November 29, 2013

Artist seems to think he invented the image of a woman with snakes for hair, accuses Damien Hirst of plagiarism for depicting Rihanna as Medusa.

"It's always fun to take a pop at Hirst, but... the charge against Hirst is not plagiarism – it is sheer artistic ordinariness."
Neither he nor [Jim] Starr have added anything original to the image of Medusa. The GQ cover is as insipid as some late Victorian mythic erotica. Compared with the great Medusas of the classical and baroque ages, Rihanna with snaky hair is just plain dull.

8 comments:

EDH said...

Compared with the great Medusas of the classical and baroque ages, Rihanna with snaky hair is just plain dull.

Snakes on a... plain?

betamax3000 said...

It is the Snakes Inside the Head That are Worrisome.

betamax3000 said...

People Will Attempt to Plagiarize the Image of Cheetah Speedo Man. Give it Time.

David-2 said...

Hirst sounds like one of those "good people" "artists" who is all rapey on women that we were talking about just a few minutes ago on a previous post.

I mean, come on, a woman depicted with snakes all over her head. Snake == phallic symbol, that's obvious, right? Wiggling all over her head - is that rape or is that rape rape or what?

rhhardin said...

Medusa at the nude beach.

ironrailsironweights said...

We know, from her "leaked" selfies, that Rihanna is hairless where it matters. God damn it.

Peter

Sam L. said...

Idjits! Snakes on a head, or snakes on ahead? Public domain. Publicity seekers.

jr565 said...

How could an artist who appropriates an image found in Ancient Greek poetry accuse a fellow artist of using the same image.
That would be like me saying no can use Zeus imagery except for me.
The two pictures don't even look so you can't accuse the second artist of painting a picture in the style of the first.