Tuesday, 4 January 2011

Charity work

Damien Hirst’s unique Audi A1

One-off Audi Art Car auctioned for £350,000 at Elton John’s White Tie and Tiara Ball.

Audi A1 Art Car Damien Hirst

28th June 2010

Art Cars are normally the preserve of BMW. But Audi has got in on the act by commissioning superstar British artist Damien Hirst to create a one-off A1.

Hirst took delivery of one of the first cars built by the German firm, and created a new look heavily influenced by the artist’s famous spin painting technique.

The finished car, and accompanying 1.8-metre high painting, were then donated to Sir Elton John’s White Tie and Tiara Ball, where they were auctioned for the musician’s AIDs charity, netting a winning bid of £350,000.


Read more: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/253720/damien_hirsts_unique_audi_a1.html#ixzz1A47I2HEo

Monday, 3 January 2011

colourful by Jason

 
 

Damien Hirst Artwork Made of Thousands of Butterfly Wings Sells for 2 Million Pounds

by Jennifer Hattam, Istanbul, Turkey on 10.15.10
Culture & Celebrity

damien hirst butterfly painting image
Damien Hirst's painting "I Am Become Death, Shatterer of Worlds." Image via UKauctionnews.
An auction in London of work by a controversial British artist has fetched 2.2 million pounds for one strikingly beautiful, if subtly unsettling, piece -- a 17-foot-wide, 7-foot-tall red-gloss canvas covered entirely with the wings of thousands of real butterflies.
By the standards of 45-year-old artist Damien Hirst, the work, titled "I Am Become Death, Shatterer of Worlds" -- a line from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita quoted by Manhattan Project director J. Robert Oppenheimer after watching the test detonation of the first atomic bomb -- is not particularly shocking. This is, after all, the artist who once cut a cow in half and preserved it in a glass tank of formaldehyde.
Outrage from PETA
But the butterfly-wing works -- a group out of which "I Am Become Death" is the largest, but by no means the first -- have, not surprisingly, drawn outrage from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which called him a "sadist" for an earlier piece. The group similarly decried the butterfly-wing-covered bicycle Hirst made for Lance Armstrong as "barbaric and horrific."
As far as I can tell, Hirst hasn't provided any answer about how he obtains the butterfly wings -- specifically, whether they were killed for the sake of art or collected after they were already dead. And the artist certainly isn't anti-green: In 2008, The Independent placed him at #32 on its list of Britain's top 100 environmentalists based on the large number of solar cells he had installed on his country mansion and warehouses.
damien hirst butterfly painting image
Damien Hirst's "The Explosion." Image via Gagosian Gallery.
Speaking to the Daily Mail about the bike project, Hirst said he "wanted to use real butterflies and not just pictures of butterflies, because I wanted it to shimmer when the light catches it like only real butterflies do."
In that, he certainly seems to have succeeded. The Cleveland Plain Dealer described a similar piece displayed at the Cleveland Museum of Art, "Bringing Forth the Fruits of Righteousness from Darkness," as a "visually stunning" work "designed to resemble a trio of stained-glass windows from a Gothic cathedral [that] almost seems to emit light."
To me, though it doesn't settle all the qualms I might have about the piece, there is something about seeing the butterfly wings out of context, and in such great numbers, that really highlights the beauty found in the natural world, perhaps drawing attention to it in a way the butterflies themselves, flittering occasionally through the periphery of our vision, might not.

