Anonymous 1 titled: Pigs & Arseholes on dispaly at the Brentford Gallery May Show 2012 This artwork lampoons Hirsts meaningless creations.
Welcome to the A. Nonymous website. If you believe that Art is being exploited for financial gain and that many supposed 'Artworks' today are nothing more than 100% share ownership in a mass produced item masquerading as 'Art' then you should consider joining this group or supporting it by purchasing its products which will lampoon works of art made by investible 'Artists' dominating the media today.
The Rape and Exploitation of Art
In 1973 minimalist artist Carl Andre sold to the Tate 120 builders fire bricks purchased from a builder's merchants. This 'artwork' (entitled Equivalent VIII) was actually created in 1966 and the artist later admitted that when the Tate eventually decided to purchase it the bricks hd been used for a building project, so he understandably purchased the same type of brick again to make the sale.
The 'artwork' was always to be repositioned into the same shape when on display, i.e. arranged in two layer in a six-by-ten rectangle. There are seven other artworks in the series, all eight structures having the same height, mass and volumne but, as the bricks were arranges differently, different shapes. Thus they are all 'equivalent'. The other seven'artworks' (total 840 bricks) in theory presently do not exist as no-one except the Tate was gullible enough to buy any of the seven other works.
Equivalent VIII was exhibited several times without attracting much attention until the press alterted the public to what was seen as an appauling waste of tax payer's money. The 'artwork' , which was now known as The Bricks, set a new precedent as an item whose concept and creation had required minimal skill and effort yet which had comanded a disproportionately high price as a 'work of art'.
There can be no better example of this bar being dramatically raised than the work produced by supposed 'artist' Damien Hirst. His clever marketing for the production of his duplicated meaningless items, many of which have been proven to have been plagiarised by copying other artists' works, has astonished the world at large, predominately for one reason - the high prices for which the item(s) have sold.
It is our opinion that Hirst is not selling anything remotely connected with art; he is instead selling a 100% speculative share ownership in a piece of mass-produced matter which to date have been readily purchased by greedy investors knowing that it will increase in value in the future. Consequently, Hirst is riding on the back of art with his plagiarism and poorly-made meaningless items.
Would Hirst's 'artworks' sell if they were not investments? Suppose Hirst sold his 'artworks' with a legal proviso that if resold at any time in the future, the owner(s) would have to give all profits above their original purchase price to charity - prehaps 'Survival' an enviromental charity that Hirst supports. Would his artworks still achieve the high prices for wich they presently sell? Or would his marketing bubble burst? Would Hirst be prepared to test the true value of his work by accepting this challenge and giving a personal guarantee not to rig the purchasing of the 'zero interest' artworks by buying back in himself or via a third party, e.g. as he did by buying his diamond encrusted skull himself, with a formed syndicate?
Regardless of whether Mr Hirst chooses to risk exposing his work in this way or not, the syndicate behind the A. Nonymous arts Group will offer for sale to the public their 'artworks' lampooning those generated by supposed investible artists who are exploiting and riding on Art's back at the cost of those who have learnt to make artworks with artistic integrity.
All of the items from the A.Nonymous portfolio will be sold with a similar non-profit agreement as that proposed above, with the condition that if the owners decide to sell then they must give any profits above their original purchasing price to "the Friends of the Earth' or 'Rainforest Concern" registered charities. Failure to do this will mean that ownership will revert back to the syndicate an the work will be re-sold with all its proceeds going to the two charities.
The question which remains is will Mr Hirst take up this challenge? Does he want to be remembered as an artist - something he might achieve if he can prove that his 'artwork' is now selling on its own merit and not its potential investment value.
Carl andre's Bricks or Equivalent VIII was purchased by Tate Britian in 1973 for £2,297 ( today's equavalent £22,793). Today, fire bricks cost approximately £5.99 each, making the total outlay for the 120 bricks required £600.
In 1966 ( When Carl Andre first 'created' Bricks), the cost per brick would have been approximately 32p, which would have made the total cost for materials £38.40
To date, Tate Britain has not purchased any work by Damien Hirst. However, a number have been presented to the gallery, and this ploy is often used by artists so they can claim that their work is in a prestigious gallery or institution. Some have also been aquired jointly by the Tae, together with the Anthony d'Offray gallery.
If you are an artist, then you should consider joining us, membership is just £25 per year. Any items you sell under the A.Nonymous signature, you will receive 70% of the selling price with the remaining 30% being divided between 10% Administration costs and 20% towards an annual catalogue and promotion. We will show your work on our website and you will be invited to exhibit at proposed shows.
If you wish to join our mailing list please e-mail us
Return To Johnson Island Artists
Return to Brentford Gallery Homepage