Tom Lubbock. Says so right up top. He also writes the Great Works series. My opinion is separate from Lubbock's, but I'll chip in and say that "significance" i

Tom Lubbock. Says so right up top. He also writes the Great Works series. My opinion is separate from Lubbock's, but I'll chip in and say that "significance" is a crock of shit in the art world, up there with "important". Art is either good or it's bad. In my opinion, Hirst's is bad, and I've never seen a good argument explaining otherwise. He sells controversy. He's like Warhol but less inspired, less attractive, and less witty. Picasso was controversial, but it was never doubted that he produced bad artwork. He was a master of realism in his before he attempted anything more. Rothko I don't understand myself, but I saw a gallery of his work over the weekend and it looks impressive hanging on walls. It doesn't speak to me, because I don't get what makes his work impressive, but I see it and can imagine there's something I'm missing. Hirst's paintings here look like paintings by my friends. That's the point of the article. Whether or not his other work is good, these paintings are bad, and they're shown here only because he is "significant". Lubbock isn't necessarily saying Hirst is talentless. He's saying his paintings lack merit. No amount of significance detracts from a bad painting.