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 3 of 3)

Susanne Jan 10th 2011 7:55PM

Besides being offensive to bereaving parents, this baby's skull belongs to someone's child. How did the artist get it???

Baby Girl Jan 10th 2011 7:59PM

art is a luxury with a biased opinion......get over it.

DAVID Jan 10th 2011 8:03PM

If there is any justice the Devil will have his way with Hirst, and any asshole who profits from this, twice for every dollar they make. There are only so many seats in Heaven. Would an idiot like that think he might have one? Sacrilege.

Lynne Jan 10th 2011 8:15PM

Art is defined by the artist at the time of its creation. Whether you like or dislike it, or are uncomfortable with it, does not mean it is not art to someone. If it is such an abomination, they why is the dead body of Christ on a cross immortalized the world over?

acadiandfs Jan 10th 2011 8:27PM

I'm sure that had the artist used a racially identifiable skull that the artistic value would not exist or even been considered. Art though it may be, it is both sad and disturbing. The real message and statement being made is on the values of our "modern" society. I say the baby was worth far more before the diamonds and platinum were added. The unfortunate demise of this child was a real treasure lost and the addition of baubles to his/her remains in no way adds value or replaces that loss.

KCF Jan 11th 2011 11:16PM

http://www.kcf.bz

Mark Alan Russell Jan 15th 2011 6:44PM

If you are offended by Damien's artwork then please take a look at what I believe to be the most obscene painting ever. (I painted it). WARNING - NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED!

http://photorealistpainting.com/portraits/suicide-bomber.html

Damien (rightly or wrongly) is considered to be the foremost contemporary artist of our time. His main theme is death - and how we as humans deal with it. As for the comments of Riverdew149 - If an artist says it is art - then it is. No amount of jumping up and down will change anyone's view.

Previous 20 Comments