Damien Hirst is the most commercially successful living contemporary artist of our time. Inspired by factory style artists such as Warhol, Hirst' s work brings into focus the commodification of art.
Hirst uses several marketing strategies to set him apart from his contemporaries in order to secure his brand.
One of these strategies is shock value and the confrontation of his audience with controversial subjects. His Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living features a giant tiger shark floating in a formaldehyde filled encasement [1] Death is a major subject that runs through much of his work. He has done several other tank pieces featuring dead animals encased in formaldehyde. His Butterflies series is a collection of works made from butterfly wings, juxtaposing the beauty of the works themselves with the ugliness of death [3].
Images of butterfly paintings can be seen here:
https://www.othercriteria.com/browse/all/projects/butterfliesproject/
Another of Hirst's marketing strategies is his comment on the commodification of art through his woks. His work, For the Love of God, a human skull covered in 8,601 diamonds, seems as if to say it is literally the monetary ostentation of this work that make it valuable. Hirst claimed that the work sold but it appears that it was bought by a consortium including himself, the owner of his gallery, and his business manager [2]. As I mentioned in my last assignment, one wonders if perhaps this project signals the limit in the commodification of art and brand equity. Is this work so ridiculously ostentatious that one actually loses faith in its value? Does it too directly confront the art world with an ugly reflection of its own unchecked obsession with money? Even if it didn't sell to a collector, Hirst was still able to generate media attention as thousands of people waited outside his gallery to see its unveiling in 2007 [2].
Image of For the Love of God can be seen here:
https://www.othercriteria.com/browse/all/projects/skulls/
Hirst has also moved into other fields as a marketing technique. He designs T-shirts and has experimented with several restaurant ventures in which he displays his own work. It seems he is testing the limit to his own brand.
Images of T-shirts can be seen here:
https://www.othercriteria.com/browse/all/projects/butterfliesproject/
Personally, I am curious to know if the factory production trend will continue in the art world, taking into account both its costs and benefits. While my background is primarily in architecture, I see a parallel between the two fields. In most large design studios today, the principal architect generates the main concepts of the work, and most of the development and detailing of these ideas is left to others. Though architecture has its own set of constraints, and any large project will always need a team of specialists, I think this “factory model” can often lead to a more interesting and dynamic end result. Does anyone think that art will continue to grow and benefit from the factory model, or does it separate the concept too much from the physical work?
Bibliography:
[1] http://www.gagosian.com/artists/damien-hirst/
[2] http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/h/damien_hirst/index.html
[3] https://www.othercriteria.com/browse/all/projects/butterfliesproject/
Don Thompson: [ARTH 4696 FINLEY Damien Hirst and the Shark THOMPSON.pdf|download/attachments/163686828/ARTH+4696+FINLEY+Damien+Hirst+and+the+Shark+THOMPSON.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1307993226000||]
Don Thompson: [ARTH 4696 FINLEY Warhol Koons and Emin THOMPSON.pdf|download/attachments/163686828/ARTH+4696+FINLEY+Warhol+Koons+and+Emin+THOMPSON.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1307993482000||]
Sarah Thornton: [ARTH 4696 FINLEY The Studio Visit THORNTON.pdf|download/attachments/163686828/ARTH+4696+FINLEY+The+Studio+Visit+THORNTON.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1307993514000||]