The $98M Skull

June 1, 2007 3:32 PM

Diamond Encrusted Skull Filter. British Artist Damien Hirst has unveiled a diamond encrusted skull cast with a cool 50 million quid asking price. P Diddy expected to turn up with a bin bag full of readies any minute.
posted by ClanvidHorse (84 comments total)

Fuck that. I want half a cow encrusted with diamonds.
posted by adamrice at 3:34 PM on June 1, 2007

It's beautiful.
posted by fire&wings at 3:47 PM on June 1, 2007

that is some fugly bling.

would be much better without the weird decorative pink diamond on the forehead. diamonds are so passe, anyway. it's the real teeth that make this (mildly) interesting.
posted by lapolla at 3:50 PM on June 1, 2007

Better picture of skull here.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 3:52 PM on June 1, 2007

It seems like something I would pick up in a twisty little passage and eventually put in a trophy case.
posted by Wolfdog at 3:57 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

God, I wish someone would slice Hirst into segments and put his pieces on display. Because I might pay to see that.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:58 PM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]

Mr Hirst is a rather controversial figure.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:01 PM on June 1, 2007

From what I've seen and read about his work, I'd say this might be his "masterpiece". I like it.
posted by snsranch at 4:03 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

What, no grill?
posted by sciurus at 4:03 PM on June 1, 2007

You know Helmut Swarovski is on the phone to every cemetery and medical school after seeing this.
posted by boo_radley at 4:07 PM on June 1, 2007

The skull, cast from a 35-year-old 18th-century European male...

So it's not a real skull? Poseur.
posted by porpoise at 4:09 PM on June 1, 2007

love it.
thanks.
posted by garethspor at 4:09 PM on June 1, 2007

Damien Hirst is a talentless hack twat.
posted by stenseng at 4:18 PM on June 1, 2007

Cast in platinum, though, porpoise. How cool is that?

I wonder how many thousands of people could be saved from death by starvation/aids/whatever with what that thing costs?
posted by luriete at 4:20 PM on June 1, 2007

I've always found bones of all kinds to be beautiful aesthetic objects in their own right. And I must say, though I was prepared to dislike anything from Hirst, whom I consider something of a charlatan, I think this is quite lovely. Also rather funny. But the ornamental touch of the big diamond (and surrounding design) on the forehead kind of ruins it for me. I think it would have been much more powerful without it. The purity and perfection of the skull's design is subverted by this unecessary and distracting decorative touch.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:21 PM on June 1, 2007

"Fuck that. I want half a cow encrusted with diamonds."

I want a human skull encrusted with half of a cow.

Skullburger.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:22 PM on June 1, 2007 [4 favorites]

You know, I've read more about Hirst than actually seen his art, but looking around at some images online, I really like what I see. There's a poignancy to it....
posted by mr_roboto at 4:23 PM on June 1, 2007

Damien Hirst is a talentless hack twat.

Damien Hirst is a rich talentless hack twat.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:23 PM on June 1, 2007

You know what?
When I saw it on us.cnn.com, I found it ugly (in a kitschy cute way) but when I learned it was from Hirst I thought: "Cool, he is after eternity".
A few line down, I read:

"It shows we are not going to live for ever. But it also has a feeling of victory over death," Hirst said.

I am all for victory over death.

That's exactly what art is for: about our dreams and fears.
It's still ugly but worth every cent of his asking price.
Hirst just went up a notch in my art world.
posted by bru at 4:24 PM on June 1, 2007

"It shows we are not going to live for ever. But it also has a feeling of victory over death,"

*throws up a little bit in mouth, then, wincingly, swallows*
posted by brundlefly at 4:25 PM on June 1, 2007

Sorry! Wrong URL in my last comment upthread.

This is what I meant to share: Ho, Ho, Ho [NSFW]
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:27 PM on June 1, 2007

I'm kinda disheartened that it's not a real skull.
posted by triolus at 4:27 PM on June 1, 2007

P Diddy expected to turn up with a bin bag full of readies any minute.

