Odds & Ends

Catching up on a few items and events of the past few weeks:

An article in The Economist this week on Damien Hirst and his upcoming auction at Sotheby’s in London is curious in how it deals with the rarity of an auction of new works.  Typically, an auctioneer like Sotheby’s deals in pre-owned works – things that have been around at least 5 years, and had at least one owner.  The Hirst auction includes 223 lots, which are brand new.

Damien Hirst - The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living

This colloquialism  – “brand new” – appears to be correct.  Hirst, known for, among other things, preserving animals in formaldehyde, has created a brand and production structure around his creations: 180 people, and at least four production sites, according to the article.

The butterfly pictures are made by fabricators who are given the dimensions needed, but are otherwise left to themselves to chose the colours and designs they want.  Having given his final approval – sometimes, one fabricator says, only by looking at a photograph – Mr Hirst signs and dates the back of the work.

For art that is not always produced by the artist, and is estimated to sell at prices between £10,000 and £2m ($18,000-$3.6m), the Hirst auction appears to be breaking two trends in the art market by eschewing the standard artist-gallery relationship under which galleries act as dealers and agents.

By going directly to Sotheby’s, Hirst is removing the waiting game that galleries make customers play.

“Dealers are gatekeepers who permit artists’ access to serious collectors.”…Auction rooms, by contrast, are more democratic.  Anyone with enough money can buy what they want – immediately.  They just have to be prepared to make that final bid.

In removing this barrier to entry, Hirst has enabled himself to control the supply of his work entering the marketplace (the article notes his counter-intuitive expectation to see his prices rise while increasing supply by 223 works).  In the end, though, the $18,000 price tag is still a large barrier to tackle.

Structurally, this change seems to embrace moves made recently by artists engaging in direct marekting to their audiences (see Radiohead, et al).  While diamond skulls and preserved animals may not be available via digital download, or on a pay-as-you-like scheme, Hirst’s ability to cut transaction costs by going directly to Sotheby’s fits neatly with his “something for everyone” business dream.  No matter the price, though, it appears he’s inching closer to effeciency in the marketplace.

—————————————————

It’s not normally my place to dive into celebrity gossip, the tristes of rappers, or the truthfulness of what is supposedly “non-fiction”.  But when it was announced in July that Rick Ross, known for the song “Everyday I’m Hustling”, had previously been employed as a corrections officer, contrary to his rough-thug image (see the title of his song), the media reaction was somewhat tepid.

Not that I necessarily care about the accuracy of a rapper’s claims (let’s send a fact checker through one complete album and see what we come up with), but what’s separating the startling revelation of Ross’s background and that of James Frey, author of A Million Little Pieces?  The answer is Oprah, who famously backed Frey, only to apologize later.

The lesson: if you’re going to lye, don’t do it around Oprah.

—————————————————

Girl Talk - Feed the Animals

Finally, when I went to download the Girl Talk album Feed the Animals at illegalart.net, I was asked a simple but surprising question after I entered the my price of $0 in the pay-as-you-like website: why?

Some of the options, I have to say, were savvy, given the collage-like sampling method Girl Talk uses to create his albums, and the underground nature in which he is gaining notoriety:

-I may donate later

-I can’t afford to pay

-I don’t really like Girl Talk

-I don’t believe in paying for music

-I have already purchased this album

-I don’t value music made from sampling

-I am part of the press, music, or radio industry

-Other reasons

I chose the last, simply because the most obvious reason was glaringly omitted.  If you’ve already announced to someone in a transaction that you’re willing to give away your product for free, then what reason or incentive do I have to pay anything?

The message that these passive questions seem to be presenting is that altruism should lead you to put down a ‘fair’ price for this album as the producer sees it – ie something higher than $0.  But if the producer is willing to go as low as nothing, then why should I value it above him/her?  Clearly they have more familiarity with its content and the craftsmanship than I, and if their higher level of information leads to a possible value of $0, then why should mine go any higher?

This all reflects back to the days of Napster, in which downloaders argued that music and other art media constitute common goods, and therefore should not have a price attached.  Clearly others – mostly producers and musicians – did not agree, hence the lawsuits.  Interesting that now, as people are given the option to pay nothing, we’ve entered a hybrid state of the Napster days: pay what you like, but it should be more than $0.

Advertisement