Comments on: Hirst Painting Only Worth Signature – artmarketblog.com

By: Suzy

Suzy — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 23:31:32 +0000

I know someone who sells old classic Izod Polo shirts online for a considerable amount of money. Your point that investing in a brand is stupid is completely moot. People will pay top dollar for old classic Louis Vuitton suitcases that are authenticated. Not for the knock off versions.

I know that you were just using the Izod logo shirt as an example, but in doing so you completely changed my mind about purchasing “Name Brand” art.

By: april

april — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 07:25:50 +0000

i just want to say i had to study someone and was impressed with what he has done and i dont think it is nice not to like just because you didnt like one painting. think about it!

April,13

By: ed baynared

ed baynared — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:31:36 +0000

subscription / please

By: Niall Flaherty

Niall Flaherty — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:09:55 +0000

Britney is more of a performance artist.

By: Spark

Spark — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:15:24 +0000

Adams comments “Why is it stupid to buy a Damien Hirst? Who cares if it isn’t even made by Hirst…you are buying the Damien Hirst “brand” as much as the painting itself.” explains everything that is wrong with the ‘Art world’… it no longer has anything to do with ART, (a means of creative expression)

It’s all about investment and the garbage that Hirst produces always draws the intention of investors looking to diversify…

Hirst is no more of an artist than Britney Spears…

By: Antonio Arch

Antonio Arch — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:42:47 +0000

I love your blog. Having said that, please stop writing about this person; maybe if he’s ignored he’ll go away and take his formaldehyde with him!

By: Adam Roth-Caretsky

Adam Roth-Caretsky — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:46:35 +0000

I agree w/ Adam his statement on Warhol, supports the theory as well. In the world of coins, the mess ups, and the error coins ,are the ones, worth the most money..

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:36:32 +0000

Nick,

I agree that Hirsts probably aren’t a good long-term investment. However Heather stated that people are stupid if they pay for a Hirst (given how much they cost). I disagree. If prestigious contemporary collectors are trying to build a solid, well-rounded collection they will most likely want it to include one of the most powerful names in contemporary art. You can debate the merits of Hirst as an artist, but whether or not you think he is a good artist, you can’t disagree with the fact that he is extremely relevant in the contemporary art scene. If we should have a problem with someone, perhaps it is the gallery system (Specifically Gagosian and Jopling). If you have problems with Hirst’s merits as an artist, shouldn’t you be complaining about Gagosian and Jopling who championed him?

By: artforprofits

artforprofits — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:33:26 +0000

I have to agree with Heather on this one. Yes, you are buying the Hirst brand but investment wise it is about as savvy as investing in one of the polo shirt you mention Adam. If Hirst’s actions didn’t have such an effect and influence on the market I wouldn’t have a problem with people purchasing his work even if it was because they actually don’t care about future value. The fact remains that long term, investment in nothing more than a brand is not very smart

Nicholas Forrest
artmarketblog.com

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:32:04 +0000

Heather,

Why is it stupid to buy a Damien Hirst? Who cares if it isn’t even made by Hirst…you are buying the Damien Hirst “brand” as much as the painting itself. What if I said you could buy two exact looking polo shirts, one for $10 and one for $50. Why would you buy the $50? Plenty of people do because it has either a little figure of a guy playing polo or because it has an alligator. Is there really a difference between Hirst and this?