[eddiedangerous]

We all heard about (or were at) the recent Hirst sale direct to the public, with no gallery cut.

What I think wasn't so well represented in the press (im sure you guys will help dig out some links) was the number of these record breaking sales that actually fell through.

Several of the buyers pulled out of their sales paying all fees (and these are some serious fees) rather than follow through with purchasing the art, several naming the current climate (which was slipping by the day) and most, the falling rate of the pound. It effectively meant some buyers would have found themselves moving into immediate negetive equity, with not much chance of selling in the near future.

He's flooded his own market and he chose the possible (and only time will tell) worst single moment to hold his sale. Yet the media painted a very different picture. I don't know if you are under the same impression as me that it was a great success rather than an abject failure?

Thoughts please, and apologies if there is a thread discussing this elsewhere.

[bert]

Same old for the art market, no? Smoke and mirrors...

[pezlow]

Would certainly be interested to see the links as I wasn't aware that some of the sales had fallen through (although it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest).

There are a huge number of Hirst pieces in circulation. Apparently Whitecube has over 200 originals on their books. So the market definitely is flooded at the moment. I have a feeling that we won't be seeing any new hirst originals for some time.

[Young Squire]

Jan 7, 2009 11:49:09 GMT 1 pezlow said:

Would certainly be interested to see the links as I wasn't aware that some of the sales had fallen through (although it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest).

There are a huge number of Hirst pieces in circulation. Apparently Whitecube has over 200 originals on their books. So the market definitely is flooded at the moment. I have a feeling that we won't be seeing any new hirst originals for some time.

That's not what I read. The Wallace Collection is due 14th October 2009 (Maybe not the most solid of sources though!)

www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite/london/culture/article/1157158351041?packedargs=suffix%3DSubSectionArticle

[pezlow]

Yes I saw that last night too. My post should have probably read new hirst originals FOR SALE.

[Young Squire]

Jan 7, 2009 12:10:56 GMT 1 pezlow said:

Yes I saw that last night too. My post should have probably read new hirst originals FOR SALE.

Just making sure you haven't taken those fingers of the pulse Pez!!

[Pattycakes]

According to a few spies of mine in the auction houses, indeed a number of sales did not go through, as to if they paid the fees I cannot be sure, but certainly the majority were Russians who went from Billionaires to millionaires over night and couldn't afford the exposure.

It was one of the most gross auctions I have ever witnessed, and certainly was the death of the art market as we knew it. Sotheby's have since lost 20% headcount in New York, with more to follow in London, it seems Christie's and Bonham's are following suit in the coming weeks. Bad news if you are employed in the art world and are looking for a post redundancy job, most of us are pretty much useless aside from our art expertese and in a climate where that is not needed, and with few other skill sets, there will be a lot of people who are simply unemployable.

[eddiedangerous]

scary times.
still cant find any links though.
am thinking more and more I heard this word of mouth
(its been a very hazey xmas perios for me so cant pin it down exact !!!!)

[Daniel Silk]

Jan 7, 2009 11:49:09 GMT 1 pezlow said:

Would certainly be interested to see the links as I wasn't aware that some of the sales had fallen through (although it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest).

There are a huge number of Hirst pieces in circulation. Apparently Whitecube has over 200 originals on their books. So the market definitely is flooded at the moment. I have a feeling that we won't be seeing any new hirst originals for some time.

I think that with maybe so many pieces by Hirst in circulation and many more unsold, it could be that people are now finding they have a much bigger choice of similar art by other new and up and coming artists so are spending their money elsewhere.

[Prescription Art]

Jan 7, 2009 13:45:31 GMT 1 Daniel Silk said:

I think that with maybe so many pieces by Hirst in circulation and many more unsold, it could be that people are now finding they have a much bigger choice of similar art by other new and up and coming artists so are spending their money elsewhere.

Too true,

I for one have been looking elsewhere for my animals in formaldahyde recently.

I've picked up an Otter and a Gnu so far. Who needs Hirst!!

[loucastel]

Jan 7, 2009 13:09:15 GMT 1 Pattycakes said:

According to a few spies of mine in the auction houses, indeed a number of sales did not go through, as to if they paid the fees I cannot be sure, but certainly the majority were Russians who went from Billionaires to millionaires over night and couldn't afford the exposure.