Bit of stuff

Jason

"In 1991, Hirst presented In and Out of Love, an installation for which he filled a gallery with hundreds of live tropical butterflies, some spawned from monochrome canvases on the wall. With The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (1991), his infamous tiger shark in a glass tank of formaldehyde shown at the Saatchi Gallery, Damien Hirst became a media icon and household name. He has since been imitated, parodied, reproached and exalted by the media and public alike.
"Hirst's work is an examination of the processes of life and death: the ironies, falsehoods and desires that we mobilise to negotiate our own alienation and mortality. His production can be roughly grouped into three areas: paintings, cabinet sculptures and the glass tank pieces. The paintings divide into spot and spin paintings. The former are randomly organised, colour-spotted canvases with titles that refer to pharmaceutical chemicals. The spin paintings are 'painted' on a spinning table, so that each individual work is created through centrifugal force. For the cabinet series Hirst displayed collections of surgical tools or hundreds of pill bottles on highly ordered shelves. The tank pieces incorporate dead and sometimes dissected animals - cows, sheep or the shark - preserved in formaldehyde, suspended in death."
...
"Damien Hirst shaped shared ideas and interests quickly and easily, his work developing during the decade [1987-1997] to reflect changes in contemporary life. Relying on the straightforward appeal of colour and form, he made important art that contained little mystery in its construction. Adopting the graphic punch of billboard imagery, his work was arresting at a distance and physically surprising close up. Hirst understood art at its most simple and at its most complex. He reduced painting to its basic elements to eliminate abstraction's mystery. In the age of art as a commodity he made spot paintings - saucer-sized, coloured circles on a white ground - that became luxury designer goods. His art was direct but never empty. In the later spin paintings, which emphasised a renewed interest in a hands-on process of making, Hirst magnified a 'hobby'-art technique, drawing attention to the accidental and expressive energy of the haphazard. Influenced by Jeff Koons's basketballs floating in water, Hirst's early work used pharmacy medicine cabinets that showed the applied beauty of Modernist design. A cabinet of individual fish suspended in formaldehyde worked like the spot paintings, as an arrangement of colour, shape and form. This work came to be seen in the popular mind as a symbol of advanced art; overcoming an initial distrust of its ease of assembly, people became fascinated by how ordinary things of the world could be placed so as to be seen as beautiful. The work democratised its meaning, operating as simply as a pop song.
"Hirst, understanding Collishaw's coup with the gunshot wound photograph, created work that brought together the joy of life and the inevitability of death, in the process transforming the secrecy of Collishaw's voyeurism into mass spectacle. A scene of pastoral beauty became one of languid death: in In and Out of Love, newly emerged butterflies stuck to freshly painted monochromes; in A Thousand Years, flies emerged from maggots, ate and died, zapped by an insect-o-cutor. Soon, the emphasis changed from an observation of creatures dying to the presentation of dead animals. A shark in a tank of formaldehyde presented a once life-threatening beast as a carcass: the glass box, half hunting trophy, half homage to the Minimalist object, imposed the gravity of a natural history museum onto an outsized council-house ornament. Hirst's sculpture progressed with the Arcadian beauty of a solitary sheep, Away from the Flock, followed by the gothic thrill of the mechanically moving pig. Hirst understood the claustrophobic horror of Francis Bacon's art, and found surprising parallels in the modern office or the lowly art tradition of portraits of animals. His fascination with the elevation of the commonplace, the unremarkable and the everyday has found Hirst at his most inventive."
...
"By the time work by Damien Hirst and Rachel Whiteread could be viewed here in New York in any kind of depth, both artists' reputations had long preceded them. We were hypnotised - amazed, up-in-arms, fascinated, threatened - by the flood of images of Hirst's encased shark, images that for several years here remained uncorroborated by any actual objects. The pickled predator remains the very symbol, and with hindsight the warning signal, for the invasion that ensued. Hirst may have been heralded in a timely enough manner, but in fact he did not have a major one-man exhibition in New York until 1996, the year of his much-delayed inaugural at Gagosian. Thus, the surprise of that carnivalesque event was not only its scale but its unexpected variety: from sliced cows and mechanised pig, to Spin-Art paintings, to a giant ashtray full of butts - it had the crazed, cracked energy of a late-'70s Jonathan Borofsky extravaganza gone grizzly-gothic. Almost miraculously, given the US Customs' problems attending Hirst's taxidermical exercises - not to mention the then-fresh panic concerning British beef - the mood at the opening was cheerfully optimistic, indeed quite madly upbeat."
- Excerpts from "Sensation : Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection"

Vicky...One more article

Art

Swimming With Famous Dead Sharks

Steve Forrest/Impact-Visual, for The New York Times
Damien Hirst with a spare frozen shark.
Published: October 1, 2006
ASTON DOWN AIRFIELD, England
Skip to next paragraph