And for those of us who speak English...?
posted by wfc123 at 4:27 PM on June 1, 2007

Get it right guys, he's just "Diddy" now.
posted by KingoftheWhales at 4:30 PM on June 1, 2007

note to diddy: been there, done that.
posted by phaedon at 4:41 PM on June 1, 2007

ars longa, vita brevis

bravo Hirst... bravo.
posted by futureproof at 4:49 PM on June 1, 2007

luriete - Cast in platinum, though, porpoise. How cool is that?

Ok, well, platinum is a nifty element.

If he had cast it in elemental calcium and used diamonds to encase the calcium metal from contacting air/moisture and exploding...
posted by porpoise at 4:55 PM on June 1, 2007

I saw this and I could not stop laughing. I basically had this idea years ago.

Except I used a very realistic resin monkey skull, and swarovski crystals and gold leafing. Oh, and big cubic zirconia eyeballs.

I called my creation Bling-Monkey. He sat at work for quite a while and now watches over me when I sleep.

I got the idea when I realized that people were using those swarovski crystals on everything, I found I could get them really cheap at the craft store and I decided that I wanted to 'bling' the most unlikely thing I could get my hands on. I discovered the monkey skull at American Science and Surplus, and the legend was born.

And instead of $98 mil, it cost me about $12.
posted by quin at 5:02 PM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]

very cool piece of bling!
posted by jcruelty at 5:02 PM on June 1, 2007

Pix, quin? I wanna see.
posted by oflinkey at 5:10 PM on June 1, 2007

I want a human-skull-encrusted with half of a cow.
posted by Wolfdog at 5:12 PM on June 1, 2007

It is well made but a waste of money and effort.
I know what a bin bag is but what are "readies"? Cash?
posted by Iron Rat at 5:13 PM on June 1, 2007

mitchell-hedges skull
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:18 PM on June 1, 2007

This thread swings.
posted by Mblue at 5:20 PM on June 1, 2007

Ah! Crystal skulls. Very scientific.
The Mitchell-Hedges skull was featured on That's Incredible! and frightened young wolfpup badly.
posted by Wolfdog at 5:24 PM on June 1, 2007

That would have been so cool to have had in Jr High.
posted by PHINC at 5:25 PM on June 1, 2007

I love the Mitchell-Hedges skull. Because it illicits reactions like; ...as one HP researcher is said to have remarked, "The damned thing simply shouldn't be.

I love that it actually exists and no one can figure out why. That rules.
posted by quin at 5:28 PM on June 1, 2007

I think that one's been pretty well figured out, quin.
posted by Wolfdog at 5:30 PM on June 1, 2007

I'll buy it and use it as a place to keep my grill.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 5:36 PM on June 1, 2007

/sulks

Suck. I will choose to continue to believe that it was made a long time ago by some very clever people with more patience that common sense.

/brightens up

Which I suppose is technically still true.
posted by quin at 5:44 PM on June 1, 2007

A little glam, a little emo. I like it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:54 PM on June 1, 2007

Alas, rich Yorick!
posted by william_boot at 5:55 PM on June 1, 2007 [5 favorites]

I want his glasses.
posted by everichon at 5:59 PM on June 1, 2007

a little pabst, a coupla friends...
posted by phaedon at 6:06 PM on June 1, 2007

Whoda thunk what seemed like was going a thread discussing the finer points of art vs. publicity has actually turned into a lesson about crystal skulls (of which I previously knew nothing about).

What surprises, and kind of saddens, me is that the "believers" in the crystal skull's power continue to claim/believe they hold power because of their supposed "impossible" nature. All evidence to the contrary, all far more believable, is tossed out in lieu of saying "no, no, they're like... WAY magical and stuff".

Though, I'm sure the proponents of the myth are well aware of the fakery, but that won't stop them shilling books and other knick-knacks to believers of ancient craft.

Come to think of it, one could make a near-identical argument on ID vs Evolution.

Hmm..
thanx mefi!
posted by revmitcz at 6:07 PM on June 1, 2007

That's a lot of money for a handful of stupid little bits of carbon whose worth is artificially bolted to the stratosphere by the devious acts of a single corporation.
posted by Rhomboid at 6:08 PM on June 1, 2007

Anyone care to say why he or she doesn't like it? I don't think it's the greatest work of art ever, but I'm honestly confused as to why it immediately inspires such derision. Is it just a case of LOLMODERNART or is there something more substantial behind the snarks?
posted by treepour at 6:10 PM on June 1, 2007

treepour Can't speak for anyone else but in my case I don't like it because a) its ugly, b) its ugly, and c) its ugly.

