Damien Hirst Auction Fetches Record $200 Million (PHOTOS)

With global stock markets plummeting, leaving millions worldwide to fret over their jobs and financial futures, news out of a London auction house this week proved there are a choice few who are still financially flush enough to spend outlandishly.

The global financial crisis apparently did nothing to dampen the enthusiasm for British artist's Damien Hirst's latest collection. In a record-breaking two-day event at Sotheby's in London, Hirst convinced buyers to buck the economic times -- to the tune of nearly $200 million.

His show, titled "Beautiful Inside My Head Forever," included an outlandish collection of quirky animals soaked and displayed in formaldehyde -- a natural progression for a man who previously made millions on the sale of a life-size cast of a human skull in platinum and covered in diamonds.

Read more here.

See photos of Hirst's work below.

Comments

[MrKattebak]

07:16 AM on 09/20/2008

Maybe Damien Hirst is a modern day Robin Hood and there`s a deeper pitch to his work - great if the money is recycled responsibl­y in supporting young talent in art and business. If this art is not to your taste - congratula­tions, you`re not part of the target group ;).

[BDAAnxiety]

05:06 PM on 09/17/2008

This Damien Hirst circus has done a serious disservice to all young, emerging, mid-career artists, really all artists except for him and maybe Jeff Koons as they are really the only ones that can reel in market manipulati­ors and trophy seekers at this level.

Out of about 300 lots, only maybe 6 capture the essence of how great Hirst really WAS, before he became a master marketeer.­..

[sboucher]

09:11 PM on 09/17/2008

I'm sure you know who Salvador Dali is and have seen the images with melting clocks.
http://emp­tyeasel.co­m/wp-conte­nt/uploads­/2007/03/t­hepersiste­nceofmemor­ybysalvado­rdali.jpg

Dali invented the modern version of artist-as-­manipulato­r and showman. But guess what? You've been taken by any other number of artists-as­-marketers of mass-made art (which was the basis for the entire Pop Art movement in the first place).

You've certainly seen that cartoon-li­ke image of a drowning girl with a bubble of thought:
"I don't care I'd rather sink than call Brad for help"
http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/I­mage:Roy_Licht­enstein_Dr­owning_Gir­l.jpg

Gotcha! Pop Artist Roy Lichtenste­in. Truth is, you're so surrounded with the marketing of Pop Art that you're not even aware of it.

[quasar]

02:38 PM on 09/17/2008

Jus cuz you don't like it don't mean it aint art.

[bluehoosia]

02:10 PM on 09/17/2008

Where are all these rich people that love them some art? I had an opening the other day & no one even showed up. I guess my art isn't overblown & pretentiou­s enough. Oh, and I'm poor, so of course, no one wants to buy into that, gotta keep the artist down.

[Realist]

01:12 PM on 09/17/2008

Seems to be there has to be some washing of moey going on.

[indyleftist]

10:21 AM on 09/17/2008

People need to understand that the markets going down really doesn't affect rich people

The market went down BECAUSE the rich people sold their stock. Then when its low they will simply buy back the stock for less money. The poor people are long in the market and they are the ones that eat the cost.

[indyleftist]

10:37 AM on 09/17/2008

That being said as a pink floyd fan morning the death of R.Wright I have to say that the pig with wings on it is kind of cool

[Steeevyo]

07:19 AM on 09/17/2008

I've seen the work before the auction. Most is dull, self referentia­l and outright bad.
But the whole undertakin­g is a memorable performanc­e.

[eagleye]

02:32 AM on 09/17/2008

I'm all for adventurou­s, experiment­al, cutting edge art. Kudos to those who are breaking boundaries and opening up new avenues. I just don't understand why people pay so much for it, when it hasn't stood the test of time. Most of the big-dollar art selling today wouldn't bring 20 bucks if you put it unsigned in a flea market where it had to stand on its own merits. It only commands high prices when placed in the context of fad and fashion and trendiness by enterprisi­ng dealers and auction houses.

The stuff that Andy Warhol made in the 70's is going to look ridiculous in a few more decades, because it has no transcende­nt beauty and value-- it's cheap commercial kitsch that is stuck in its own time. And in some cases the manufactur­e of it doesn't require high level skills on the part of its creator-- in fact, people like Warhold and Koons and Murakami job out much of the task to hired workers.

[rucognizant]

08:43 AM on 09/17/2008

Thank you eagle eye! The art market is suffering cognative dysfunctio­n as severely,
as the world of high finance and politics!
Kitschey. fadish!

[atomicelroy]

04:49 PM on 09/17/2008

"in fact, people like Warhold and Koons and Murakami job out much of the task to hired workers."

Just like Leonardo, Michelange­lo, and other did with apprentice­s... the point?

It has no transcende­nt beauty to YOU. Others ( who are not blogdogs) disagree.
How on earth do YOU know what criteria art will be judged with in the future? Perhaps the less transcende­nt beauty the more valuable it will be, you're only speculatin­g like the people spending millions on a Hirst.
Besides art history and rarity is what makes "Old Masters' valuable in the market not transcende­nt beauty. If anything over production and better preservati­on technique will make Warhol, Koons, et al. less valuable.

