Damien Hirst Draws Fire for $50 Million Diamond and Platinum Baby Skull

by Jared Paul Stern (RSS feed)
Jan 10th 2011 at 8:01AM

Art world provocateur Damien Hirst's latest work, an authentic baby's skull covered in platinum and diamonds, is causing controversy in the UK. The sculpture (above), entitled For Heaven's Sake, is a follow-up to the Brit artist's astounding $100 million diamond covered skull which he debuted in 2007. The new work is based on an infant's skull believed to be that of a newborn less than two weeks old from a 19th-century pathology collection that Hirst has acquired, the London Telegraph reports. Cast in platinum and set with more than 8,000 white and pink diamonds by royal jewelers Bentley & Skinner, the skull will be exhibited later this month at the Gagosian Gallery's new space in Hong Kong and will be shown in London later this year.

The gallery has not named a price for the new work but we expect it to fetch at least $50 million if not more. The work has angered parenting groups who claim that it is offensive to those who have suffered the bereavement of a child, the newspaper reports, raising the specter of protests. That of course is only likely to increase its value. "When you look at a skull, you think it represents the end, but when you see the end so beautiful, it gives you hope," Hirst commented regarding his earlier skull work. "Diamonds are about perfection and clarity and wealth and sex and death and immortality. They are a symbol of everything that's eternal, but then they have a dark side as well."

Tags: art, Bentley Skinner, Damien Hirst, diamond, diamonds, Gagosian Gallery, gemstones, jewelry, platinum, skull, UK

Filed under: Art

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

oldthudman Jan 10th 2011 8:40AM

Yea, that's a bit morbid guy's!!!!..............

Tamra Jan 10th 2011 2:12PM

What the hell kind of freak would do such a thing?

Brian Warszona Jan 10th 2011 2:27PM

Skulls are used as art in many cultures. Considering this skull is from the 19th century it represents history. It makes something once tragic beautiful. I hope you can try to see it this way.

I too understand where you're coming from, but I think since the skull was once "art" in a pathology collection, this was not acquired illegally or anything of the sort. As for the protesters, many things make people reminisce of tragic events in their lives. Focusing on something negative when the artist tried to make it something beautiful is sad.

I do agree that the "wealth and sex..." part of the art is a bit of a stretch he did not need to associate with this art.

robdablogger1 Jan 10th 2011 6:53PM

I'd rather see the skull of betty boop. Now that's freaky

Pam Jan 10th 2011 2:46PM

How sad that someone feels the need to exploit death to make money.

Gimmee Jan 10th 2011 5:57PM

Exploit death? Uh, isn't that what funeral homes and parlors do? They sell a mourning family crap they don't want and need. When our Mom died, we wanted a simple casket, our own flowers and no elaborate wake and processions. They kept on trying to add DVD's, special music, a photographer, a luncheon, etc....by the end we were more worn out by having to defend our choices than her passing itself.
Everyone is out to exploit everyone. Everyone has a gimmick or ulterior motive. If they didn't the dollar would have no value and we'd all still be living in caves.
This artist isn't asking you to look at it or buy it and everyone's opinion of "what art is" remains widely prolific. What you think is nice and beautiful to look at and admire may be crap to the next person in line. Luckily we live in the US where freedom of speech (as much as we think we have) is yours and mine.
We are however losing our rights to free speech when certain words in Mark Twains great works are being censored and removed. How pathetic are those who must sterilize the entire world simply because they are 'offended.' GIMMEE a break!

happenendude Jan 10th 2011 2:46PM

I don't care how you try to rationalize this, it is just wrong. Human remains in a medical school is one thing, and I don't care what other cultures did with sculls in other times. This is just sick. If some fool needs to use a skull in a work of art, and I use the term loosely, use a plastic one.

mooneyes1954 Jan 10th 2011 2:47PM

this guys is a sicko who whats to go and see a poor babys skull this is not right he should get a big fine or time in jail.

Badmotorfinger Jan 10th 2011 2:48PM

Cremation for the win, if u dont want ur bones to be molested. Amen.

jra2520 Jan 10th 2011 3:20PM

I like what you are saying.

JenJenJen

RosettaZombie Jan 10th 2011 2:49PM

Art should test the limits, and even go beyond where a person feels comfortable to further understand themself.

I say congratulations to the artist for a very interesting and facinating peice

aelanthia Jan 10th 2011 4:49PM

It's not fascinating art. It's a retread of what he did in 2007. It's lazy and it's boring.

gattic619 Jan 10th 2011 5:40PM

This is not art...although, i do not think art had only one definition...It is an idea that is executed.....while it may be valuable....I see no beauty in it at all, and i dont see the beauty and value ascribed to diamonds..they are only rocks...that we are told are valuable. its all psychological.
The only reason artists list this wacko makes money..and are successful, is becuase the patrons of the arts, are super rich...Ceo's or wealthy families that have too much money from exploiting others....and if the super rich call something art, their underlings.....applaud tit also and say bravo.
So much modern art,is pure nonsense......its a joke played on everyone...

bapstko Jan 10th 2011 2:51PM

This does not resemble art in any form, in my opinon. How morbidly sad, the baby skull should have been left to rest in peace with the rest of it's body. Just bad taste aweful, there is no educational value, it is simply a display of morbid twisted wealth at it's most depraved attempting to immitate art by calling it art!

riverdew149 Jan 10th 2011 3:18PM

Yuk. Just because the artist calls it art - doesn't make it so. I was told of an upside down crucifix in a bottle of urine was on display in the Guggenheim. Not sure if it's true - but I don't call that art either. I see it as the same. Not taste - no cultural statement. It’s just wrong.

chdblwinnr Jan 10th 2011 4:11PM

The piece you speak of was created by Robert Mapplethorpe and is called "Piss Christ". Mapplethorpe (who died in 1989) urinated into a glass container and placed an upside-down crucifix in it and....voila....art (can you sense my sarcasm?). He produced some very disgusting and disturbing pieces (including a photograph of a bullwhip inserted in his anus) and this gained him a lot of fame. Not that I am happy he died but I am ecstatic that he is no longer peddling his filth. Pure, unadulterated filth. Just because some moron pees in a cup and throws a religious icon into it does NOT make it art.