> Would Andy praise Damien today ...?
I'm sure he would.
> Why you'd want to compare him with Warhol is beyond me.
Because in a lot of criticism I read the two are linked, as if Hirst is taking what Warhol did to a logical extension. I don't think that's the case.
>> Meanwhile, what he's selling has gotten less and less interesting.
>> That never happened with Warhol.
>
> So we're back to "I don't like it" are we?
I don't know. Could be. Some things *are* better than others though.
> Art isn't like sport: there's room for a million "winners" (unlike, say, "Super Bowl Champions")
But there's only one Turner Prize winner and this points up one thing that bugs me about Hirst. He's participating in, I won't say causing, a process that leans toward turning art into a kind of financial blood sport. But, as you say, there's a lot of wiggle room and art is nothing if not slippery.