
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/sep/16/damienhirst.art1
One hundred and eleven millions pounds and zero pence. This is the benchmark Damien Hirst has set, a record for a one-artist auction and well done to him, really.
I don't think anyone could begrudge a man who has put his products up for sale and they happened to take a killing, it wasn't guaranteed he'd sell one piece after all. Imagine a farmer taking his eggs down to the market, to find that after some freak accident people were so desperate for them they were buying them at £10 each.
Feel free to disagree with me on this one, but when art can be traded like eggs or some other commidity (paradoxically) it depreciates its value as art itself. And I think this is what Hirst and Sotheby's has done. Perhaps I am one of those fuddy-duddy tradionalists, but I don't think pounds and pence can accurately, if at all can be attributed to a particular zeitgeist, profound idea, belief or emotion, that could be described as art and for the edification of humankind. I found it a bit distasteful for this practice, not only to be done so blantantly, but it was also celebrated by the art-world so shamefully.
The people that have bought these pieces, are not art collectors, but another breed of wealthy individual looking for interesting 'conversation-starter' pieces to furnish their penthouses - and good for them, too. But, isn't it a bit of a shame that our British artistic treasure Damien Hirst is no longer creating thought provoking imagery and sculpture to question, explore and even upset the worlds of culture, but reduced to creating expensive tidbits for world's wealthy? And if has been reduced to the latter, can he really be called and artist, and can his 'stuff' really be called art?