Multimedia

Out of the TankVideo

Out of the Tank

Readers’ Opinions

Forum: Artists and Exhibitions

Steve Forrest/Impact-Visual; A.C. International Arts Services; Jonathan Player for The New York Times
In an abandoned airline hangar in Gloucestershire, workers wearing protective jumpsuits inject a dead shark with formaldehyde for one of Damien Hirst’s best known Conceptual works. This shark replaced the original one, which had begun to rot; it is shown at above at the Royal Academy of Arts in London in 1997 and being removed recently from its tank.
IN this vast Gloucestershire flatland dotted with abandoned airplane hangars, a former Royal Air Force Station where pilots once plotted classified missions during World War II, the artist Damien Hirst was overseeing a secret operation of his own one recent morning.
It was a delicate undertaking, one that required rubberized protective jumpsuits, long tables of medical equipment and more than 224 gallons of formaldehyde. The goal: to replace the decaying tiger shark that floats in one of Mr. Hirst’s best-known works of Conceptual art, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.”
As rap music quietly played in the background, five men and one woman wearing bright yellow suits, black rubber gloves and breathing masks huddled over the shark’s hulking 13-foot-long replacement. The immediate impression was that the shark was being treated by a team of acupuncturists: some 200 large needles dotted its body.
So toxic was the air that the property could be reached only through security-coded iron gates, and no one, not even the artist, was allowed near the shark without protective gear. As Mr. Hirst, 41, looked on, he plucked a long hypodermic needle from a nearby worktable.
“Three different lengths of needles are being used to inject the shark with formaldehyde,’’ he said proudly, with the air of a child showing off a new toy. He flexed the syringe to demonstrate how the needles are inserted into the animal twice, each time penetrating deeper into the body cavity. “The last shark was never injected, so it decayed from the inside.’’
The original shark — a 14-footer that was caught and killed by a fisherman in Australia at Mr. Hirst’s behest in 1991 — was first unveiled to the public in its glass tank the following year at the Saatchi Gallery in London. It quickly became a symbol of the shock tactics common to the circle known as the Young British Artists.
Charles Saatchi, the advertising magnate and collector, had commissioned Mr. Hirst to make the work for £50,000, now about $95,000. At the time that sum was considered so enormous that the British tabloid The Sun heralded the transaction with the headline “50,000 for Fish Without Chips.’’
But as a result of inadequate preservation efforts, time was not kind to the original, which slowly decomposed until its form changed, its skin grew deeply wrinkled, and the solution in the tank turned murky. (It didn’t help that the Saatchi Gallery added bleach to the solution, hastening the decay, staff members at Mr. Hirst’s studio said.) In 1993 Mr. Saatchi’s curators finally had the shark skinned and stretched the skin over a fiberglass mold.
“It didn’t look as frightening,’’ Mr. Hirst recalled. “You could tell it wasn’t real. It had no weight.’’
In recent years Mr. Saatchi has been selling off works by the Young British Artists that he collected so voraciously in the 90’s, and two years ago “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living’’ was purchased by the hedge fund billionaire Steven A. Cohen, who lives in Greenwich, Conn. He paid $8 million for it, one of the highest prices at the time for a work of contemporary art.
The impetus was a call from Larry Gagosian, the Manhattan dealer, alerting him to Mr. Saatchi’s intention to sell. Mr. Cohen knew the shark’s history and its problems: that the piece was never properly injected with formaldehyde, and what was floating in the tank was a fiberglass shadow of its former self. But in a funny way, that too had its appeal.
“Is it real? Isn’t it real?’’ Mr. Cohen said. “I liked the whole fear factor.’’
But Mr. Hirst didn’t. When he learned of Mr. Cohen’s plans to buy the 22-ton work, he volunteered to replace the shark. “I frequently work on things after a collector has them,’’ the artist said. “I recently called a collector who owns a fly painting because I didn’t like the way it looked, so I changed it slightly.’’
As it turns out, Mr. Cohen is paying for the replacement project, although he declined to say how much it would cost, other than to call the expense “inconsequential.’’ (The procedure involving the injection of formaldehyde alone adds up to about $100,000, including labor and materials.)