It was one of the most gross auctions I have ever witnessed, and certainly was the death of the art market as we knew it. Sotheby's have since lost 20% headcount in New York, with more to follow in London, it seems Christie's and Bonham's are following suit in the coming weeks. Bad news if you are employed in the art world and are looking for a post redundancy job, most of us are pretty much useless aside from our art expertese and in a climate where that is not needed, and with few other skill sets, there will be a lot of people who are simply unemployable.

I would be interested to hear the reasoning behind the remark that this auction was the cause of the death of the art market as we know it, and also how it was responsible for the redundancy's, because to carry your reasoning through, then that particular auction was surely responsible for all the redundancy's at Woolworths, Adams, zavvas, Whitards, to name but a few, and the financial meltdown occuring throughout the world has nothing to do with it !

[Bram]

Interesting thread. Do we think Hirst has had his day then? will collectors try to off load with or without losses?

The only similar period that has gone before must be the late 1920's / early 30's. It would be interesting to know what happened with pieces pre and post the great depression.

[They call me Stephen]

I doubt very much that hirst has had his day...his auction was at the begining of the madness of recent times and although he seemed to do very well from it, many of the buyers suddenly had less disposable income than they previously thought as mentioned by print guru. He will be back with something more expensive no doubt in the future and will have prints, books, galery shows and auctions to accompany this fact. (pure speculation of course)

Hirst does have a habit of completely flooding his market though and im not sure if that works in his favour. Although i would love to own a hirst, the high print numbers and variations on each theme make them less and less appealing.

I doubt very much that many of the auction winners would care to much for up and coming artists or ones of a simialr vein just cheaper. Hirst seems to be bit of a luxury brand, and as cliched as it might be art for people who don't neccessarily know much about art.

[snausages]

Hirst is indisputably* the most important and famous artist of this era. Just because the economy tanked and some Russians etc. couldn't cough up the money to buy some of the pieces from that auction it doesn't mean that Hirst collectors are going to turn tail and start "offloading" their originals and dump the guy.

He's going to be in every art history book from now until the end of the world. He's a much safer artist to own than almost anyone living today.

[onemandown72]

Jan 7, 2009 16:25:16 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Hirst is indisputably* the most important and famous artist of this era. Just because the economy tanked and some Russians etc. couldn't cough up the money to buy some of the pieces from that auction it doesn't mean that Hirst collectors are going to turn tail and start "offloading" their originals and dump the guy.

He's going to be in every art history book from now until the end of the world. He's a much safer artist to own than almost anyone living today.

I couldn't agree more. Like him or loathe him he understands the link between commerce & art better than anybody before him. He's taken Warhol's attitude and multiplied it 10 fold.

[lee3]

>>>He's flooded his own market and he chose the possible (and only time will tell) worst single moment to hold his sale<<<<

I'd say his timing was impeccable as he picked the zenith of a 15 year bull market in art to have that sale. Ok, one month earlier would have been better. I have no doubt that some of those sales fell through given that buyers have 30 days to pay up and a mere 2 weeks later, the bottom fell out of the art market as it corrected by a good 30% overnight and one can compound the problem as the GBP lost a quarter of its value relative to the dollar over the same period. Still, his timing was pretty darn good because one month later and he would have been lucky to see half those results.

>>>Hirst is indisputably* the most important and famous artist of this era<<<

You think so? I agree he's the most important capatalistic artist of this era but that is certainly not what I look for when deciding what moves me and compels me to buy something that I want desperately to live with hanging in my home. His name would be at the top of my list right now as the artist that will have the most difficult time getting back to early '08 pricing levels (maybe Koons) so those that own his work had better be in love with it or able to absorb a substantial percentage loss if they are in need of selling some of his work to raise capital.

[pezlow]

I doubt I'll lose too much on my 2 hirst originals Sorry had to get that in.

But in general I agree with you lee.

