Saturday, November 04, 2006
Art In The News: Is Hirst A Copycat?
[Damien Hirst’s disputed 2000 work Valium, top, and the 1984 drawing by computer graphics artist Robert Dixon]
We all know that artists are known for 'borrowing' images from time to time. However, some 'borrow' more from an image than they should. This seems to be the case with Damien Hirst from the viewpoint of Robert Dixon. Dixon charges Hirst with stealing one of his patterns.
Dixon recently went public with his accusations. He claims that Hirst copied 'True Daisy', which was published in the Penguin Dictionary of Curious And Interesting Geometry in 1991. The piece in question,'Valium' (2000) by Hirst, does look like 'True Daisy' (1984) by Dixon. What do you think? Does it matter if Hirst did 'borrow' the pattern? Mr. Dixon feels that it does matter.
Dixon claims that Hirst would have never created 'Valium' had he not observed 'True Daisy'. Both images share the same number of 'spots' and the same pattern of movement. Dixon claims that the chances of two artists creating similar images with the same amount of 'spots' is very slim. Dixon has since contacted Hirst demanding financial compensation and an acknowledgement of his artistic contribution. Hirst has yet to respond.
The conflict between Dixon and Hirst over 'True Daisy' is nothing new. Three years ago Dixon accused Hirst of copying the circular pattern for a children's coloring book. However, keep in mind that Hirst is no stranger to acts of plagiarism. In 2000 Hirst paid designer Norman Emms compensation after copying a toy that Emms had designed.
What do you think about these claims? Are they legitimate? Or do you think that Dixon is after something else? Is it possible that Hirst may have created 'Valium' with no prior knowledge of 'True Daisy'? Should Dixon be compensated? Should Hirst get a restraining order? Discuss. I want to read and respond to your opinions!
Take care, Stay true,