Swimming With Famous Dead Sharks

Published: October 1, 2006
(Page 2 of 3)
Mr. Hirst began by contacting his shark sources in Australia. And a year ago he bought the second tiger shark, this one from a fisherman who caught it just off the Queensland coast and killed it. It was shipped by sea freighter in a special 20-foot freezer with backup power, a journey that took roughly two months. Meanwhile the original tank was being renovated.
PURPOSELY provocative and sometimes disturbing, Mr. Hirst is probably Britain’s most controversial artist. Lines form around the block at gallery openings of his work, and fans often shout when they recognize him in the street. Some art critics praise him for acquainting a young generation with conceptual art nearly a century after Marcel Duchamp unveiled his porcelain urinal; other critics deride him as an artist of gimmicks and one-liners. In 1995, when he won Britain’s prestigious Turner Prize for “Mother and Child Divided,’’ a cow and a calf cut into sections and exhibited in a series of vitrines, Brian Sewell of The Evening Standard of London wrote that it was “no more interesting than a stuffed pike over a pub door.’’
Mr. Hirst has arranged rotting cows to simulate copulation, and displayed sheep preserved in formaldehyde and maggots attacking a cow’s head. He has filled glass-fronted shelves with hundreds of bottles and boxes of drugs, displayed dead animals and skeletons in cabinets, and produced canvases covered with real flies and butterflies.
In the airplane hanger where the shark is being worked on — a vast space with several eight-foot-tall freezers filled with dead animals — he continues to explore variations on those themes. Four crucified fiberglass cows, their skins stretched over molds, lie on the floor. Nearby is a table of skulls. Canvases hold the beginnings of what Mr. Hirst said would become a series inspired by the Beatles’ “White Album,’’ which he said he might call “Bigger Than God, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.’’
“I’ve also tried to do a Pietà with cows,’’ he said, pointing to a marble-edged tank ready to be filled. Nearby is “Mr. Potter’s Curiosity Museum,’’ a doll’s house filled with dead, stuffed animals — rabbits, cats, birds, mice, turtles, frogs — that he bought from a taxidermist in Cornwall.
Reportedly one of the richest men in Britain, Mr. Hirst can now afford to run multiple studios in London and in Gloucestershire, some two hours west of the capital, equipped with freezers full of dead animals and emergency generators in case of a power failure.
Such is his reputation that when a seven-foot shark washed up on a beach in July, and the Natural History Museum in London needed a place to store it until its staff was ready to preserve it, the first call it made was to Mr. Hirst.
“They asked if I had any room in my freezer,’’ he said with satisfaction. He was happy to oblige.
Oliver Crimmen, a scientist and fish curator at the Natural History Museum in London, was in the formaldehyde pool with the shark, directing the operation. Mr. Hirst had enlisted his help to ensure that this specimen would last longer than its predecessor. “It’s like cookery,’’ Mr. Hirst mused. “There are loads of recipes.’’
Mr. Crimmen is experienced mainly in preserving fish like giant squid and swordfish. “Normally the fish I work on are smaller,” he said, “so I have adapted the recipe to the shark’s weight, which is 1.92 metric tons. It is critically important to make sure the fluid penetrates all the tissues.’’
During a short lunch break, over sandwiches and soft drinks, Mr. Crimmen explained the procedure. The shark — a female about 25 to 30 years old, middle-aged in shark terms — would spend about two weeks in a bath filled with a 7 percent formalin solution, made of dissolved formaldehyde gas and water.
“There are places you cannot reach with needles, like its fin, skull and the spinal column,’’ Mr. Crimmen said. So the shark is immersed in the bath to allow the formaldehyde to be absorbed through the skin. The mission required 34 barrels — each containing 6.6 gallons— of formaldehyde. At night a lid is put over the pool, and the shark is left to marinate.

