Hell is Repetition.

All Work And No Play Makes Jack A Dull Boy. 

If you haven't seen "The Shining," a quick back story to the footage is Jack, aka Jack Nicholson, becomes the    winter caretaker of a hotel that is haunted by supernatural spirits. He brings his wife and little son along for the bumpy, and spooky ride. Jack thinks the isolation will be great for his completion of the book he has had great difficulty with writing. Jack goes a little mad and writes the same words "All Work And No Play Makes Jack A Dull Boy" for seemingly hundreds of pages. Repetition is not only hell but the definition of insanity in many instances. 

The very motion of life, let alone art, is to evolve, progress, react, and adapt. When art is repeated ad nauseam, the world gets smaller and duller. 

Smaller, duller, and dottier. Literally speaking. For most this is probably a pretty recognizable piece from Damien Hirst. Reason it's recognizable? Because Hirst created 1,400 of these 'spot' paintings, which represents 29% of his total output of 4,800 pieces. Hirst feels that he still has some more of the old 'spot' in him as he compares his meager output to Warhol's 10,000 or Picasso's 40,000 works of art. Difference among the three artists, is that the latter two had different images... Dots are dots are dots are...well, dots... 

Yes, I understand that placing 1 1/2 millimeter dots on a seven foot canvas does take quite a bit of time, but is the return on investment worth it at this point? The dots have been done. Yet, Hirst realizes that his spot paintings will always be valued as a commodity.

 “You learn by doing, really. If I put a painting outside a bar at closing time, and it’s still there in the morning, it’s a crap painting. With spot paintings, wherever you leave them, people are going to take them out of the dumpsters. It’s an intrinsic thing that has nothing to do with how many you make.”

Well, indeed Hirst is still profiting off the spot paintings, but are his creative juices flowing? What's the difference between churning out repetitive paintings and going to work everyday and notarizing the same kinds of documents as a government drone? Here we have an art drone, at best --driven by commercialism and less about artistic development. 

If Hirst is not painting dots, he's doing 'spin' paintings, which by the way, I had a 'spin' machine as a kid and could turn out a fierce painting... too bad I missed that bandwagon. 

Or Hirst is placing animals in formaldehyde. 

This allegedly sold for $12 million to hedge fund guru Steve Cohen on the condition that Hirst would not create anymore stuffed sharks. Well, Hirst reneged on that. What can he do, the man loves to copy his own art! And poor Mr. Cohen is sitting with his stuffed shark thinking it's a one-of-a-kind, $12 million work of art... until the next 1,400 are reproduced... 

This leads me to the question... is there some serious pulling the wool over the eyes are what? Does cloning your own artwork make an artist or strategic businessmen? Or both?