I was asked to do a review of Damien Hirst and while I originally planned to do so referring to concept art, my complex feelings towards his work have convinced me to approach him from an easier angle. Today I want to write again about “art as a commodity” and how value is placed on a piece.  I’ve said before that I do not believe “talent” to be essential to become an “artist” and I think this statement is embodied in Hirst. It is well known that much of “his” work is created by assistants, with him doing the conceptualizing. I read on his Wikipedia page that an assistant once asked him for one of his dot paintings and he told her to paint one herself since she had done others. I can’t remember his exact response but it was in the vein of “the only difference between my work and yours is the money” which I think illustrates exactly my point. I personally have a complex view when it comes to assistants although it may simply be because I will probably never have any, though heavens knows that I could be doing much larger and more complex work with a few. My point being that I do believe conceptualization is a major component of creating a piece. On the other hand I also believe that if an “artist” signs off claiming a piece, that piece had damn well better have had some work beyond "I thought it up!" (conceptualization) done by that artist.

Hirst is, if I am not mistaken, one of, if not the richest artist now living and his works commands prices in the millions. I contrast this with some of the highly accomplished and beautiful art that I have purchased for as little as $10. I can see the literal monetary value in some of his work, for example “for the Love of God” his diamond encrusted skull. The diamonds alone are worth millions so it stand to reason the price for the art would be relatively high, but after you have made back the creation and upkeep costs, how do you come up with a value?  How does one justify the difference between an installation made for a few thousand dollars and sold for millions?

So art is a commodity but who decides what is worth buying and for how much? Obviously the great investors of the art world (Saatchi, et al) are to some extant responsible for driving up prices but why are the rest of us going along with them? I’ve known a few famous artists in my time and have no problem with the self important attitude many of them have and the tendency to command others to assist with their art (I’ll post about that some other time). But I have noticed a difference in attitude between the very successful artists and those neighborhood artists that I know: the artist whose work sells for $1,000's+ KNOWS the value of what he does. Even before he got to the point of commanding such high prices, he was completely convinced of the value and validity of his work, and somehow, others become convinced of it too. I think this is where basic psychology and all that power of positive thinking crap comes in but after floating around the sidelines of the art world for a few years I am convinced that the major part of art is purely mental. I think many of these guys THINK themselves into a higher tax bracket by convincing others of their worth.

Essentially, what I’m saying is, if I create a piece and manage to convince ONE PERSON, the right person, of how immensely valuable it is, I become a hot commodity, I become an “Artist” in a different way than I am right now. So, my question is: what’s stopping you? It’s time to believe in yourself as an artist.