Swimming With Famous Dead Sharks

Published: October 1, 2006
(Page 3 of 3)
“You have to have a carefully mapped injection program,’’ Mr. Crimmen said. “There are no nice tests to see if the formaldehyde has been properly absorbed deep inside the shark. You have to see how the specimen behaves to the touch. If it is hard when manipulated and bent, it means it has properly penetrated into the animal’s body tissues.’’
Unlike most fish, the scientist explained, sharks do not have bony skeletons; theirs are made of cartilage, which is relatively flexible. “Even their jaws, which you might think are made of bone, are actually made of hard cartilage, which has a limited life span and can crumble over time,’’ Mr. Crimmen said. So if the body is to last for decades, the shark must be kept constantly moist in the formalin solution.
A shark’s skin is armored with tiny teeth, so Mr. Crimmen and his team had to first drill small holes in the skin, filling them with temporary pins in preparation for the injection of the formaldehyde. Because a shark’s skin is so rough, the tiny holes won’t leave noticeable marks once the fish is properly preserved.
“As a fish curator I generally preserve things for science and then I don’t have to pay attention to aesthetics,’’ Mr. Crimmen said. “This is a novel angle for me.’’
After lunch Mr. Crimmen returned to the formaldehyde pool with five workers from Mr. Hirst’s studio, the rap music still softly playing in the background. Only Mr. Crimmen spent the entire day attending to the shark; the environment was so unpleasant, the workers said, that most of them could bear to be there for only a few hours at a time.
By now the shark had been turned on its side and the process of removing the temporary needles and injecting the animal had begun. Once the shark has totally absorbed the formalin and formaldehyde, it will be taken in a specially designed shark-shaped traveling tank to Bregenz, Austria, for an exhibition that begins in February. (Its original 1991 tank has been refurbished for the occasion.) Sometime in the summer the shark will make its way to Mr. Cohen’s house in Greenwich.
ON a recent Saturday afternoon Mr. Cohen was in Manhattan taking in the latest gallery exhibitions. He had stopped by the Gagosian Gallery on Madison Avenue to see some drawings by Mr. Hirst that had just gone on view. On the walls were studies for “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living,’’ prompting Mr. Cohen to reminisce about the first time he found himself face-to-face with the real piece.
“It was in County Hall in London,’’ Mr. Cohen said. “I grew up in the generation of ‘Jaws.’ I knew it was the piece of the 90’s.’’
Mr. Hirst acknowledges that once the shark is replaced, art historians will argue that the piece cannot be considered the same artwork. “It’s a big dilemma,’’ he said. “Artists and conservators have different opinions about what’s important: the original artwork or the original intention. I come from a Conceptual art background, so I think it should be the intention. It’s the same piece. But the jury will be out for a long time to come.’’
Echoing that argument, Mr. Cohen said the shark could not be compared to a painting. “We’re dealing with a conceptual idea,’’ he said. “The whole point is the boldness of the shark. Damien felt strongly that this was the best option.’’
Rumors have circulated in the art world that Mr. Cohen has promised the work to the Museum of Modern Art. But Mr. Cohen said that he had made no plans to donate the work to the Modern and that he is unsure exactly where he will put it when the tank arrives in Connecticut.
“Ultimately I think it’s a piece that needs to be put in a major museum,’’ he said. “I’ve had discussions with some, but I can’t say which ones, and nothing has been decided.’’
More generally his long-term plans include building a private museum on his property in Greenwich to display his art collection, from a Manet self-portrait to Monet’s “Water Lilies’’ to a Jackson Pollock drip painting to Pop Art by Warhol and Lichtenstein. He also owns Mr. Hirst’s “Away From the Flock,’’ a whole lamb floating in a formaldehyde solution, as well as several paintings by Mr. Hirst, among them examples of his signature butterflies, pills and a skull.
As for the future of the new shark, Mr. Hirst isn’t worried, he said.
“As long as it lasts my lifetime, I’m happy,’’ he said. After a pause, he added: “It’s got a 200-year guarantee. Or your money back.’’

Vicky.... Ive got some links to some tv interviews etc too...not sure if there useful or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWQGa-EBxzk

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8940

Vicky

Young British Artists: Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst and Others

Apr 27, 2010 Hatty Copeman
Damien Hirst's 'A Thousand Years' - Damien Hirst
Damien Hirst's 'A Thousand Years' - Damien Hirst

British art entered a new era in the late 1980s which was quickly recognised as new and excitingly distinctive and became known as the Young British Artists
Most of the YBAs studied at Goldsmiths College, in London, under the influence of Michael Craig Martin, who is one of the college’s most significant teachers, who had been for some years fostering new forms of creativity through its courses, including ideas such as eliminating the traditional separation of the media of art.

1988 Freeze Exhibition Organized By Damien Hirst

The YBAs emerged for the first time at the Freeze exhibition in 1988, a time when public funding for art was not readily available and had been reduced by the Thatcher government. The Freeze exhibition was organised by one of the YBA’s Damien Hirst, who was still a student at Goldsmiths College. The rest of the YBA’s who took part in the Freeze exhibition were a group of 16 Goldsmiths College students.
Commercial galleries had shown a lack of interest in the project, and it was held in a cheap alternative space, a warehouse in London Docklands. However the event did not achieve any major press exposure. One of its effects was to set the example of artist-as-curator. This notion of artists running their own exhibition spaces and galleries became a feature of the London arts scene during the mid 1990s.
Ian Stevenson Books 30 page postcard book full of Ian Stevenson Artwork £7.99 www.concretehermit.com
Buy Lowry Prints High Quality L.S. Lowry Art Prints Great Range, Quick UK Delivery www.Easyart.com
The label YBA turned out to be a powerful brand and marketing tool, but of course it concealed huge diversity. Nevertheless certain broad trends both formal and thematic can be discerned. What the movement mostly embraced was a complete openness towards the materials and processes with which art can be made and the form that it can take.
Hirst then went onto curate two other influential shows: ‘Modern Medicine’ and ‘Gambler’ in 1990 alongside Carl Freedman and Billee Sellman. To stage ‘Modern Medicine’ they raised £1,000 sponsorships from art world figures including Charles Saatchi.
In 1990, Henry Bond and Sarah Lucas organized the ‘East Country Yard Show’ in a disused warehouse in London Docklands which was installed over four floors and 16,000 square metres of exhibition space. Andrew Graham-Dixon wrote about what was happening in a July 31, 1990 article in The Independent:
“Goldsmiths' graduates are unembarrassed about promoting themselves and their work: some of the most striking exhibitions in London over the past few months—"The East Country Yard Show", or "Gambler"...have been independently organized and funded by Goldsmiths' graduates as showcases for their work. This has given them a reputation for pushiness, yet it should also be said that in terms of ambition, attention to display and sheer bravado there has been little to match such shows in the country's established contemporary art institutions.”

