SHEEP SABOTAGE 'WAS ARTISTIC STATEMENT'
By Mary Braid (From The Independent, 17th August 1994.)
An unemployed artist poured black ink into a tank containing a 'sculpture' of a dead sheep and
then replaced its "Away from the Flock" exhibit tag with the label "Mark Bridger – Black
Sheep, May 9, 1994," a court was told yesterday.
As the ink spread through the formaldehyde solution - completely obscuring the controversial
work, values at twenty five thousand pounds sterling, by the artist Damien Hirst - Mr.
Bridger, 35, smiled and nodded to an art student who was watching in disbelief before
walking calmly from London's Serpentine Gallery, Bow Street magistrates were told.
Mr. Bridger told police later that he was making an artistic statement. "The work is intended
to provoke a response so I didn't think this would be against the wishes of the artist," he said,
in a taped interview played in court.
Mr. Bridger, who gave a gallery assistant his calling card when he was challenged, has
pleaded not guilty to criminal damage.
Although, Chuck Nduka-Eze, for the prosecution, said it cost one thousand pounds sterling to
clean up the dead sheep before it could go back on display, Mr. Bridger said that he had not
damaged , but changed, the work. He suggested his "positive contribution might have even
increased the sculpture's value."
In the taped interview, which provoked giggles in court, a police officer struggled to introduce
the work of art in conversation before referring to it as an object "which for want of a better
word, is a dead sheep". Mr. Bridger suggested "an ex-sheep" might be a more appropriate
description; a "sheep that is no longer" was also mentioned.
Mr. Bridger agreed with police that the dead sheep was completely obscured by the ink but
defended his position with "people know there is a sheep there."
Mr. Bridger, of Honeywood House, Shotover Hill, Oxford, said he agreed with the art critic
Brian Sewell that controversial works should not be financially supported by the
establishment.
He claimed he had not gone to the gallery with any particular intention but after seeing the
work decided the addition of the black solution was "appropriate" and retired to a local art
shop to buy some ink.
He said (he) had read an interview with Mr. Hirst in which he said that the worst thing that
could happen would be that someone walked into the gallery and out again with no response.
Mr. Nduka-Eze said any damage, even temporary, was enough to make Mr. Bridger guilty.
Howard Wilson, Mr. Bridger's solicitor, said he would be contesting whether Mr. Hirst's work
had been damaged and arguing that his client believed that he had the artist's consent to
change the work.
He would also explore the possibility that its value had increased, undermining claims that it
was damaged. Jeremy Conner, the stipendiary magistrate, adjourned the case until tomorrow
so that Mr. Hirst, currently at the Edinburgh Festival with his "sculpture" of live rats, could
give evidence.
Questions for Consideration.
1. In what 2 ways did Mark Bridger tamper with the artwork?


He poured black ink into a tank containing the 'sculpture' of the dead sheep.
He replaced its "Away from the Flock" exhibit tag with the label "Mark Bridger –
Black Sheep, May 9, 1994,"
2. What value is placed on the original artwork and by whom?

Twenty-five thousand pounds sterling, by the artist Damien Hirst.
3. Is this value legitimate or not?
 I don’t think so.
4. How did Mark Bridger defend his actions and how does this relate to the original artist’s
intention?
 He assumed he had the author’s consent.
 "The work is intended to provoke a response so I didn't think this would be against the
wishes of the artist,"
5. What does the art critic Brian Sewell mean when he says that: “controversial works should
not be financially supported by the establishment”?
6. In your opinion was Mr. Hirst’s work damaged or improved by Mr. Bridger?

It was improved but damaged for the artist.
‘Discuss in small groups and then write a 500 word piece on one of
the following.
1. A defence of Mr. Hirst and his original artwork “Away from the Flock.”
2. A defence – on artistic grounds – of Mr. Bridger’s actions.