Entry 1 - Damien Hirst

( In response to http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/damien-hirst-in-vicious-feud-with-teenage-artist-over-a-box-of-pencils-1781463.html )

At first thought, it seemed ridiculous to me that a box of pencils could be considered to be worth £500,000. However, after thinking about it for a bit, it makes more sense to me. After all, a bottle of paint is not worth very much, while a painting can be worth quite a lot. The medium is not what is of value, but rather the artistic expression that it conveys.

What bothered me most about the article was not how Cartrain could be fined such a large amount for taking the box of pencils (although it does bother me quite a bit. £500,000 worth of damages were not incurred and it wouldn't take £500,000 worth of effort to replace that one box of pencils), but rather how Hirst could have Cartrain's collage removed. Surely Hirst didn't create that box of pencils himself. In essence, Hirst and Cartrain are both doing the same thing, using existing materials as their medium. The only difference in my mind is that Hirst has the money and legal power to be able to take that medium away from Cartrain. This is an injustice: Cartrain is not allowed to take ownership of Hirst's medium and compromise his work of art, and Hirst should not be allowed to do the same thing. No matter what the medium, the artistic expression is what is of value.