Check Your Head

hirst_skull.jpg“For the Love of God,” the platinum skull that Damien Hirst studded with 8,601 diamonds and called art, has been sold. An unnamed investment group—perhaps requesting anonymity because this is the kind of purchase that gets you a reputation for being insane—will pay $100 million in cash for the piece, which had been on the market since at least June 3.

Less than two weeks ago, Eli Broad, who recently seized the “opportunity” to give Goldman’s GEO fund a bunch of money, warned that major losses hitting hedge fund managers would hurt the contemporary art market, and that many expensive pieces would go unsold. A spokeswoman for Broad declined to comment on whether or not her boss is currently in the process of removing egg from his face. Is the sale indicative of market woes being over or of someone having taste in “art” so bad he/she said “credit crunch be damned, I’ve got to have this thing” (or of Eli knowing nothing)? We say a little bit of both.

On a more personal note, we’re sad to say that it’s highly unlikely that Stevie Cohen, who owns Hirst’s dead shark, was the buyer, as SAC was down as much as 9% at one point this month (which we like to call: "SAC's worst. month. ever.").

Earlier: What The Market Hath Wrought

Hirst Sells Skull for $100 Million, Manager Says [Bloomberg]

Comments

Posted by anon, Aug 29, 2007 4:55PM

Ever consider that having an "unnamed investor group" buy the piece might be a face-saving way for the artist to pull it off the market? Certainly would make him look stupid to hold onto the $100m price point for too too long and have it just sit there. The art business is all about creating scarcity.

Posted by , Aug 29, 2007 6:24PM

anon 4:55, doing that in the financial markets would be market manipulation, i.e. illegal. If I am not mistaken, the technical term would be wash trading. I would imagine that similar regulations exist in the art market.

Posted by , Aug 29, 2007 7:33PM

Somehow I do not think there is any sort of regulatory framework in the art business. I believe perception is reality, and image is everything, so if the artist did in fact pull it himself, and he were to be found out, he'd likely be ruined personally and the value of his other work would drop dramatically.

Posted by anon4life, Aug 29, 2007 9:57PM

The point of the $100M offer was to generate publicity - whether someone bought it or not is really immaterial, save for the carrying cost of all of those diamonds.

As for whether or not this was really sold, the British Revenue Service will soon know, given the tax bite involved.

Isn't there a funny joke about Alan Greenspan to make here?

Post Your Comment