Additionally, it looks like the kind of goth-crap I'd expect to see thirteen year olds who are "really into" vampires make out of stick on costume jewelry and a plaster skull.

Also, diamonds are pretty much my least favorite precious stone. They're a racket set up by De Beers and all too many are produced by slave labor. How people do you suppose died mining those diamonds so that some rich British twit could make a "statement" about death?
posted by sotonohito at 6:23 PM on June 1, 2007

God what a hack.
posted by delmoi at 6:36 PM on June 1, 2007

I don't think it says anything about victory over death. Maybe something about using wealth to give the appearance of victory over death [via plastic surgery, botox, etc.]. To me it seems gaudy, decadent, and a polysemous exemplar of contemporary death-fascination; in trivial ways, such as the stuff mentioned above, but also in terms of glorifying Death [via war, genocide, etc]. I think the richness of materials is supposed to make people feel aghast at the costliness, more than making a statement about Death.

I might be talking out of my ass here, but it is my impression that traditionally, art becomes valuable [in terms of $$] based on what Walter Benjamin calls its aura; a sort of complicated equation based on its originality [one-of-a-kindness], its longevity [how long it has been around], and its context [art history].

Currently, to me, the aura of this object seems to be fully resting on its originality; an originality that is heavily dependent on the rarity and expense of the materials. I don't think it is bad [perhaps a bit kitschy], but I do think it is sad.
posted by sciurus at 6:39 PM on June 1, 2007

The art world right now is outrageous - with capitalism taking off all over the world - Russia, China, India, Middle East - tons of money is being spent on art to fill the hallways and bedrooms of every billionaires 12 empty mansions. It's like what happened in America around the turn of the 20th century when guilded age barons bought up European masterpieces and created national museums in the process. Now the rest of the world is catching up but with many of the old masters gone, new artists have become the vouge, like brand names, once a name becomes hot, everyone wants it. The diamond skull is a sort of symbolism perhaps, a lifeless skeleton whose value is it is fungible.
posted by stbalbach at 6:42 PM on June 1, 2007

I love Damien Hirst, I used to work in the building that houses his "Mother and Child Divided". The work is is conveniently placed by a window, near the building's main entrance, so I saw it every day, and I never got tired of it. The shark in a tank thing that I can't remember the name of is neat too.

sotonohito: Did you miss the part in the article where Hirst stresses that the diamonds are ethically sourced? Of course, he might be wrong, but it seems he's at least not ignorant of the issue.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 6:47 PM on June 1, 2007

Thanks, sotonohito. As far as ugliness goes, I'm not sure it's going for beauty -- art and beauty went separate ways quite a long time ago, and have had quite a volatile relationship (or lack thereof) ever since.

It does look kind of goth, I'll give you that. But how can a skull -- especially one with shiny stuff on it -- not look goth? Ancient cathedrals with gargoyles look "goth" too, at this specific moment in history, but that doesn't diminish their worth.

I'm no fan of diamonds, either. But what difference does it make whether they're used to decorate a skull or used to make jewelry? I don't think Hirst is going to single-handedly boost the diamond market by making this piece of art. Moreover, the costliness (both in terms of monetary value and in terms of human lives and misery) may be part of the point. The power of the work (if it does have any power) would seem to be related to the fact that the skull is covered with something rare that humans, worldwide, deeply covet. To me, Hirst isn't advocating that people covet diamonds -- rather, he's incorporating the fact that they do covet diamonds into the conceptual "space" of the piece.
posted by treepour at 6:49 PM on June 1, 2007

sotonohito writes "Also, diamonds are pretty much my least favorite precious stone. They're a racket set up by De Beers and all too many are produced by slave labor. How people do you suppose died mining those diamonds so that some rich British twit could make a 'statement' about death?"

Well, I don't really think art mediums should be subject to too much political correctness. What I see is death compounded, like death upon death, so much pain going into the creation of those stones, glittering like crazy all over a stark symbol of death cast in platinum. Seems like a deliberate choice. It's a stunning image. I don't necessarily think this is a pivotal work, though. It's interesting and sort of compelling, but it's more craft than art to me in execution.

