Recently came across a couple of items about the contemporary British artist Damien Hirst. If you’re not familiar with Hirst, he is something of an “enfant terrible” of the modern art scene and is best known for works featuring dead animals in formaldehyde.
The first is from the current issue of “The Economist” (“The shark’s last move”). It’s an interesting look at the business side of the modern art world and how Damien Hirst has turned himself and his work into a fantastically profitable brand.
I was quite surprised to discover the amount of money that’s available to go into modern art. Major new museums and an explosion in the number of wealthy collectors have combined to create big demand, with high and rising prices.
Back to Mr Hirst. His latest move is to hold an auction of his latest collection (some 223 pieces, or “lots”), selling directly to buyers rather than through the usual channel of a gallery. In effect, Hirst is cutting out the middle man and increasing his share of the take.
This isn’t an entirely new idea. Artists have long resented the percentages paid to managers and other intermediaries. Successful rock bands have taken a similiar approach. In the 70s, mega-group Led Zeppelin (steered by their ruthless manager Peter Grant) rewrote the rules for concert tours and made themselves a fortune. Today, the Rolling Stones are an extraordinarily profitable business concern as well as still being “The Greatest Rock And Roll Band In The World”.
But Hirst’s approach is new to the art world and has caused a few ruffled feathers. So, all eyes were on the results of the first day of the auction.
Those hoping Hirst would fall flat on his face were disappointed as he raked in more on the first day (GBP 70.5 million) than the low end estimate (GBP 65 million) for the entire two-day event (“Damien Hirst sale breaks art auction record”).
As a marketer and copywriter, what’s interesting is the glimpse into the world of the mega-wealthy this offers. After all, the prices paid for modern art often seem ridiculous so “value for money” doesn’t seem to be a key factor (Yes, I know that art is often talked up as an “investment” but I suspect that’s the “logical” justification for the real, more emotional, buying factors).
Instead, it seems to be more about prestige, exclusivity and “one-upmanship”, having something that nobody else has. And regardless of what you think of Damien Hirst’s work, there’s no doubt he’s a master at giving his market exactly what they want. In doing so, he has become extremely wealthy. There’s a lesson there for all marketers.