extent that the work leads others to disregard or denigrate the Holy, it is irresponsible to so mislead others.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments and that you were interested in what I wrote.

]]> By: Michael Winters http://betweentwocities.com/2008/07/28/the-twenty-million-dollar-golden-calf/#comment-117 Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:12:29 +0000 http://davidlarkin.wordpress.com/?p=116#comment-117 Good post. I’m not sure though that you understand Hirst’s work properly. I AM sure that I don’t understand his work fully, and it’s probable that he doesn’t intend his work to be ‘understood.’ Nonetheless, contemporary art often attempts to seek truth through creating. Putting all the issues about obnoxious amounts of money aside, Hirst’s art often seeks to work through the meeting place of science and religion, faith and reason. His work is a metaphor for the greater struggle that contemporary culture has in trying to reconcile these different approaches to life. Seeing his work from this vantage point, I don’t understand why people see his work as blasphemous of satirical. For example I think the ‘Holy Trinity’ piece might be a mostly genuine attempt to work through how to think about the doctrine of the Trinity in a science-based worldview. All the issues of money involved simply further shed light (prophetically?) on the strangeness of contemporary life. Why do we so highly value a golden calf? It’s not a satire that I think offends God. More likely, I think it’s a satire that offends us because we realize the difficulties of how science and religion compete in our minds and how screwed up economic disparity is. But I can’t seem to wrap my mind around why people think it’s blasphemous.

]]>