The Saatchi Outcome

One of the visitors to Freeze was Charles Saatchi, a major contemporary art collector and co-founder of Saatchi and Saatchi, the London advertising agency. Saatchi then visited ‘Gambler’ and was so impressed by Hirst's first major "animal" installation, ‘A Thousand Years’ consisting of a large glass case containing maggots and flies feeding off a rotting cow's head, that he bought it.
Saatchi went on to become not only Hirst's main collector, but also the main sponsor for other YBAs. Saatchi publicly exhibited his collection in a series of shows in a large converted factory building in St John's Wood, north London. Previous Saatchi Gallery shows had included such major figures as Warhol, Guston, Alex Katz, Serra, Kiefer, Polke, Richter and many more. Now Saatchi turned his attention to the new breed of Young British Artists.
Saatchi invented the name "Young British Artists" for a series of shows called by it, starting in 1992, when a noted exhibit was Damien Hirst's ‘Shark’ which became the iconic work of British art in the 1990s, and the symbol of Britart worldwide.
In addition to and as a direct result of Saatchi's patronage, the Young British Artists benefited from intense media coverage. This was augmented by controversy surrounding the annual Turner Prize, one of Britain's few major awards for contemporary artists, which had several of the artists as nominees or winners. Also Channel 4 had become a sponsor of the competition, leading to television profiles of the artists in prime-time slots.

Post Sensation

In 1999 Tracey Emin was nominated for the Turner Prize. Her main exhibit, ‘My Bed’, consisting literally of her dishevelled, stained bed, surrounded by detritus including condoms, slippers and soiled underwear, created an immediate and lasting media impact and further heightened her prominence.
The opening of Tate Modern in 2000 did not provide any major accolade for the YBAs, but their inclusion was another affirmation that their status was not open to real questioning.
Saatchi opened a new gallery in London in 2003, on the South Bank and shut the previous Saatchi Gallery in St John's Wood. The new gallery initially exhibited the work of the Young British Artists, with a retrospective by Hirst until Charles Saatchi's new interests were demonstrated in a series ‘The Triumph of Painting’.

Sources

  • Andrew Graham-Dixon, "The Midas Touch?: Graduates of Goldsmiths' School of Art dominate the current British art scene," The Independent, 31 July 1990, p. 13.
Copyright Hatty Copeman. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.


Read more at Suite101: Young British Artists: Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst and Others http://www.suite101.com/content/the-ybas-a230532#ixzz1A11HgTrX

