The Beautiful Inside My Head Forever Auction

Vincent Anthony Falkiewicz

Erica Gilbert-Levin  

If Damien Hirst's calculation had been correct, his risky decision in 2008 to opt out of the gallery system, bypass his dealers, and sell directly to Sotheby's auction house in a sale called the "Beautiful Inside My Head Forever" would have opened up the market to new buyers, including the ones who are not typically sought after by collectors: "The Sotheby's sale is [...] an uncanny way of getting his name out to new buyers. [...] And a lot of those people might be more comfortable in an auction house – where anyone with cash can flex their muscles – than in top galleries, where dealers sometimes try to place works only with important collectors who might lend or give them to major museums," writes Lacayo in Time. This move had the potential, then, to help increase public accessibility to his art, while improving Hirst's market share as well. The strategy also promised to enhance Hirst's "bargaining power" with dealers and fuel the "media intrigue and speculation" that would increase publicity for the artist and entrepreneur (Art Law).

But these hopes do not seem to be materializing – and the move may in fact have backfired. The strategy has not translated into higher sales but in fact has resulted, it seems, in a decline in Hirst's market share, with many of his works unable to find homes. Overproduction may be to blame for the quandary Hirst finds himself in: "The glut of works in [his] September auction [the "Beautiful Inside My Head Forever"] may have decreased the demand for his art," according to Jentleson. Perhaps Hirst's factory-style approach to art-making has proven untenable in an art world that values rarity and uniqueness.

I can only speculate about what this development might mean for the art market and the art world. It is possible that efforts to make art accessible to wider audiences render the art less buy-worth among elites, which would discourage artists and dealers from wanting to make such efforts. But Hirst's factory-style approach is not the only avenue available for increasing public accessibility, so I believe it would be too hasty to blame his decline on popularity and dismiss all other efforts to expose more people to art. Maybe this is where smaller-scale, independent art production and sale comes in; the promulgation of boutiques in New York's Chelsea District, with their open-to-the-public approach, seem to be proving that public accessibility and profitability are not always at odds. And (of course I would have to mention this) emerging forms of art that are by definition about public exposure, such as graffiti and street art, are experiencing a dramatic increase in success on the art market.

Besides, we don't know for sure that Hirst's empire won't rebound: After all, "[when] Sotheby's auctioned in 2004 the contents of [Hirst's] Pharmacy [...], his market had a similar reaction. It took two years before the volume of Hirst's work and price level returned to the 2004 level. In 2007, the dollar volume of Hirst's work at auction tripled the year of the Pharmacy sale," writes Manekar in the Art Monitor. So I am not convinced that Hirst, as an entrepreneur at least, has all that much to worry about.
Damien Hirst

Kimberly Ann Phoenix