Of course, he stands to make a lot of money, so not sure about his own motives.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:04 PM on June 1, 2007

Joakim Ziegler writes "sotonohito: Did you miss the part in the article where Hirst stresses that the diamonds are ethically sourced?"

Ah, guess I missed that, too ...
posted by krinklyfig at 7:07 PM on June 1, 2007

Joakim Ziegler Um... Yes, I did miss that part of the article. To be honest, I saw the picture and read the first couple of sentences and that was about it. Still doesn't change the fact that it looks like a particularly trashy bit of 13 year old goth-kitsch, but that is (of course) a matter of opinion. I don't like it, but I won't insist that others not like it, or that my opinion is somehow better or more important than anyone else's. I replied strictly because treepour asked for comments explaining why people didn't like it.

treepour Naturally, I meant "goth" strictly in the modern "oh, the angst of existence is so much that I must wear all black and a lot of eyeliner" sense, not the architectual sense.

I think another part of it is that I'm rather accutely aware of the fact that diamonds are not, in any sense, rare but rather have an artificially elevated price due to the near monopoly held by De Beers; virtually every other gemstone is less common than diamonds are. To me that makes the idea that its statement involves "something rare that humans, worldwide, deeply covet" kind of silly.

Another large part of my dislike for the piece is that it strikes me as "Emperor's New Clothes" art. It didn't take any particular skill to produce, it doesn't involve a new concept, etc. The only reason people are even looking at it is becuase the guy is famous, and to be honest I don't much care for his other works either. Any idiot can put a shark into a big vat of formaldehyde, why should I be impressed because he did? I suffer from the "hell, I could do that" syndrome when it comes to art.

As for the materials, I can't really see them as being particularly relevant to the artistic merit of the piece. I know that the artist himself has stated that he believes that the materials and the price *are* relevant, but I don't see it.

There's also the romanticization of death he's indulging in here. I know that fear of death results in fascination with death, but its something that just plain doesn't appeal to me. I know I'm mortal, thanks, I don't need a diamond crusted platinum skull to remind me, and I'd argue that anyone who does need such an artifcat to remind them of their own mortality has gone way over the line into the realm of huburis.
posted by sotonohito at 7:10 PM on June 1, 2007

well, it's not going to be worth anything at a pawn shop
posted by pokermonk at 7:21 PM on June 1, 2007

I don't see any qualitative ground rules being laid out for hating this piece.

that being said, i feel an unavoidable sense of immaturity overwhelm me when i look at this guy's work, and i can't tell if it's emanating from the artist, or the artist's work. on the one hand, it is a relatively simple image of capitalist largesse - the diamond - infused into one of the most overused icons of death - the human skull. clap, clap. on the other hand, i can't help but think that "i'm an overwrought, stinking piece of shit, now come look at me" is a well-established theme in postmodern art, one that despite my wholesale rejection, i can identify with. and to this extent, i find the "ethical sourcing" of the diamonds disappointing.

the notion of high art is a sham anyway, similar to one philosophers actively employ when they talk about certain terms such as "T"ruth - with a capital first letter - to delineate the meaning of an objective concept, versus the kind of truth we talk about in everyday conversation, which may not be as epistemologically demanding. as post-modernism engages its attack, these objectivist positions have less and less to do with making empirical counterclaims and focus more on upholding an intellectual tradition that has become increasingly isolated. in this sense, i get the feeling that hirst said "fuck it" to critics a long time ago and decided to do his own thing, and for that i'm glad for him.
posted by phaedon at 7:25 PM on June 1, 2007

Damien Hirst is a talentless hack twat.

Damien Hirst is a rich talentless hack twat.

Then he and Bansky must have loads to talk about.
posted by humannaire at 7:27 PM on June 1, 2007

oflinkey : Pix, quin? I wanna see.

Hastily taken, I present you with Bling-Monkey one and two.

The one on the right is the original version in which I had to hand drill all the holes to set the crystals. It's plainer, but it took more work. The second one uses surface mount, flat backed crystals. Easier to add, though not quite as cool looking.

If I ever get around to it, I do want to add a couple more crystals here and there. But I am a lazy, lazy man.

