vivid from L vīvidus lively, equiv. to vīv(ere) to live.
There's been some great writing ("vivid", even) on the upcoming Damien Hirst mega-show. The Boston Globe pulls together some of the strands
here. A quote from Robert Hughes (originally from The Guardian article
here) is worth repeating, in case the link disappears:
The now famous diamond-encrusted skull, lately unveiled to a gawping art world amid deluges of hype, is a letdown unless you believe the unverifiable claims about its cash value, and are mesmerised by mere bling of rather secondary quality; as a spectacle of transformation and terror, the sugar skulls sold on any Mexican street corner on the Day of the Dead are 10 times as vivid and, as a bonus, raise real issues about death and its relation to religious belief in a way that is genuinely democratic, not just a vicarious spectacle for money groupies such as Hirst and his admirers.
Why is any of this important? Because what happens in the "big art" world affects what happens in our own "little art" (intimate) worlds, those places that we can attend to, to discover lost aspects of ourselves. If "big art" becomes limited in our consciousness to shallow insipidity then that potentially limits the possibilities of what we can draw on in our own attempts at internal revivification.
Of course, Damien Hirst has done some great things, he's been innovative. Up to a point, it's all fine, but as Richard Lacayo says
here, there are limits:
The actual sale, which may or may not make Hirst infinitely richer than he already is, I plan to skip. I do what I can to talk about art but I don't know what to say about shopping.
Labels: art, psychotherapy