Hirst: Still weak

By Felix Salmon
September 17, 2009
Scott Reyburn has a very misleading lede to his Hirst story:

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Scott Reyburn has a very misleading lede to his Hirst story:

Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) — A year after the record Damien Hirst sale, works by the artist are again being valued at levels seen at the peak of the art market boom.

His sole datapoint supporting this assertion? That a Hirst butterfly painting is coming up for auction with an estimate of £450,000 to £650,000. A substantially identical painting sold at the top of the market — the “Beautiful Inside My Head Forever” sale — for £1.6 million. Which means, I think, that Hirst values are actually down about 66% from the peak.

The ArtTactic Average Price Index for Hirst butterfly paintings (yes, there really is such a thing) is down a mere 41% since September 2008, which means that the estimate on the painting coming up for sale is if anything lower — not higher — than you might expect. So where on earth does Reyburn get his idea that Hirsts are back to their peak valuations? Just this: that the £1.6 million Hirst “had a low valuation of £500,000″ when it was auctioned.

No. Auction estimates aren’t valuations, they’re just tools the auction house uses to try to maximize its revenues. The valuations are whatever the paintings sell for. And it’s pretty obvious that this year’s butterfly is going to sell for substantially less than £1.6 million. Which is the only comparison that matters.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Looks like Reyburn’s been drinking the kool-Formaldehyde

Posted by VennData | Report as abusive

Oh if only economists like yourself had some kind of effect on the bullshit that the gallerists and auction houses talk about the market. Only yesterday, a former Sotheby’s director told me the contemporary art market hadn’t crashed. But prices are down 40%, I said. Yes, she said, but people are still selling art for a lot of money….. But, I protested, if the value of your home decreased by 40% in a year, you’d call that a crash wouldn’t you….

Posted by Ben Lewis | Report as abusive

To be fair, if the average estimate of the future sale is £550k and the estimate for the previous sale was £500k then a LIKE-FOR-LIKE comparison (i.e. comparison of the same metric) implies that indeed valuations are up (10% up).

You are merely GUESSING that the realised price will be lower than £1.6m (and I don\’t disagree).
However, in order to have a more concrete datapoint for the actual decline in the ATAPI for Hirst Butterfly Paintings, we will have to wait for the auction to take place and see what someone is willing to pay.

Before the auction you are merely speculating.

Posted by Tiny Tim | Report as abusive

In the world of art I think “same order of magnitude” counts as “the same price”.

Posted by Satan Mayo | Report as abusive