Vincent Anthony Falkiewicz

Damien Hirst's marketing strategy behind his "Beautiful Inside My Head Forever" sale at Sotheby's was indeed well thought out and seemingly well planned.  He always had the "think big (Hansen 2)" mentality, derived from British advertiser Charles Saatchi.  His intention was to reach out to the masses of the art world.  He strove to go beyond collectors and museums, and have his art circulate through the millions of citizens interested in buying art for their own personal reasons.  This idea, though valiant, fell far short of success for a few reasons.  However, in my opinion he did not necessarily over-market or over-produce his work; his timing was significantly horrible though.

Had the market crash of 2008 not taken place, thousands of people would have continued to buy new art.  The crash took a lot of players out of the game at a time when Hirst was trying to reach the general public.  This is where his overproduction came into play.  He increased supply as demand decreased; simple economics.  This hurt his future sales too and will continue to hurt them deeper into the future.  Now that people are re-entering the art market, Hirst's art is not considered rare by any means.  This further hinders his ability to sell his works as rarity of art or an artist's work is a large factor in the worth of a piece.  People do still like his work though, which will bode well for him if enough buyers re-enter the art market.  If his supply and demand chain can once again find an equillibrium he will be able to produce more art at a higher price.  So, Hirst's days in the art world are not necessarily numbered, he may just have to wait some time before his art becomes valuable again. 

Erica Gilbert-Levin  

If [Damien Hirst|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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|http://www.sothebys.com/] auction house in a sale called the ["Beautiful Inside My Head Forever"|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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|http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1838681-2,00.html]. 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|http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/money/auctions/beautiful-inside-my-head-forever.htm]).

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|http://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2010/02/06/beautiful-inside-my-head-whatever/]. 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|http://www.tate.org.uk/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|http://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2008/12/19/the-hurry-to-bury-hirst/]. So I am not convinced that Hirst, as an entrepreneur at least, has all that much to worry about. !hirst pic.jpeg|border=1!
Damien Hirst

Kimberly Ann Phoenix