The $100 Million Skull *pics*

[margaritaxmix]

Ohh, I saw that article!! It's a little...creepy though.

Bling on a dead person's bones.... ush:

I'd rather have diamonds on MY neck, ears, etc. than on some...dead person's bones. KWIM?

 

[annanas]

its actually sad that no one here actually has any emotion other than disregard for it. I really like it. you guys are just focusing on the fact that its listed to sell at 100 million.

i wouldn't think it was aesthetically pleasing even if it was $1, $10 or $100, nevermind $100 million. i'm not the least bit interested in the price actually. nor do i think there is much artistic value in blinging a part of a dead person.

 

[toonie]

interesting.I think he should of used rubies or emeralds for the teeth.

 

[love2shop]

emotion? i'm sorry but I don't see anything "emotional" about this "piece of art", ahem crap..... but whatever, to each their own as they say...

 

[Nola]

Oi scary!

 

[jimmyneyugn]

i actually think this is really really pretty. it's not set on an actual human skull, i hope people learn how to read here. it's set in platinum, though the article doesn't speak to anything about the teeth.

i like it. i'd buy it for maybe 5-10mil, but not 100mil.. this is given that i have such money to throw around for pieces of art like this. where would i have it? in a special alcove in my 30mil home. it'd be darkly lit, with a couple of jewelry casing spot halogens directly on it to make it sparkle like the jewelry casings do. it'd stand on a podium topped with black satin/silk inside a glass (and super protected) casing. and it'd be surrounded by dark gothic-like decor.. deep red velvet curtains, black murano glass chandeliers, and prints of gothic architecture.

that'd be so hot.

 

[Glamfoxx]

I don't like it, as art goes it's just not my thing. Looks like expensive lowbrow. I would remove all the stones and melt down the platinum to make some nice jewelry.

 

[annanas]

i hope people learn how to read here.

charming

if it were a real skull then i'd at least see the damien hirst-ness in it (since in the past he's been fond dropping dead animals in formaldehyde and the like), but this is completely and utterly uninspiring. it's purely sensationalist. i don't have anything against damien hirst, i just really hate this piece. i'd rather have the dissected shark in my living room.

 

[princessaj0603]

oh my...

 

[jimmyneyugn]

charming

if it were a real skull then i'd at least see the damien hirst-ness in it (since in the past he's been fond dropping dead animals in formaldehyde and the like), but this is completely and utterly uninspiring. it's purely sensationalist. i don't have anything against damien hirst, i just really hate this piece. i'd rather have the dissected shark in my living room.

oh haha ok then. i'm not familiar with his work (don't really have time to go into art anymore these days), i'm just going off of the article, which doesn't say anything about it being a real human skull.

 

[gee]

lol...i love the title of the piece.

 

[ILoveMyBug]

Didn't George Michael buyit?

That's what I heard

 

[caitlin1214]

At the very least, you have to admire its fine craftsmanship.

This would fall in the same category of art as Ralph Lauren's car collection.

The Boston Museum of Fine Arts did a special exhibition of Ralph Lauren's car collection, and there was some objection because some didn't feel it was art.


Art means different things to different people. To me, there are some pieces that stir some sort of emotion or feeling in me, and there are some that are just pretty to look at.

 

[caitlin1214]

That would make for an interesting production of Hamlet, wouldn't it?


*holds up platinum skull* "Alas, poor Yorick . . . ."

 

[QueenOfDa702]

I think its pretty amazing.