
This has me intrigued, is this art, or simply great marketing? I think it’s more marketing than art. It’s a nice piece, skulls are just fascinating, and so are diamonds, they evoke a lot of feeling in most folks. That’s it’s allure, but is it worth a $100 million? Does this make Damien, for a single piece, the highest paid living artist of all time so far. I guess so. Maybe that’s an art in and of itself, it’s more marketing isn’t it.
$20 million to create, sell it for a $100 million, $80 million profit! He’s good.
Then there’s the question of the diamonds, eight and a half thousand of them. Ethically sourced! How the hell does one ethically source 8,500 diamonds! For some reason I don’t buy that.
It’s going to be intriguing to see if he can sell it for that price.
Here are some links to articles with more information on the skull:
Hirst’s diamond creation is art’s costliest work ever: The Guardian
Damien Hirst Says $100 Million Diamond Skull Is `Almost’ Sold: Bloomberg
Damien Hirst diamond encrusted skull: Art News Blog
George Michael eyes Hirst skull; for $50 million; that’s low!: ITV News

Francis Bacon starts the break, his Portrait Study from Innocent X, shown at left, fetched $52.6m (£26.5m) at Sotheby’s in New York – almost double the previous high for a Bacon work.
Then a Mark Rothko beats the record again in the same night and grabs it for a price of $72.8m (£36.7m) for his 1950 work White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose).
The most expensive painting ever sold on record is a 1948 work by Jackson Pollock when it changed hands for about $140m (£73m) in a private sale.