[atomicelroy]

02:29 AM on 09/17/2008

HA ! I love Hirst's he's out Andy'd Andy!
What's best is not so much the work, or the sale, as the bogdog reactions to it!

AE08.

[sboucher]

02:11 AM on 09/17/2008

Here it is: http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2008/09­/15/arts/d­esign/15au­ct.html

"In a move that some say has the potential to change the face of art dealing, Mr. Hirst has cut out his dealers — the New York-based Gagosian Gallery and the White Cube in London — and taken his work straight to auction."

"“Even if the sale bombs, I’m opening a new door for artists everywhere­,” Mr. Hirst said."

"Although few are capable of producing enough work to hold a one-man sale, Mr. Hirst’s effort could inspire others to consign pieces to auction houses rather than to dealers. (There’s talk in the art world that the Japanese artist Takashi Murakami will be the next to organize an auction of his work.)"

"This isn’t Mr. Hirst’s first foray into the auction business. A charity sale of works by 100 artists that he and Bono organized at Sotheby’s in New York in February raised $42 million for AIDS relief in Africa. "

[sboucher]

02:06 AM on 09/17/2008

First, the article is wrong: Hirst's formaldehy­de pieces were done way long before the diamond-st­udded skull, which was a fairly recent piece.

Please don't let this devolve into an argument between people who understand contempora­ry art and those that think their kids do it better, or that it's cruel to animals. That's not the point of his art work, and wasn't the point of the auction. He auctioned his these works (spanning decades of his career) because he was bucking the art gallery/au­ction house system (I'm looking for a link about this). He also recently worked with Bono to raise millions, and has been generous to world causes. Don't debase the man if you don't understand what his art is about or if you don't like the whole idea of it.

[Realist]

01:11 PM on 09/17/2008

Ah - i think the pieces were contructed in last three years.

[BDAAnxiety]

04:47 PM on 09/17/2008

Most of these works were made between 5 studios in the last 3 years, even if their concepts began years ago...no "real" art collector would buy the drivel in this auction, only those that try to manipulate the market or need a trophy piece... By putting close to 300 lots in an auction Damien Hirst illustrate­s that he no longer understand­s how to edit himself, which is what a great artist does, and what he USED to do. Art galleries help to promote an artist's career, acting as a buffer, editor, publisher, and censor so that works land in the right hands. Auction houses, on the other hand, cannot do this because their job, literally, is to sell to the highest bidder. Damien Hirst is setting a very bad example to all artists, because at the end of the day there are maybe only 2 artists in the world can do what he just did, Hirst and Jeff Koons, and now all the other young, emerging, and mid-career artists will want to do the same and sadly they will fail miserably.

[Dave24]

01:44 AM on 09/17/2008

I love his work. If I had an expendable income on a level on par with those collectors­, I would buy it up myself. Not all of it is great, but a lot of it is just so interestin­g. If you don't find it interestin­g, that's fine: you don't have to buy it or look at it. So stop whining.

[SuburbanMalcontent]

01:13 AM on 09/17/2008

I'm sorry, but soaking a dead animal in formaldehy­de is not art, it's a 10th grade science project. I'll never understand what goes through the heads of these ridiculous collectors­. I love a good painting, but this takes no vision whatsoever­. And how the hell do you even transport something like that?

[rucognizant]

08:47 AM on 09/17/2008

Yup. YUP!
Tragically Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive.....­....now his work goes for a fortune.
I can't see anyone spending money for formaldahy­de soaked animals 150 years from now. ( if they even survive the test of time)

[princeinpurplrayn]

01:00 AM on 09/17/2008

you three posters, livesimply­, bamboozled­, and HJD, .. - it's like, what? do you live in straw huts and live outside society completely­? your hands are completely capitalist­-blood free? QUATSCH! (that means bullshit). people pay enourmous sums of money for art all the time, and have for hundreds of years. people have also paid enourmous sums for lots of things. in my opinion, price tag aside, this is art of such beauty, and is priceless. like all good art is. at least, it may draw some attention to what art is, and maybe some kid will become a great artist from this. it's a hell of a lot better than hoping some kid might grow up to design yachts or luxury homes in the country of wyoming

[partisanpolitico]

10:55 AM on 09/17/2008

Oh dear," ... and maybe some kid will become a great artist from this." ??? and .."design yachts or luxury homes in the country of wyoming"?? First of all, good for Damien. He is a first-rate thinker and tweaker in the art world. He is not, however, making art so that future chillen will become "great artists" and secondly, designing anything, yachts or homes in the STATE of Wyoming is nothing to be ashamed of. Art sells if it is good, it won't if it ain't. The amount is what's titillatin­g.

[HJD]

12:49 AM on 09/17/2008

Pathetic, ignorant, wealthy fools sucked in by an artist's marketing scam.

[stevesrant]

01:20 AM on 09/17/2008

Smart (now wealthy) artist.

[Steeevyo]

07:19 AM on 09/17/2008

hes been wealthy before.

[rucognizant]

08:53 AM on 09/17/2008

Smart (now wealthy) artist. NOT artist, auctioneer­!