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

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

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

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 !!!!)

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!!

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.

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.

>>>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.

>>>>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.

>>>> 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.

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.

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?

nice find va va voom, thanks

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