The sale is expected to net $120 million, but will anything short of that amount signal a larger decline in the art market? And what does it mean that Hirst is auctioning off new works, made within the last 2 years, as opposed to selling them through a gallery? I wonder how White Cube feels about it.
crisis on infinite earths
12 years ago
Posts
4 comments:
I thought this writer made some good points about the upcoming action: http://time-blog.com/looking_around/2008/09/damien_hirst_the_postscript_1.html
Very interesting - thanks for sending the link. The "Richard Serra" problem he mentioned is exactly why I love Dia Beacon so much (ironically I just posted something about it earlier tonight) - the open, minimalist space allows the artwork to breathe a little. BTW I'm so glad you're still reading my blog!! You're like my only reader, and I'm truly honored. Thank you. :))
PS. The other issue - about selling directly to buyers through auction - it's exactly the situation in China, where almost all of their emerging and established artists are going through auction to reach the market. So there's little mediation by dealers, critics, and other art professionals who can sift through and weed out one artist over the other - reason why prices are inflated, perhaps?
Well, I enjoy your blog! You know a lot about art and I have learned a bunch from you. :)
Before reading the article in ArtNews this month, I didn't know anything about the art market in China and how it has grown significantly over the last few years.
I agree the prices are inflated for the reason you mention; however there also seems to be a demand from buyers/collectors for The New--Chinese art. This I think also fuels the inflation.
Post a Comment