But as a result of inadequate preservation efforts, time was not kind to the original, which slowly decomposed until its form changed, its skin grew deeply wrinkled, and the solution in the tank turned murky. (It didn’t help that the Saatchi Gallery added bleach to the solution, hastening the decay, staff members at Mr. Hirst’s studio said.) In 1993 Mr. Saatchi’s curators finally had the shark skinned and stretched the skin over a fiberglass mold.



“It didn’t look as frightening,’’ Mr. Hirst recalled. “You could tell it wasn’t real. It had no weight.’’

[...]

Mr. Hirst acknowledges that once the shark is replaced, art historians will argue that the piece cannot be considered the same artwork. “It’s a big dilemma,’’ he said. “Artists and conservators have different opinions about what’s important: the original artwork or the original intention. I come from a Conceptual art background, so I think it should be the intention. It’s the same piece. But the jury will be out for a long time to come.’’

just a comma,,,,
- dave 9-30-2006 5:04 pm [add a comment]

where,,,?
- bill 9-30-2006 6:03 pm [add a comment]

just a joke. made me think of bushs remark about footnotes in history. as in, people shouldnt worry about whether or not its the same piece, they should just let god (or his artworld equivalent) sort it out.
- dave 9-30-2006 6:10 pm [add a comment]

just a coma in art history survey 101. big sharks dont sleep, big sharks dont sleep.
- bill 9-30-2006 6:14 pm [add a comment]

Trophy hunting is atavistic, and not in a good way.
- mark 9-30-2006 10:19 pm [add a comment]