Damien Hirst's paintings are talentless and phoney as hell. Hirst is the fake. His efforts to do "proper" paintings have revealed his total lack of artistic accomplishment. This exposure of his fundamental inability means that it is impossible to take him seriously any more, especially as a painter. While the best of his early animal vitrines have some kind of place in art history, his paintings – spin, spot or realist – are cynical stunts by a man who cannot actually paint. So how on earth can they be of value and why should it be a big deal to fake them?

I cannot follow the reasoning of Jonathan Jones; he thinks Hirst's work is without merit, and therefore no crime worthy of punishment is committed in passing off a fake.  Even if that is so (and no doubt there are other opinions) it is hardly the point; anyone laying down their hard earned for a Hirst, is entitled to receive a Hirst (whatever it's artistic merits) and not a fake, and they have been deceived if they don't.  With the greatest respect to Jones, the sin lies in the deception, and not in any necessarily personal and subjective assessment of quality of the item copied, or indeed in the item used to deceive.