Damien Hirst - Tate Modern

Exploited for the sake of 'art'.

Damien Hirst shot to fame in the arts scene through the 1988 exhibition Freeze which he curated. Now, two decades on, the Tate Modern is celebrating his career in a first full retrospective which contains many of his infamous and controversial works. I have never claimed to be a fan of Hirst or his works, nor have I been a detractor who has dismissed his art as being nothing more than a 'con'. This retrospective has, however, put me one of the two contrasting groups; the latter.
As I entered this exhibition, I expected it to be a great spectacle and for myself to be wowed. I wanted to see progression and an insight into the workings of Hirst's mind. The first room which contains his early works gave me this - I was able to see his roots through With Dead Head and the first of the dot paintings (one which he actually painted). Boxes also gave me a great sense of Hirst's fascination with colour - a piece that was created in 1988 for Freeze. However, as I progressed through the show, the work didn't seem to progress. From the moment I entered the second room I was seeing perfect spot painting created by his assistants, ahead of me was A Thousand Years and to my left was The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living - what had happened to the rough work of Hirst's Goldsmiths days? These works appeared to be controversial for controversials sake and what hit me (apart from the horrific smell of the rotting cow's head) was that the public in this blockbuster exhibition weren't bothered with the messages behind these pieces, but were more interested in the animals themselves. It dawned on me that Hirst may be hiding behind these beautiful creatures; using them to cover up a lack of meaning in the work - the meaning which always seemed to be death or money or a mix of both.
The continual use of animals and creatures was carried throughout the show and played the major role in In and Out of Love in which butterflies were bred in the exhibition and their beauty was exploited by Hirst. These butterflies, as beautiful as they were, looked tired and tortured. Is using these beautiful creatures for the sake of art morally right? I would answer no. Again, the audience were more bothered in the butterflies and their beauty and not the piece of work as a whole.
This familiar pattern of the repetition of materials and animals led to many of the rooms becoming boring and tired. The constant use of medicine gave me a headache and did nothing for me. What was Hirst really trying to say? I don't know as these works were not refined or interesting in any way or form. I, along with every one else in my party, walked on through these endless rooms without batting an eyelid. Damien Hirst, to me, appeard to be taking objects and giving them a name to make it into art and then sell it for a hefty profit. Another problem I had with this exhibition is that I always felt that I wasn't witnessing Hirst's work, but the work of his assistants. I would love to know how much involvement he had in the 200th or 300th spot painting. Another issue I took with the show is that it was deeply impersonal. When viewing a retrospective I expect to gain some insight into the mind of the artist, but with this retrospective I gained no insight as the work didn't allow us to search inside the inner workings of Hirst's mind. Maybe Hirst wants to distance himself from his work? Either way, it makes for a highly disappointing viewing.
The constant repetition made this retrospective feel like a normal gallery show. As I reached the end of the show I had to come to the conclusion, from what I had just seen, that Damien Hirst's work represented everything that is wrong with some forms of modern art: money. As I reached the end of this boring, badly curated and downright terrible show it appeared that Hirst was creating work purely to sell, thus making a statement about wealth - his wealth.

'Damien Hirst' is on at the Tate Modern until 9th September 2012