[lee3]

>>>>It was one of the most gross auctions I have ever witnessed, and certainly was the death of the art market as we knew it. Sotheby's have since lost 20% headcount in New York, with more to follow in London, it seems Christie's and Bonham's are following suit in the coming weeks. Bad news if you are employed in the art world and are looking for a post redundancy job, most of us are pretty much useless aside from our art expertese and in a climate where that is not needed, and with few other skill sets, there will be a lot of people who are simply unemployable. <<<<

I'm not trying to pick on anyone but reading through this thread again there are a couple of points I'd like to make. The Hirst sale had absolutley nothing to do with the reduction of staff at Sotheby's or anyhere else for that matter. The Hirst sale was simply the last sale before the art market corrected.

I've been so sure for each of the past 5 years that "this year" the day of reckoning would arrive and more astonished with each passing year that it prices did anything but and kept moving straight up. This is natural phenomon that one can only point the finger to human nature as opposed to any one artist. This correction was long overdue and is clearly triggered world wide from excess speculation as a result of leverage and the unwinding of that levereage.

>>>He's flooded his own market and he chose the possible (and only time will tell) worst single moment to hold his sale<<<<

Again, that sale did MUCH better in early October than it would today or probably a year from now or as I suspect 5 years from now. So, he chose anything but the worst possible time and more than likely missed the BEST possible time by one month tops. More than 90% of those lots sold for outrageous prices and the sale did what it was supposed to do - imho it was a brilliant opportunity for the primary houses to cast a shade of doubt to the handful of artists at Hirst's pricing level and the many artists that will achieve those levels over the next hundred years to bypass the traditional dealer network in favor of using the auction houses for new work. A great model to expand their growth into newly minted works as opposed to works on the secondary market. It will allow Christie's and Sotheby's to pitch artists of all kinds to bring their wares straight to them and is a nice shot across the bow at the heavyweight dealers in the art market.

I believe that was one of the most successful sales I've ever seen regardles of whether or not 25% (a number I am pulling out of a hat) of the "sold" lots actually fell through after the fact.

[snausages]

>>>Hirst is indisputably* the most important and famous artist of this era<<<

Well that's why I put the asterisk there as there are a couple contenders. But although Hirst's audacity is over the top at times if your first thought about him is "capitalistic artist" I don't mean offense but I think that's because you're so market focused and might suggest that you spend too much time looking at auction catalogs and not enough looking at his books and critical texts. He has a large output but I think that is only now possible thanks to the fact that he has redefined and captivated audiences with groundbreaking art for well over a decade now and like no other artist before him since probably Warhol although I'd liken him more to Duchamp.

Hirst is an easy target because of how visible he is and journalists have been using him for Headline fodder recently because so. But if if you did NOT pay record prices for his work then you'll probably fair no worse than anyone else. If you paid record prices for Hirst or anyone then it's on you. Everything is and already has sunk. I see it like having stock in GE or MSFT. Everything is going to be dragged lower in a market crash but it's the blue chip companies that will have the least fluctuation.

[lee3]

>>>> I don't mean offense but I think that's because you're so market focused and might suggest that you spend too much time looking at auction catalogs and not enough looking at his books and critical texts<<<<

I am indeed market focused on the one hand because imho only a fool would not consider value when we are talking about making the sizes of allocations one makes to art because they love it. But, you can only get to the value side of the equation once you've studied art and made a time committment to it. Additionally, I LOVE perusing the auction catalogs and results as it increases my knowledge and awareness of this hobby. Early in my collecting career my best exposure to artists was in the auction catalogs as opposed to books from a library. Once I figured out what I love in the catalogs, and this is key, then I order books by the handful on those artitsts and/or movements in general.

>>>and not enough looking at his books and critical texts.<<<

Please see above as that is ignorant of the facts and completely false. I pursue this passion feverishly and one thing I am not going to do is try to criticize another collector or artist when I don't feel I have a grasp of the facts. I do believe I have a grasp of Hirst's value and contribution to art world and within this thread I am merely commenting on the former.

>>>He has a large output but I think that is only now possible thanks to the fact that he has redefined and captivated audiences with groundbreaking art for well over a decade now and like no other artist before him since probably Warhol although I'd liken him more to Duchamp.<<<

And this is where I'll politely agree to disagree.

