#britart

Damien Hirst (7 June, 1965~)

Sailor moon! ✨ This started out as a #drawthisinyourstyle for Kasvei on Instagram

Video time-lapse: https://youtu.be/1I0777HyYqQ

Barbara Hepworth. Wait The Client Wants It When? 1942.

Ellsworth Kelly. Seriously The Tate Will Buy Anything. 1996.

Robert Ryman, Oh Shit Ells Is Right! 1982.

Ellsworth Kelly. I Told You Dog Just Slap A 1000-Word Essay About Peripristatic Feelings And Neo-Blananahic Themes On It And They Eat This Shit Up. 1974.

Bram Bogart. Dudes She’s Not Kidding I Had Leftover Plaster From When My Bro And I Redid Mom’s Bathroom And They Paid Me A Million Pounds For It. 1974.

Maria Lalic. I Helped My Girlfriend Do Her Kitchen And Borrowed The Leftovers To Make This Now I’m The Toast Of The Art World I Guess? 1995.

Yves Klein. Nobody Should Have This Kind Of Power. 1979

Jenny Holzer. You Don’t Even Have To Do Anything Look I Nicked This From The Lotto Display At The Corner Shop And Stuck A Phrase From An Inspiration Tumblr On It! 1984.

Ceal Floyer. FUCK OFF DUDES I LITERALLY JUST GAVE THEM THIS RECEIPT FROM MY WALLET THEY WERE ALL LIKE ‘IS THIS ART?’ AND I WAS YEAH ‘WELL OBVIOUSLY ARE YOU AN IDIOT?’ AND THEY WERE SO EMBARRASSED THEY IMMEDIATELY PUT IT ON THE FUCKING WALL! 1999

Farid Belkahia. GUYS CAN YOU KEEP IT DOWN SOME OF US ARE TRYING TO MAKE REAL ART HERE AND POOR MERAUD STILL CAN’T GET THAT BIRD OFF HER HEAD. 1961.

There exists this sort of convention in art of the 20th and 21st century to be void of a title. Paintings and sculptures were often just numbered off and the few titles that did exist were often cryptic or dryly literal. This is not the case for edgy YBA artist Damien Hirst. This piece, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, is especially an exception to this modern trend. The name of the sculpture, for lack of a better word, is just as crucial to experiencing the piece as physically observing it is. In 1991, the first shark sparked outrage amongst the laity and conservatives of the art community, both parties passionately huffing about the ethics and creative merit of packaging a dead shark and calling it art. In my opinion, The Physical Impossibility of Death in Mind of Someone Living is art in every relevant way that a Rubens painting or a Rodin sculpture is considered art. 

The piece is composed of a deceased tiger shark encased in a tank of formaldehyde. The tank’s appearance is reminiscent of the frames used in, “traditional”, pre-modern art. The shark is oriented so that if viewers stood in front of it (first image) , they would be confronted with the gaping jaws of a mountainous tiger shark. We are conscious and aware that the shark is no longer a viable threat to our lives, but some part of ourselves still flinches at the sight of such a display. Our instinct is to be afraid of the presence of such a vicious creature in our vicinity. For a fleeting moment as we stare into the ominous depths of the shark’s jaws, we see what is potentially the face of death. What’s scarier? It isn’t. That is arguably the most terrifying component of The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living: it forces us to realize that we truly cannot imagine or comprehend what lies beyond this life.  It is impossible to process no longer existing.   

That being said, it is evident that the exhibit is thought-provoking in and of itself; however, I believe that the title of the piece carries as much significance if not more than the physical piece. Such a deep statement directs our interpretation and viewing experience of the shark. Immediately, we are launched into a challenging introspection pieced together with contradictions and concepts that live outside the bounds of our minds. Since the beginning of art, we have sought to explain an afterlife, the purpose of this life, and countless other never-to-be-answered questions. Like Dalí, Rothko, Anatsui, Su-Nam, and the general modern art community, Hirst is a textbook example of a modern artist who is inexorably tied to the past, and in another way that is common amongst his contemporaries, his art embraces this fact. His critics may claim that his work is detached, pompous, and uninvolved, but in my mind, they’re not giving Hirst the credit he deserves.

Quite contrary to their view, Hirst subtly and elegantly crafted The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living to garner specific reactions and yet allow for an incredible degree of freedom for the viewer to interpret the piece on his/her own. One example of the great amount of thought Hirst invested in the work is his use of formaldehyde. One of the best-known uses for the potent chemical is the preservation of specimens. That original 1991 shark eventually decayed despite these efforts to preserve it. This move was more than likely intentional and a reminder to the viewer of the issue at hand: mortality. The shark is an interesting medium as it is flesh and bones (cartilage, but you get the gist) just as we are. This deterioration of the shark represents the inevitable failure of our efforts to prolong life. In the end, we will all pass. The fact that something as small as using formaldehyde to promote the decay of the shark in order to convey this profound message is beautiful. There are several other factors Hirst put into consideration to perfectly orchestrate the display that is The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, but this post has to end eventually. 

In brief, the combination of the shark display and the piece’s name along with the media Hirst employed to construct the work justify the status of The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living as art, great art. There is good reason it is hailed as an icon of BritArt. After all, if one can create a simple manifestation out of humanity’s greatest fears and questions, that’s the mark of a great artist to me. And if it isn’t, I implore you dear reader, what is?