Interesting points made in Hirst article from economist: Bree

The art market

IN 2008 just over $270m-worth of art by Damien Hirst was sold at auction, a world record for a living artist. By 2009 Mr Hirst’s annual auction sales had shrunk by 93%—to $19m—and the 2010 total is likely to be even lower. The collapse in the Hirst market can partly be ascribed to the recession. But more important are the lingering effects of a two-day auction of new work by Mr Hirst that Sotheby’s launched in London on September 15th 2008.
The sale was memorable for many reasons, not least its name, “Beautiful Inside My Head Forever”. The first session took place the very evening that Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. No one on Wall Street or in the City of London knew who might be next. Yet within the New Bond Street saleroom, collectors went on bidding, oblivious to the bloodletting without.
The sale was an innovative, daredevil affair. The art market is divided into “primary”, new work sold through galleries, and “secondary”, literally second-hand art, which is often put up for auction. This sale was full of primary material straight out of Mr Hirst’s studio, some of it not yet dry. (Usually the only new art sold at auction is donated by artists to raise money for charity.) According to Frank Dunphy, Mr Hirst’s business manager at the time, the galleries that represent him were very unhappy. Soon after breaking the news to Larry Gagosian, the world’s leading dealer, Mr Dunphy recalled their conversation: “Larry said, ‘It sounds like bad business to me. It’ll be confusing to collectors. Why do you need to do this? We could continue in the old way’.” Mr Dunphy went on: “We’ve had our shouting matches over the years. But there was no shouting that day.”
Sotheby’s was keen to build its own brand around a celebrity artist rather than the usual assortment of inanimate objects. The sale was marketed on YouTube and through the media around the world, part of a conscious effort to broaden international demand for the work. Sotheby’s filled its exhibition rooms with Hirsts. Never had so much of his art been seen in one place. Many art-world insiders saw the sale as an artistic event. Cheyenne Westphal (pictured above, right), European chairman of Sotheby’s contemporary art, says: “Damien’s auctions will become part of his oeuvre. He has done three sales: ‘Pharmacy’ (2004), the ‘RED’ charity auction (2008), and ‘Beautiful’. Fast forwarding, they will be very good provenance.”
Few people were convinced, though, that the market could absorb 223 lots from one artist in 24 hours. Yet an astonishing 97% of the works sold. “Beautiful” brought in £111m ($198m) and expanded the art market: 39% of the buyers had never bought contemporary art before and 24% of them were new to Sotheby’s. Europeans (including Russians) bought 74% of the lots, while 17.7% went to the Americas and 8.3% flew to Asia and the Middle East.
But who exactly bought what? Even Mr Hirst admits, “I’m still finding out.” Dealers acquired some works, but 81% of the buyers were private collectors purchasing directly. Miuccia Prada, an Italian designer and longstanding Hirst collector, for example, spent £6.3m acquiring a trio of Mr Hirst’s trademark animals in formaldehyde: “The Black Sheep with the Golden Horn”, “False Idol” (a calf), and “The Dream” (a foal made to look like a unicorn). “I think it was an incredible conceptual gesture, not a sale,” she says.
Several billionaires from the former Soviet Union also took part. Alexander Machkevitch, a Kazakh mining magnate with a taste for metallurgical themes, bought six lots in the evening sale: a large stainless steel cabinet filled with manufactured diamonds, a pair of gold-plated cabinets containing more lab gems, three butterfly canvasses and a spot painting with a gleaming gold background for a total of £11.7m. Other buyers from the region included Maria Baibakova, Vladislav Doronin, Victor Pinchuk and Gary Tatintsian.
Speculation abounds about who spent £10.3m (including commission) on “The Golden Calf”, a bull in formaldehyde with 18-carat gold hooves and horns. Many thought the garish top lot carried an ambitious estimate, £8m-12m, and would be hard to sell. In the event it proved a nervous moment—there were only two bidders—and whoever acquired it has not been showing it off. The persistent rumour is that the “Calf” has gone to the royal family of Qatar. (Just over a year earlier the emir’s daughter, Sheikha al-Mayassa al-Thani, bought Mr Hirst’s “Lullaby Spring”, a pill cabinet, for £9.65m, the highest price ever paid for a work by a living artist.) When asked about the Qataris, Mr Hirst replies, “I’m sure they did buy things. But it’s all hearsay. I got a call from somebody who said [the Qataris] bought ‘The Golden Calf’ but I think they’re denying it.”
Could any other artist pull off this kind of spectacular trade? Mr Hirst is often likened to Jeff Koons, an American pop artist who overtook Mr Hirst as the most expensive living artist when his “Hanging Heart” sold for $23.6m in November 2007 (see chart 1). Although Mr Koons has a larger-than-life persona and his work enjoys international appeal, he is a conservative market player who issues works in controlled editions of five and concentrates exclusively on the very high end. Nothing could be further from Mr Hirst’s risk-loving manner and his desire to offer work at a range of different prices. “Beautiful” was a success in part because it offered something for everyone.
Mr Hirst, already rich and famous, became richer and more famous. But what of his investors? Two years after the auction, the second-hand trade in Hirsts has slowed to a trickle. Even Sotheby’s, which has had a Hirst in every major contemporary sale in London since “Pharmacy” in 2004, offered none of his art in this year’s evening sale in June. The auction house admits it is avoiding Mr Hirst’s work because it can’t meet its consignors’ price expectations.
