Damien Hirst takes the rich for a ride
Anyone following the record-breaking Sotheby's sale of Damien Hirst's work can't help but be stunned by the extraordinary sums of money being spent on the equivalent of flea market junk.
The sale is groundbreaking as Sotheby's, and other auction houses, do not generally auction new art. In this case however, they requested that Hirst assemble new works for this sale and the results have been quite remarkable. Hirst is a well-known money-making machine in the art world ( making a diamond encrusted skull that sold for 100 million dollars), and Sotheby's is as greedy as any other corporate animal.
This is not to say, however, that this stuff for sale is actually worth the money being spent. Most of what is for sale is the worst sort of 'what can we make them buy now?' mash-ups of dead animals and assorted detritus, gilded and set in glass cases, and mass produced in Hirst's studios by about 200 unnamed workers.
But this is of little matter to those involved. What constitutes the value of a piece at any given time is how much money a person is willing to spend for it. Right now someone with more money than sense is spending a packet on a stuffed dead horse with a narwhale's horn on it, supposedly passing as a unicorn. It is no surprise to find that this particular object does not hold it's value in the centuries to come.
Hirst's determination to removed the middleman (the gallery) from equation and go straight to the people is admirable, except that his target market is not the general public, it is those with the deepest of pockets and very little going on upstairs. Most who read this blog will not be spending 10.3 million pounds on a cow that is in a tank of formaldehyde with gilded hoofs and horns, called The Golden Calf, nor would they if availed of the chance to do so.
Damien Hirst is one of the best selling contemporary artists of our time, which shows you in a nutshell how bizarre the modern art collecting world has become. The man's work is a bunch of nonsense and yet who is the bigger fool, the one who creates this stuff or the one who buys it? I would definitely say the latter.
So Damien, you rock on with your bad self and I'll have you know I agree with your approach in a small sense. It is good to break the current standard that says all art of value should be sold through a gallery, as if that action somehow validates the work. However many galleries work very hard to represent their artists and promote/sell/ship etc., allowing the artist more time to create. There is room in the art world for both approaches.
I believe the reason that the galleries have so much stature has less to do with their hold over the artists and the market and more to do with the individual collector's inability to trust his own judgement. Without the intermediary telling them that this or that particular artist is collectable or 'good', the average person is afraid of purchasing a piece of art that they like.
And case in point, the ability to make these bad decisions is being showcased right now by individuals without knowledgeable guidance at this Hirst show!
Hirst and his money-making schemes aside (and that is all that this Sotheby's auction is), I say to anyone out there who want to buy a piece of art -- if you like it, buy it! If you enjoy looking at a painting or sculpture then it is worth whatever you paid for it, $5 or $5M.
And if you really want a shark encased in glass and floating in formaldehyde, Hirst just sold one for 9.5 million pounds but the Stuckist art movement is offering one for just 1 million -- a real steal!
The sale is groundbreaking as Sotheby's, and other auction houses, do not generally auction new art. In this case however, they requested that Hirst assemble new works for this sale and the results have been quite remarkable. Hirst is a well-known money-making machine in the art world ( making a diamond encrusted skull that sold for 100 million dollars), and Sotheby's is as greedy as any other corporate animal.
This is not to say, however, that this stuff for sale is actually worth the money being spent. Most of what is for sale is the worst sort of 'what can we make them buy now?' mash-ups of dead animals and assorted detritus, gilded and set in glass cases, and mass produced in Hirst's studios by about 200 unnamed workers.
But this is of little matter to those involved. What constitutes the value of a piece at any given time is how much money a person is willing to spend for it. Right now someone with more money than sense is spending a packet on a stuffed dead horse with a narwhale's horn on it, supposedly passing as a unicorn. It is no surprise to find that this particular object does not hold it's value in the centuries to come.
Hirst's determination to removed the middleman (the gallery) from equation and go straight to the people is admirable, except that his target market is not the general public, it is those with the deepest of pockets and very little going on upstairs. Most who read this blog will not be spending 10.3 million pounds on a cow that is in a tank of formaldehyde with gilded hoofs and horns, called The Golden Calf, nor would they if availed of the chance to do so.
Damien Hirst is one of the best selling contemporary artists of our time, which shows you in a nutshell how bizarre the modern art collecting world has become. The man's work is a bunch of nonsense and yet who is the bigger fool, the one who creates this stuff or the one who buys it? I would definitely say the latter.
So Damien, you rock on with your bad self and I'll have you know I agree with your approach in a small sense. It is good to break the current standard that says all art of value should be sold through a gallery, as if that action somehow validates the work. However many galleries work very hard to represent their artists and promote/sell/ship etc., allowing the artist more time to create. There is room in the art world for both approaches.
I believe the reason that the galleries have so much stature has less to do with their hold over the artists and the market and more to do with the individual collector's inability to trust his own judgement. Without the intermediary telling them that this or that particular artist is collectable or 'good', the average person is afraid of purchasing a piece of art that they like.
And case in point, the ability to make these bad decisions is being showcased right now by individuals without knowledgeable guidance at this Hirst show!
Hirst and his money-making schemes aside (and that is all that this Sotheby's auction is), I say to anyone out there who want to buy a piece of art -- if you like it, buy it! If you enjoy looking at a painting or sculpture then it is worth whatever you paid for it, $5 or $5M.
And if you really want a shark encased in glass and floating in formaldehyde, Hirst just sold one for 9.5 million pounds but the Stuckist art movement is offering one for just 1 million -- a real steal!
No comments:
Post a Comment