News: Art World Spins

By: Nord Wennerstrom

November 2007

LONDON—Some of the more entertaining PR spin in the soap opera called "As The Art World Turns" concerns the sale of "For the Love of God," the $100 million life-sized platinum human skull encrusted with 8,601 diamonds, created by Damien Hirst. If sold, it would be the most expensive work by a living artist.

The über-bauble—a combined vanitas symbol, commentary on the current, hyper-inflated art market and prime example of the market’s excesses—was unveiled at Jay Jopling’s London-based White Cube Gallery June 1 and drew some 50,000 visitors during the five weeks it was on view. Early reports circulated that pop singer George Michael was a prospective buyer. More recently, The New York Times reported that New York–based dealer Alberto Mugrabi’s offer of $50 million for "God" was turned down.

On August 30, the gallery announced the work had sold, but released few details, which immediately stoked controversy, something from which Hirst doesn’t shy away. Who bought "For the Love of God"? Did it go for the full price, or was it discounted? Indeed, was the work really sold, or was the whole affair a stunt? A savvy businessman, Hirst has made millions by buying back and reselling his own works (including "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living"), so a bit of marketing legerdemain doesn’t seem impossible.

Within weeks of White Cube’s announcement, the Times recounted some "popular theories" circulating the art world that cast doubt on the veracity of the sale. Blogger CultureGrrl (Lee Rosenbaum) went so far as to suggest the purported $100 million sale was a hoax. In a recent telephone interview, White Cube’s spokesperson Honey Luard says otherwise: "I deny it’s a hoax, it goes without saying." Beyond that, however, she is, very politely, not saying much, citing a confidentiality agreement. She confirmed press reports the work has been sold to "an investment group," but Luard would not provide any information about its membership or where it’s based. And, yes, Hirst retains a reported "participation" in the work, which Luard confirmed is an "ownership interest," but would not quantify that. In addition, she would not confirm if this is the first time White Cube has sold a work in which the artist retains any ownership, nor would she clarify if Hirst’s "ownership interest" was a condition of sale (i.e., no matter who purchased the work, Hirst holds a stake), or a consequence of Hirst’s being part of the "group."

Another condition of sale that raised eyebrows calls for the work to be exhibited in museums. Collectors, dealers and auction houses routinely leverage the validation a museum exhibition imputes to build artists’ reputations and generate sales—in this case, Hirst is codifying and forcing the issue. Museum officials are cognizant of their "complicity in commerce," as Neal Benezra, director of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art calls it, and are wary of having their imprimatur abused. Benezra, for example, says he would not exhibit the skull by itself "as a trophy piece." Kathy Halbreich, outgoing director of the Walker Art Center, concurs, but adds if she were mounting a Hirst show, "yes we would want to include the work, to put it in context." At present, Luard only says discussions are underway.

Still more rumors circulate. "Dealers say Mr. Hirst reserved the right to make two more" of the skulls, the Times reports. White Cube’s Luard counters that "For the Love of God" is "unique" and not from an edition—a response that leaves some wiggle room.

Hirst reportedly did spend more than $20 million on the creation of "God," which could represent his in-kind contribution to the total purchase price. If Hirst’s "ownership interest" is based on his contribution of the cost of production, Rosenbaum says, "Padding the purported ‘sale price’ of an artwork with the artist’s own personal outlay for materials is, to my knowledge, at complete variance with standard art-market practice."

Whether genius or charlatan, Hirst definitely has the Midas touch, and support from top galleries and collectors. What remains to be seen is his staying power in the market and his legacy in the history of art, because right now "an investment group" either owns an important piece of 21st-century art, or an insanely expensive white elephant.