Thanks CG was decorating so missed it earlier, then couldn't find it on catch-up.
Hope your on the mend

Just watched this, think I found it pretty worrying.

The 3 of them for sure !

What a boring programme it was. Hirst was unconvincing and Noel Fielding had no insight and didn't have a clue what he was doing. Being an art school dropout doesn't help you present a prime time programme on someone having a major retrospective in the Tate. Although why the Tate is even bothering is more of a worry.

Noel Edmounds would've been a better choice

Me too, but only if he'd been divided

I know its already been said but Noel Fielding was so far up Hirsts backside it made me want to be sick. I'm surprised Hirst never told him where to get off.

I rather enjoyed the programme. I thought Noel was a decent choice as he came at it from a fan point of view, which was refreshing as Hirst got to talk about the work without the need to feel he has to justify it. Come at this show with an open mind and just enjoy the spectacle.

Hirst does great art as spectacle, he gets you thinking if you let him, rather than getting hung up on the now very boring and cliched, that's not art argument. I always wondered what the hell pharmacy was all about and he articulated it well. The fact the Tate site crashed after this for booking tickets (I tried for about 40 minutes but then realised being a friend is probably cheaper given the shows forthcoming at Tate) tells you exactly why they are hosting a retrospective for him.

As a fan of some of Hirst's work, and all of Noel's (Fielding, not Edmonds!) I found it to be a fairly good insight for any new fans of Hirst.
Noel here could help bring a newer audience to the Tate during this Restrospective.

I dont think you could describe Hirst's work as "manufactured rubbish" sure, the spots could fall under this remit, but his core work is as a conceptual artist, no?

IMO "In And Out Of Love" is one of art's great installations

Notice there was no sign of the truly abysmal paintings he did a few years ago and were shown, I think, at the Wallace Collection.

www.wallacecollection.org/collections/exhibition/77

I quite like the look of the Tate show, enjoyed the prog, agreed Pharmacy was made clear, but oh boy these paintings above look truly awful!

Hirst didn't choose the presenter and they gave Sewell plenty of airtime, did you actually watch it or do you spend your time being obnoxious for the sake of it?

It was not a programme to be taken seriously, it was a continuation in channel 4's production value of making art more accessible, using 'popular' figures to show art is not as 'high brow' as many might boosh fans may have believed, opening up art to the uneducated through an entertainer doing the interviewing rather than Sewell using allof his courtauld educated art critique is to be applauded. However if you wish to enjoy stuffy programming like that, just wait for the BBC culture show review, which will no doubt contain much more of the cynicism you look for in any contemporary review. Thats the beauty of broadcasting, I suggest you stay away from 4 as they take a very pop view of the whole thing and use Noel Fielding and Kathy Burke rather than Mark Kermode (who I like) or Alaistar Sooke (worse than Fielding in my eyes).

Your eyes are closed and you can enjoy yourself over at tate britain, or maybe get yourself down to Margate, The turner has a turner show on and stop wasting your time moaning on a contemporary art forum? Just a thought

I rest my case on you not taking notice of anything just to make a point. What did I just say about channel 4 and BBC?
There are plenty of places to be infomed on Hirst, both good and bad, but did you really believe an hour of prime time on channel 4 the week of a hirst retrospective was ever going to offer a truly balanced view? Albeit they did offer both sides.