Cleaner becomes art critic...

Hirst's works often draw a crowd

Three people?

Two points. People (like Hirst) who see things in a metaphorical way usually get paid more than people (like the cleaner) who see things in a literal way. Symbolic thinking is simply a more advanced cognitive skill which deserves recognition and remuneration.

Secondly, although I'm not a huge fan of Hirst's work, I thought the high point of his show at Gagosian this year was the series of shabby vitrines filled with bar heaters, tabloid newspapers, half-eaten sandwiches and the like. These works really summed up the shabbiness of 20th century Britain. The cleaner was taken in because they were actually incredibly realistic little collages of shoddy, shabby British detritus. It wouldn't be the first time a piece of satire has passed for the thing it's lampooning. (Thinks back to his own savage Stock, Aitken and Waterman pastiches fooling the folks at daytime Radio 1...)

I like Momus's rationale a lot and wish I had been aware of it as a small boy: when told by ma to clean up my stinking pigpit of a bedroom I could have taken a very arty line indeed, and perhaps gotten MORE POCKET MONEY FOR LEAVING IT AS IT WAS HURRAH!!!

In a way, the recreation of Hirst's partially tidied work destroys the concepual power of the piece--if the thing was just random trash to begin with, than alternative configurations of said trash should be equally valid as artwork whether created by Hirst, the Janitor, or a gallery assistant. Postmodernism=the author is dead right? So fuck Hirst, give the janitor a show!

Momus, your point about metaphoric thinking seems a bit out of context. The issue here is more about what kinds of vocations are priviliged. Who knows, maybe this janitor was aware of Hirst's work and was simply making a practical joke??