And if you find them to be a bit tacky, then I believe I've done my job.
posted by quin at 7:32 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

Hirst, who has a preoccupation with blood and death and whose works range from diced and pickled quadrupeds to bloody depictions of birth

Hirst has never diced a carcass for his art, as far as I know. Perhaps in his kitchen rather his studio, making some Kung Pao. The interest lies in big, recognizable bisections of animals.

If you buy one of his pieces involving mute yet eloquent carnage, be prepared for the cost of expert ongoing maintenance involving replenishing and/or replacing chemical solutions every few years, and I don't think the work will last as long as, say, a marble statue.

The diamond-encrusted platinum skull, which I love, must have a chance to last for millenia!
posted by longsleeves at 7:37 PM on June 1, 2007

that looks more like a meticulously carved and adorned macadamia nut to me, quin.
posted by phaedon at 7:37 PM on June 1, 2007

Metafilter: a meticulously carved and adorned macadamia nut

(?)
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:42 PM on June 1, 2007

It is art but it is more timeless than contemporary art," he said.

MORE TIMELESS THAN CONTEMPORARY ART?

Sorry, but this is the first time in my ten years of internet posting that I have used cap lock.

Hirst has a God complex.

I have a huge tolerance for kicking out the fine art paradigms...but this is just stupid.
posted by kozad at 8:24 PM on June 1, 2007

Damien Hirst, former BritArt bad boy whose works infuriate and inspire in equal measure

"Oh that reminds me I really must clean the fish tank when I get home" hardly counts as inspiration.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:36 PM on June 1, 2007

Birch wood
posted by hortense at 8:39 PM on June 1, 2007

Okay people, I admit -- I'm with the LOLMODERNART crowd.

I spent a year of my ongoing college education studying ancient, classical (classical with a "C" and "c") and modern art and was only genuinely disappointed when we got to modern art. What struck me more than anything was how utterly pretentious and profit-driven modern art had become – which is ironic, as some modernism (like dada^, for example) began as an expressly political, anti-authoritarian means of expression.

At some point (or at various points) in history, art and its appreciation became more about the Artist and wondering-what-sort-of-avantgarde-thing-he’s-going-to-do-next-and-oh-my-goodness-his-last-piece-fetched-30million-at-sothebys-isn’t-that-amazing-ism than about the, you know, art. And I mean "art" in the sense that we still sometimes use that word: meaning "skilled practice".

My point being, if Mr. Avenger was well regarded in the art world, he could dismember a male cadaver, stick its head on a silver platter, stick its amputated penis sideways into its mouth, title it “Toilet Paper on sale. 3 Rolls for $2.49” and be praised as true Artiste’ who deeply understands the human condition and is Searching For Something Transcendent In All Of Us.

Fuck off, art. I’m done with you.
posted by Avenger at 9:00 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

Man, if I had an incredible amount of wealth just sitting around, I'd encrust skulls with diamonds too.

I'd get all Art Fag on this and respond to some of the comments regarding Deeper Meaning, but uh, I just got home from work and I'm tired and hungry, so I'm just going to leave it at "It reminds me of pirates. Pirates being the big thing right now. Everyone wants to be a pirate. YAARRRRR. Maybe he should go for a Johnny Depp/Jack Sparrow tie in."
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:18 PM on June 1, 2007

Maybe I am wrong, I am not in Hirst's head, but I think the diamonds and platinum are not there for their cost but because they are both absolute symbols of durability. True or not, platinum is perceived as the toughest metal, diamond as the hardest stone.

Hirst is not trying to make an object but to make a symbol. In a single object he mixes extreme durability and extreme fragility (ours).

quin, I love your Blings-Monkeys. They are not that much different from what Hirst did. What Hirst has, though, is the ability to manipulate symbols in the public sphere. He is good at it. And that's what people buy: symbols. It has been a very long time since the last time rich people bought art to decorate their walls. They buy symbols. Status. Possession of the magical powers of the symbols embedded in art.

And if there are powerful basic symbols about art, one of the most important is "standing the test of time". It began long before it was even called art. Lascaux, Stonehenge, the Pyramids, temples, cathedrals are all machines engineered to produce immortality.