>>>Everything is going to be dragged lower in a market crash but it's the blue chip companies that will have the least fluctuation. <<<

This is true and yet I could rattle off 20 blue chip artists from 1989 that trade for 10 cents on the dollar now to their '89 prices because they were nothing more than momentum, flash in the pan names that did not inspire those that followed them. This is not to suggest that Hirst is like them in any way shape or form but it would do any serious art collector well to be educated to those facts and makes thier own buying decisions accordingly. That is unless you are one of the lucky few who have more money than time and I am certainly not among that collecting base.

[snausages]

I don't mean offense Lee, but if you are spending so much time reading auction catalogs that's time spent not reading critical texts and if you are so auction and market focused then I'm really not very surprised to see that you think he's "capitalistic." True to an extet but if that's your first thought I think though that really shows off your focus and perspective much more than Hirst's.

I just have to totally disagree with you then. Hirst is an absolute phenomenon and powerhouse and this is because of his conceptual work, not because of his "capitalism." I doubt any of the artists from '89 that really do trade for 10 cents on the dollar now could come close to comparing to Hirst and what he has done in my opinion.

[goffy]

Jan 7, 2009 16:25:16 GMT 1 @snausages said:

He's going to be in every art history book from now until the end of the world.

Some people already know that I hate that charlatan Hirst and never let up the chance of having a go at him. And today will be no different.

To say that Hirst will be in every art history book from now until the end of time is silly really. Unless, as I expect, it is to laugh at people from today's age for even considering him an artist in the first place.

[snausages]

it is to laugh at people from today's age for even considering him an artist in the first place.

Yes, it was a joke really. Just like how we laugh at the silly people from those medieval times of the twentieth century for thinking that pollock, duchamp, etc were artists! Ha!

[jamesreeve5]

It will be interesting to see where history books categorize Hirst in 100 years time and how this categorization will affect future analysis of his work. Will he continue to be highly regarded for his association with the YBAs, or will his work fall into an as-yet unnamed movement with artists like Jeff Koons and Richard Prince?

[Va Va Voom]

An interesting and relevant article here
web.artprice.com/AMI/AMI.aspx?id=ODIzNDQ2NzM3NTE5NTk=

[eddiedangerous]

nice find va va voom, thanks

[jimbob68]

Jan 7, 2009 19:47:19 GMT 1 jamesreeve5 said:

It will be interesting to see where history books categorize Hirst in 100 years time and how this categorization will affect future analysis of his work. Will he continue to be highly regarded for his association with the YBAs, or will his work fall into an as-yet unnamed movement with artists like Jeff Koons and Richard Prince?

Because his work has been validated by public, private and corporate collectors at the highest level I think Hirst's name is safe. Personally I prefer the big installations and I think they have far more integrity and longevity than the endless re-runs of butterflies, spots etc.
I'm not sure where I stand on his work and I'm not sure if it's any good or not. You cannot dispute his mastery of the market though. I heard that for the big show he organised that made the name of the YBAs, "Frieze" the success was ensured by the people he invited. Is it true, or just another Hirstian myth, that he acquired the mailing list of a big London gallery in an dodgy manner?

[jamesreeve5]

While I would not take what Charlie Finch says as gospel, he offers his predictions for 2009 (including the end of Hirst's career as the world's most famous artist) in an artnet article:

www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/finch/finch1-3-09.asp

[lee3]

>>>While I would not take what Charlie Finch says as gospel,<<<

That's for sure. I'm not going to link it because I don't think it does anyone any good to disparage some artists like he does. However, if you look back at Finch's report a couple weeks earlier he wrote perhaps the funniest and most damning review I've ever read regarding the Dumas show at the Moma.

[goffy]

Jan 7, 2009 19:29:56 GMT 1 @snausages said:

it is to laugh at people from today's age for even considering him an artist in the first place.

Yes, it was a joke really. Just like how we laugh at the silly people from those medieval times of the twentieth century for thinking that pollock, duchamp, etc were artists! Ha!

Oh you misguided fool. I think the difference is that Hirst is regarded as an artist now, where Duchamp and Pollock were intially dismissed. So it is infact the complete opposite. Nice try though.