I promise I'm not spending Friday night on the Internet, but I had to note the Hirst Chapel story:
The Italian, US-based collector Carlo Bilotti is in discussions with Rome City Council to convert a former chapel in the north of the city into a centre for contemporary art which will display works by Damien Hirst and other artists from his collection.It's not so surprising that Hirst would want to be involved, but it's not going to be a Rothko chapel. Like Rothko, Hirst works with the sublime. Unlike Rothko, Hirst has never sourced the sublime experientially—he insists on an exegetic remove between his work and the spiritual themes he references. A series called "The Four Evangelists", the works for the proposed chapel space, will debut at the Gagosian in London early next month, but unless they're a real departure from Hirst's body of work, I wouldn't count on couples lining up outside to get married.[. . .]
Mr Bilotti says he aims to create a “modern meditative environment” in the chapel which will be modelled on the Rothko chapel in Houston, Texas.
The real shocker comes in Bilotti's larger plans in Italy. The mayor of Rome has agreed to a scheme to open a Bilotti museum on the grounds of the Villa Borghese. What the fuck, is Rome that bad off? Can't they sell naming rights to the Forum or something? I could live with Il FedEx Colosseo.
UPDATE: I can't remember if I mentioned it or not, but this guy is on his way to the MoMA.
Damien Hirst, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, 1991.
The word is that the shark's in pretty bad shape these days; it'd be interesting to know whether Hirst considers the piece to be this or any preserved shark. Anyway—it's too bad for Sir Nick and the Tate, who just can't afford Hirst. Though Saatchi has been more or less garage-saling all Hirst's work, Saatchi says that Hirst's art will survive over time, and I think that's right. (But I wouldn't be hurt if they kept his stuff in across the pond.) Sounds as if nothing short of charity will get the shark or Armageddon or anything but those Pharmacy trinkets into the Tate. How did the Tate blow all its money?
Posted by Kriston at January 28, 2005 9:44 PMAt the risk of sounding like I just stepped off a church-sponsored group tour of Rome, I've gotta say that this Bilotti proposal sounds like it totally blows. The Borghese is a place where one goes to be brought to one's knees by Caravaggio, Bernini, and the ancients. It's a place where one can shrug off the sharks and pharmacutecals for another time. God, I love Italy.
So apparently Rome doesn't have the same embargo on new buildings that Florence has? Anyone know?
Posted by: Sarah at January 29, 2005 12:27 AMPerhaps not surprisingly, I agree with Sarah. Regarding Saatchi and Hirst, I'm of two minds. That the former "says that Hirst's art will survive over time" while selling it off sounds about as convincing as John Snow claiming the administration wants a strong dollar. Then again, the fact that Hirst's most famous work will be in the MoMA institutionalizes him to a degree not previously attained. Same's been true of a lot of folks who've had their rep fade, but still, it's something. It also makes one recall the stories from last year that the MoMA was deaccessioning works by Pollack, de Chirico, and others, in order to get a Hirst.
Posted by: Miguel Sánchez at January 29, 2005 8:39 AMI'm not sure I understand the objection to the proposed museum on the grounds of the Villa Borghese. The estate is huge -- the villa itself is really just a mote in the larger landscape. I can see how putting up a museum of modern art next door to the work of Renaissance masters could be discordant, but the grounds themselves never seemed particularly tied to the art, to me. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but it seems likely that the proposed museum won't even be within eyesight of the villa. Seems okay to me -- but maybe you all can convince me otherwise.
Posted by: tom at January 29, 2005 12:30 PMWell, if it is any dead shark the Tate has an answer, doesn't it?
Posted by: rwellor at January 29, 2005 2:42 PMThat's a good question, Tom. Here's my stab: When I was in school for a summer in Italy, some students whined endlessly about a garden history/architecture course they were foolish enough to volunteer for. Had I taken it, I could probably give you a more convincing account, but as I understand it garden design was a holistic enterprise up until the point that these sorts of gardens stopped being designed, and the larger grounds were intended to be unspoiled and rustic.
Seeing as how the Villa Borghese itself has grown in territory and added small museums and buildings, you could argue that the integrity of the design has already been weathered, and so long as new buildings aren't promoted on the sylvan and royal grounds then you more or less have the same garden. There's reason to accept the letter-of-the-law violations of the garden, but a contemporary art gallery would be the kind of compromise of the spirit of the place that would seem to signal a free-for-all on the outer grounds.
And, come on, dead sharks? With all that real art? Who knows where the slippery slope leads once these perversities are introduced?
Posted by: Kriston at January 29, 2005 4:18 PMI heard that the Tate spent all its money on coke, before it blew the corpse of Andy Warhol. Or was it drummer from the Dandy Warhols? Hey, it's just what I heard.
Posted by: R™ at January 29, 2005 6:22 PM"And, come on, dead sharks? With all that real art? Who knows where the slippery slope leads once these perversities are introduced?"
Smartass! One calls the other one out!
I spent half of my six months in Italy bitching about the lack of contemporary art. But I now pine for the Borgese as an escape from such of-the-moment anxiety. It's a much more taxing mental exercise to find the modern in Bernini and Pontormo, anyway.
Oh hell, maybe there is room on the estate for both. Damn you and your garden design, Kriston!
