Page History

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.

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