top of page

Using COOL materials doesn't instantly make your work COOL

Updated: Apr 20, 2020

With the rising popularity of Daniel Arsham, the idea of replicating object has is more relevant than ever. In my opinion his work is an interesting play on form and materiality of the objects that exist in the world around us. By altering the look of a common object Arsham plays with the way we interact with everyday things and gives us a whole new perspective on the forms. In my humble opinion Arsham's work has become somewhat repetitive. The material used for casting must have some conceptual relevance to the object that which it replicates. It seems that now it is "cool" to make different things out of rare, precious stones just because they include precious stones. Another example is Damien Hirst's 'For the Love of God'. The piece is a cast skull famously incrusted in 8,601 flawless diamonds. Why was this piece so significant and, by the way, fetched the highest price of any single work by a living artist. Cool because it is a human skull cast? Cool because it is solid titanium, with tons of diamonds? Cool due to the artists name?

Obviously these two artists didn't amass the reputation that they have by making "cool" work that lack intention. However, it could be a slippery slope if we begin praising work due only to the fact that it was expensive to make and includes rare materials. With technological advances and wealth it becomes effortless for artists to pump out works like this. Don't think that you can just add some gold or diamonds to your work and suddenly gain a following. Work that lacks intention is worthless. Ideas are artists precious materials.

Recent Posts

See All

Story Time... What Happened to My Cartoons?

Over the last year, I’ve referenced my illustrative, cartoonish work from college and how around graduation I got really sick of it. These illustrations used to be really fun for me but they became so


bottom of page