Christopher Burge, auctioneer at Damien Hirst Sale, Christie's, London, 2008.

DAY 17 Today is Thursday, June 23,rd and study in depth Damien Hirst's "Beautiful Inside My Head Forever"

auction at Sotheby's, London just as the global financial crisis began to surface at the end of September 2008. Look

at the short Time magazine interview with Hirst as he prepares for the auction and read one of the auction reports.

Knowing now what you do about auctions, Hirst, and the commissioning process, discuss the pros and cons of the

Hirst auction for the art market as a whole and for Hirst as an individual artist/entrepreneur. Since this sale (and the

global financial crisis), Hirst has been losing market share and many of his works frequently don't find buyers at auction.

Do you think he's over-produced or overexposed himself? You can use other high profile auctions or examples of

artist/entrepreneurs in your response. Note: the Art Market Monitor article lists a number of useful articles, graphs and sites.

Readings

Damien Hirst: Bad Boy Makes Good http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1838681-2,00.html

Review: Artlaw, Auctions: Beautiful Inside My Head Forever http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/money/auctions/beautiful-inside-my-head-forever.htm

Art Market Monitor: Beautiful Inside My Head ... Whatever http://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2010/02/06/beautiful-inside-my-head-whatever/

Damien Hirst: Rich Artist Gets Richer http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,1774353335_1839008,00.html

Individual Contributions

Vincent Anthony Falkiewicz

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  

 
 
 
Consider & comment:
What did you think of today's readings and wiki features? What issues if any did they raise for you? How did the audio visual material provided support your understanding of this topic? Comment on your classmates' posts. Leave your comments in the box below.