Unlike you, I don't pretend I know enough about the circumstances of Hirst's cases to lay down judgment. I know next to nothing about the art he produces, just enough to understand that perhaps he's doing something more impressive than I think he is. With that as context, there's a possibility that there's more to the lawsuits than the media is showing, and so I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry, omitted a word. A very bad person. Shutting down soneone's elses art because it includes, among several other things, a picture of one of your own, clearly used to make a social commentary about art, is shitty. Especailly since that particular Hirst piece is itself derivative if not an outright copy. No pretending.
Unlike you, I don't pretend I know enough about the circumstances of Hirst's cases to lay down judgment. I know next to nothing about the art he produces, just enough to understand that perhaps he's doing something more impressive than I think he is. With that as context, there's a possibility that there's more to the lawsuits than the media is showing, and so I give him the benefit of the doubt.