Damien Hirst's 'For the Love of God'

"The skull is out of this world, celestial almost. ... At the same time it represents death as something infinitely more relentless. Compared to the tearful sadness of a vanitas scene, the diamond skull is glory itself.” (Rudi Fuchs, Historian)

'For the Love of God' (2007) Damien Hirst

Questions from the Cadi Blog:

I.Describe the work, giving details of the form and materials. 

Damien Hirst's 'For the love of God' is the most expensive art to be ever created, costing between $UK14million and $UK18 million to make. The skull is made out of platinum, human teeth and 8,601 diamonds; a total of 1,106.18 carats. The artwork took 18 months to create.

II.What does the work mean? What is Damien Hirst communicating in the work?
The skull is encrusted with diamonds to glorify the subject and the meaning of victory over our life's end. Hirst have also confirmed that 'For the Love of God' is a celebration of death.

III. How does Hirst's diamond encrusted skull relate to Mercantilism and to conspicuous consumption?

This work of Hirst's is very related to Mercantilism in the Renaissance era, when there was an increase in status of artists. During the Renaissance with the Mercantilism system, wealth was measured by our possessions of precious materials e.g. gems and gold. This display of precious items shows off our wealth as well as our social status. Hirst's work is not only encrusted with diamonds but is the most expensive art to date. This elevates the status of 'For the Love of God' along with Hirst as an artist.

IV.How much did the work cost, and how much was it sold for, and who bought it?

Even though Hirst claimed in 2007 that he received $50 million from an anonymous buyer, the fact is there seems to be no buyer yet. At current date the skull is owned by Hirst himself and White Cube Gallery owner Jay Jopling. The asking price of the skull is still $UK50million.

VI.What are some of the differing opinions of the journalists in the newspaper and blog articles?What did they 

    think of the work?

There are both negative and positive opinions of 'For the love of God'. To some the skull is perfect representation of death and the glory of it. However to most the skull is a publicity stunt by Hirst to get more media attention and to raise the value of his artworks. Robin Simon, editor of the British Art Journal, have said that the artwork is "vacuous nonsense". He have also said the skull's workmanship is very good, however "as art it is extremely dull". Californian private art dealer, Richard Polsky, also agrees "The sale keeps Hirst in the news, reinforces the demand for his work and makes everyone who spent money at White Cube feel good about their investment,... This is all about investment, not about art collecting". There are still talks about 'For the Love of God' today, whether the artwork is an art at all or just kitsch.

VII.Based on your research, what is your opinion of the work, as an object or a work of art.

There are no clear definition of art, therefore the skull can be easily considered as an artwork. I personally love 'For the Love of God', but I see it more as a very good crafted object. To simply celebrate and glorify death the skull is too exaggerating. No matter how much money you have no one can beat death. Though I say this, I also think the skull does lift our spirits up about death. After all, who doesn't want their skull to be encrusted with diamonds?

Reference:

http://www.gagosian.com/artists/damien-hirst/

https://www.othercriteria.com/browse/all/projects/for_the_love_of_god_project/

http://www.artknowledgenews.com/Damien_Hirst_For_The_Love_Of_God.html

http://www.geekologie.com/2007/06/damien-hirsts-for-the-love-of.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459204/Damien-Hirst-unveils-jewels-crown-50m-diamond-studded-skull.html