The average auction price for a Hirst work in 2008 was $831,000. So far in 2010 it is down to $136,000, a sum that does not even take into account the many lots that failed to find buyers. With prices down to 2002 levels, the artist’s work is outperforming the S&P 500, but is lagging well behind Artnet’s C50 contemporary art index, an industrial average of the 50 most traded post-war artists (see chart 2). The only Hirst pieces that are showing signs of recovery are butterfly paintings, particularly the wing-only works that evoke kaleidoscopes and stained-glass windows. Nine of the ten top trades since the “Beautiful” sale have been butterflies of some sort.
A seller’s disappointment, however, is a buyer’s opportunity. Alberto Mugrabi, a dealer and devoted supporter of most things Hirst, observed the “Beautiful” sale carefully, but bought little. By contrast, he admits to buying 40% of the Hirst paintings that have come up for sale at Sotheby’s and Christie’s in the past year. “I believe in the artist,” he says. The Mugrabi family owns some 110 Hirsts, including an installation that features 30 sheep, two doves, a shark and a splayed cow in formaldehyde. The Mugrabis offered $35m for the artist’s diamond skull, “For the Love of God”, but failed to secure the work that was marketed at $100m and has never sold. “The Mugrabis rarely buy directly from me,” says Mr Hirst. “We can never work out a deal because they want such fierce prices.”
The Mugrabis liken the tumble in Mr Hirst’s secondary prices to Andy Warhol’s in the early 1990s. “In the long term, the market will be more than fine. I couldn’t be more optimistic,” says Mr Mugrabi. Yet they have not invested in Mr Hirst’s latest line of Francis Bacon-inspired skull paintings, saying that they are “not visually continuous with the old work, which we find more beautiful and relevant.” Unlike most of the work, which is made by teams of other people, the artist actually paints these himself. Most of the reviews have been ruthless: “The Worst of Hirst” and “Hirst, Renaissance man, obviously not”.
Americans who did not make purchases at the “Beautiful” sale have recently shown more confidence, buying from Gagosian Gallery’s “End of an Era” show in New York earlier this year. The Broad Art Foundation acquired “Judgement Day”, a giant gold-plated cabinet containing lab diamonds. Millicent Wilner, a Gagosian director, affirms that all 15 new works in the exhibition sold for a total of over $30m.
At the Hong Kong art fair in May a special Hirst stand by his British dealer, White Cube Gallery, was swarming with young people having their photo taken in front of the works. Daniela Gareh, White Cube’s sales director, confirms that it sold to first-time Hirst buyers from Korea, Taiwan and mainland China. “The Chinese respond to branding and Damien is a master brander,” she says. Other Criteria, Mr Hirst’s print business, also did a solid trade at the fair. Photos of Mr Hirst’s most expensive unsold work went like hot cakes. The most popular item was a foot-high image of the artist’s diamond skull, an edition of 1,000, priced at £950.
In 2008 and 2009, Mr Hirst repeatedly made statements like “The first time you sell something is when it should cost the most” and “I’ve definitely had the goal to make the primary market more expensive.” The artist was frustrated by the speculators who were buying from his galleries then quickly reselling his work at auction. Moreover, the acquisition of a package of 12 of his own works from Charles Saatchi for £6m in 2003, far more than what Mr Saatchi had originally paid, may have led to an Oedipal determination to overthrow all the high-rolling dealers and collectors who thought they might lord it over the little artist.
The goal of making the primary works more expensive may benefit Mr Hirst’s personal income in the short-term, but it makes no sense from the perspective of his market. Part of the reason that art costs more than wallpaper is the expectation that it might appreciate in value. Flooding the market with new work is like debasing the coinage, a strategy used from Nero to the Weimar Republic with disastrous consequences. If Mr Hirst were managing a quoted company, he would be unable to enrich himself at the expense of his investors in quite the same way. But Mr Hirst is an artist and, in Western countries, artists are valued as rule-breaking rogues.
Two developments could help Mr Hirst’s secondary market. He has started compiling his catalogue raisonné, a complete list of all the works he has made, which will comfort those who suspect he has made hundreds more spot and spin paintings than he admits to. According to Francis Outred, Christie’s European head of contemporary art, “As with Warhol, this could bring reassuring clarity to the question of volume within each series.” Mr Hirst is also discussing with the Tate a retrospective show to coincide with the Olympic games in London in 2012.
Hirst sceptics point out that the only museum to hold a Hirst show was in Naples, Italy, in 2004. From October 28th a private New York gallery, L&M Arts, will show 18 of his earliest medicine cabinets. The changing shape and contents of these pieces are the most intriguing evolutionary thread in Mr Hirst’s work. Indeed, they foreshadow the artist’s drive to assemble objects into auction spectaculars.
Where will the Hirst market go from here? The ball is still in Mr Hirst’s court. “Beautiful Inside My Head Forever” may have been an historic moment in artist empowerment, but such performances risk destroying the delicate ecology of living artists’ markets. Mr Hirst should repair his relationship with his collectors and concentrate on his retrospective. Another “Beautiful” sale could be ugly.