This obscene bling-bling skull is also such a magnet because it comes at the right time, when bio-engineers and cyber-neurologists are approaching the resolution to manipulate our data, in meatspace and in cyberspace, probably both at the same time

And sure, what do you think? Rich people want to be there first. They'll buy this hideous lucky charm. Because it is asking a very good question.
posted by bru at 9:36 PM on June 1, 2007

... a priceless question.
posted by bru at 9:46 PM on June 1, 2007

That's a lot of money for a handful of stupid little bits of carbon whose worth is artificially bolted to the stratosphere by the devious acts of a single corporation.

I like my Dixon Ticonderoga Company No. 2 pencils, thank you very much.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:10 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

If you buy one of his pieces involving mute yet eloquent carnage, be prepared for the cost of expert ongoing maintenance involving replenishing and/or replacing chemical solutions every few years, and I don't think the work will last as long as, say, a marble statue.

It's true that such "statuesque" preservation of guts is difficult, but it's not altogether unprecedented.
posted by macrowave at 10:47 PM on June 1, 2007

I saw a picture of the diamond-encrusted skull yesterday, and had one immediate reaction:

Is Hirst deliberately trying to get this thing stolen by pirates?
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:29 AM on June 2, 2007 [1 favorite]

Whether it's Hirst's intention or not, this piece actually makes me think of diamonds and death together, and in that sense powerfully undermines the association -- built up by years of diamond industry advertising -- between diamonds and love (=new life). It could be a perfect symbol for the anti-blood-diamond movement, no?
posted by spitbull at 5:58 AM on June 2, 2007

Private Collection: Steals 8% life, 7% mana
Public Display: Visitor takes 40 damage
posted by redteam at 7:05 AM on June 2, 2007 [2 favorites]

Yeah, I'm going nowhere near that thing. Last time I went near a jewel-encrusted skull, half my party had their souls trapped.
posted by adipocere at 7:13 AM on June 2, 2007 [1 favorite]

delmoi writes "God what a hack."

I always thought that too. But then I saw these and they changed my mind. Still in the dead animals vein, but not talentless at all.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 8:56 AM on June 2, 2007 [1 favorite]

I wonder how many thousands of people could be saved from death by starvation/aids/whatever with what that thing costs?

Probably about the same as could be saved with the profits pharmaceutical companies (or any other large industy) make every hour.

So what's your point?

Beautiful skull. Hirst rocks.

He rejected suggestions that his works were more a standing joke against the art establishment than real works of art.

LOVE it. Kudos.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:18 AM on June 2, 2007

Where's the phylactery for this demi-lich? This thing is in CRAZY epic levels with all those gems on it.
posted by ScotchLynx at 11:25 AM on June 2, 2007

quin, I LOVE the Bling Monkeys. You rock.
posted by BoringPostcards at 3:20 PM on June 2, 2007

Thanks. I always thought that my descent into madness would be much more violent. Turns out it's just me making weird shit.

I guess the violence comes later.
posted by quin at 3:59 PM on June 2, 2007

I'm probably too late too the thread for anyone to read this, but I'm going to post it anyway. I saw the skull on BBC news this evening and immediately fell in love with it.

Several things occurred to me all at once, and I laughed out loud.

One thing that no-one has mentioned is the title: "For the love of God" which is the thing that really makes this work for me.

There have been a great many beautiful things made "for the love of God", throughout most of human history. I have a soft spot for cathedrals. Using the most precious materials to make a replica of the structure that contains God's finest work, that could be an act of worship as easily as an act of artistry. Or (and?) he has made a gloriously showy indulgent copy of the place where we all live, that will persist in a way the real thing rarely does.

Also, here in the UK the phrase "For the love of God" is used the same way as "For fuck's sake", which was another of my initial reactions. The sheer pointless indulgence of the thing amazes me.

I just booked a spot to go and see it for real.
posted by Gamecat at 7:51 PM on June 2, 2007

It's perhaps slightly less tasteless (but only slightly) to convert your loved one's ashes to a diamond.

But it would have been hyperbolic -- out-Hirsting Hirst's themes -- for Hirst to create his Diamond Skull using diiamonds synthesized in this manner from human ashes. He would also evade using African blood diamonds.
posted by bad grammar at 8:44 PM on June 2, 2007

"Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 9:05 PM on June 3, 2007