Well, I thought it was a prank. "Damien Hirst unveils $100-million skull." Yeah, right. No *living* artist has ever unveiled a work of art for sale at $100-million. Okay, I've been to my regular sites -- The Times, Reuters, BBC, just to check for a post-April 1 gag. All I can say is, holy shit, the reports are true...
A tiny digression...
Contemporary art collectors are shelling out tens of millions of dollars for junk art. I did an Art History minor. I've studied post war and contemporary, and been to dozens of finest museums. I've seen hanging many of the works illustrated in any Janson or Arneson course book. 15 years ago, I used to think a few million bucks for a Warhol, Rauschenberg, Johns, Artschwager or Cy Twomley – all contemporary artists very much in vogue – was a lot of money. Now, so-called seminal works from many of them are selling for more than $50-million. This is sheer lunacy.
Hold your breath and say "holy shit" five times. Now, read below, and you'll say it five times more, I guarantee...
-- Mark Rothko -- White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose) (1950) -- $73 mil
-- Francis Bacon -- Study From Innocent X (1956) -- $53 mil
-- Basquiat -- a 1981 drawing -- $14.6 mil
-- Rauschenberg -- Photograph (1959) -- $10.7 mil
-- Wesselmann -- Smoker no. 17 (1975) -- $5.9 mil
I wish I was making this up -- but I'm not. From Bloomberg: "Money has no meaning,'' said Angela Westwater of New York gallery Sperone Westwater, after the Rothko sold. "It's a good work, but the whole marketplace is crazy.''
What's next? Smart money has to bet on Rothko, Warhol and Bacon. The past few months have seen successive records beaten, so there is sustained momentum with these art brands.
David Geffen, a very wise collector, has flipped recently his key Warhol and Jasper Johns works. He sees an overcooked market, and knows when to cash out (whether he wants to buy the LA Times is irrelevant).
But, I digress. Back to Damien Hirst. First we had Warhol, and a studio that turned out ready-for-t-shirt junk art. In the 90s, Jeff Koons and the art school drop-outs he hired churned out more junk art -- works usually selling for around $250,000 a pop. "Titian had studio assistants, too" or some other nonsense, he garbled, to edify his so-called art, and legitimize his (business) approach. But Damien Hirst works sell for well over a million bucks, at retail... oops that sounds rather bourgeoisie... I meant to say, when he unveils them.
And now, a Hirst just consigned for auction has a high estimate of $8 mil. Like Warhol and Koons, Hirst is a junk artist laughing all the way to the bank. His net worth is a scandalous quarter billion dollars. That's right, more than $250,000,000 USD!!! (source: Reuters). Again, holy shit! He's richer than most (of the media demonized) hedge fund managers.
Breaking from the standard $1-million works, Hirst is now displaying a diamond-encrusted skull. First $100 million takes it. There's a pic at the bottom.
Mom and dad dropped me too many times as a baby. I should have become an artist with Warhol or Hirst like machinations. Or, used student loan money to buy every bottle of DRC La Tâche or Romanée-Conti I could afford...