One of the world’s leading contemporary artists, Damien Hirst, with a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars, is challenging the definition of art. But is he doing it to further evolve the untamable drive for expression, or is it for profit and prestige?
Constantly in the headlines, Hirst is usually the first to jump on mainstream trends. In 2021, the artist took thousands of his famous dot paintings, which he created in 2016, selling them at $2000 a piece, with the option to either keep the physical version or burn it up to be turned into an NFT.
The artist posted on Instagram, “A lot of people think I’m burning millions of dollars of art but I’m not, I’m completing the transformation of these physical artworks into NFTs by burning the physical versions, the value of art digital or physical which is hard to define at the best of times will not be lost, it will be transferred to the NFT as soon as they are burnt.”
This project, called “The Currency”, which explores the boundaries of art and currency, made the artist dozens of millions of dollars.
When that trend phased out, or, in other words, the NFT market started declining, Hirst ventured on to new horizons - namely, AI art. The Beautiful Paintings, Hirst’s most recent project of A.I.-generated works, which allows users to create their own version of his Spin Paintings from the 1990s, has proved a lucrative venture for the British artist. This AI generator supposedly earned him more than $20 million within nine days in April this year.
There's a growing concern that the boundary between art and the art market has long gone, where instead of artists following their calling, they are instead following financial reward.
Some say that there’s no issue with Hirst’s talent for accumulating money from his art - after all, it’s a free market where people can buy as they choose. But is this happening at a too-sensitive time for art?
Damien Hirst with a Beautiful Painting, 2023. Photo: Prudence Cuming Associates Ltd.
One user commented on Hirst’s post about the burning NFTs last year, “Either way, it’s all about the money”. Another user said, “Interesting strategy of maxing the carbon footprint for this collection.”
The artist is no stranger to critical remarks and is one of Britain’s most controversial artists. Known for his work preserving animals with formaldehyde in glass tanks, such as sharks and cows, Hirst’s concepts continue to leave critics divided.
The NFT stunt is no different, with some critics in the art world viewing the burning with admiration and others criticising him for flaunting his wealth amidst the cost of living crisis. But knowing Hirst, it’s unlikely that public scepticism will ever put a stop to his controversial antics.
There’s no doubt that Hirst epitomises what makes a successful artist today, but his artistic choices in later years certainly do put the integrity of art and artistry into question.
Mutual Art Magazine comments: “As a “leading artist”, Hirst should think of channelling his evidently boundless appetite for new ventures in the direction of building new artistic foundations and possibilities, for the stature and title he carries come with the weight of responsibility. Damien Hirst has all the right in the world to continue using them to accumulate more wealth, but if that is the case maybe he should change his Instagram bio to: Commercial Artist.”
Main image: Damien Hirst in front of his artwork I Am Become Death, Shatterer of Worlds (2006) in 2012. Oli Scarff—Getty Images News/Thinkstock