London critics quarreled painting by Damien Hirst
 

Exhibition of paintings by Damien Hirst, the most highly paid artist of Great Britain, in London's Museum Wallace Collection (Wallace Collection), proved to tick off journalists before the official opening. Critics of the influential publications The Guardian and The Times called Hirst's painting "deadly dull" and "terrible"
Hirst's works are hung in the halls, where both exhibited paintings of great artists of the past - Rembrandt, Titian, Velasquez and Poussin. Sam Hurst believes that painting of his predecessors and his own canvases, which are represented mainly by white skull on the blue-black background, can not be compared: "Art - this is a comment about the world around us, and today [the artist] does not play such a role as in the past ... It was too much going on, and then had pictures, but there was no Hollywood, no plastic surgery, no advertising, no TV. We live in a crazy world in which some kind of picture is no longer valid. " Hirst quotes agency Reuters.
The critic Adrian Searle of The Guardian wrote that the saddest thing is not impressed by the proximity of Hurst with the old masters, and his unsuccessful flirtation with painting by Francis Bacon, British painter of the largest mid-XX century: the modern artist loses his predecessor on all counts, his paintings were simply boring. At the same points and Rachel Campbell-Johnston of The Times.
Hirst himself paid for the device exhibition in the Wallace collection (according to The Times, it cost him 250 thousand pounds sterling). Officially, the exposition "No Love Lost" ( "vain love") will open on October 14 and will run until January 24, 2010.

Cheers! because it is not art at all. :)

Why?

I think Hurst rights, he said, are. And all that is happening around the paintings today is playing adults. Until something interesting to play, and when bored - cast.

Fufel-pufel in comparison with Bacon. At last we came to them ...: D

because not everything that is written on the canvas with oil, can be called painting. IMHO

Interesting. :)

Since when has it become possible to draw conclusions on the quotations of newspaper critics? Their work is such a genre - not breathless with delight. And note that on many DVD with frankly boring movies you can find quotes of enthusiastic critics of class "movie - an icon for those ...."," cult director's work ...", "movie was a revelation ...." and so on. Good review - not for good:) And praise Hearst - so people would not understand.

Let's see, and then discuss in style: - "Not seen, but condemn."
For me so - normal. I wanted to write that is not worse Rothko, so frightened, this will ... And it is necessary to Stalin will be reduced. :)

For me too, so it is nothing. It could be worse. And in the third picture of skull in general "as live" Not in the sense that it seems written in a straight line. It looks as though said: "Well, take me to handle, take пожайлуста!":) Smiley set, but actually I'm not kidding.