That and the fact that the diamond market is still rigged. Second-hand diamonds, unless very unusual or part of some finely wrought artefact, are very hard to sell. New ones get on to the market much slower than they are dug up, and except for technological purposes they aren't much manufactured, which is odd since artificial ones can be made to arbitrary sizes and shapes cheaper than natural.

I hope no-one thought the fuss about "conflict diamonds" was motivated by humanitarianism. If you did, what about the other conflict minerals which have directly caused a good deal of misery, particularly in the Congo? When did you last see a movie-star urging us to boycot mobile phones if we don't know that the coltan used came from an officially recognised dealer?

Good Lord, that skull is cheesy. What was Hirst getting his inspiration from, the cover art of terrible metal albums?

Well, I kind of liked it. Something is very wrong with me, I know.

Well, Alisa, negotiate a price with me because I am, afterall an international jewel thief and man of mystery.

Nick Raffles!
Has a nice ring to it. The word association works well!
A yes Damian Hirst!
Half a shark, half a shark onwards!
Titled "The impossibility of the idea of death in the mind of someone living"
Utter bollocks!!!
The only reason I dont get into this "Art" game, I am reasonably able at art by the way, is that I would have great trouble keeping a straight face whilst receiving the cheque.
Patrons dont like to feel they are having the piss taken out of them you know. Especially for that kind of money! I would have to be subtle. A slight snigger or a knowing wink perhaps.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not judging it as art. i just like it as, I don't know, a little* mind exercise. I also liked the idea of that guy that wrapped an entire beach in cloth what was his name? I did not think of it as art, either, but I liked it.

*Speaking of the price: do they say how much worth of diamonds did it take?

I thought this was a nice take on the pretentiousness of it all

When I was at Art College in the '60s I was much impressed by Pop Art and the like, and some of it still looks okay to me. Most of it however was merely of the time and proved utterly incidental to life.

Discussing modern art is second only in tedium to actors talking about motivations for playing in the dressing up box, so I won't even try. But there is one question that has to be uniformly applied to any work of art, putting aside any question of style or meaning or cleverness or even any "political message."

Would you like to look at it every day?

As much as I may be slightly amused by this creation, I admit I wouldn't want to have to look at it often. If I owned this "piece" I would keep it in a cupboard until I could find someone not afraid of writing large cheques.

That question is only relevant to a very narrow (although perfectly legitimate and acceptable) application of art: decoration. Would you like to look at Munch's "The Scream" or Goya's "The Third Of May" (or some of his other work) every day? I wouldn't, but still there is no doubt, at least in my mind, that those are works of art, if ever there were any.

That question is only relevant to a very narrow ... application of art: decoration.

What would the other possible applications be ? Why would someone pay money to have that object ? I can understand collectors buying art so they'll be able to look at it and enjoy it. Why else would they buy it ?

Jacob,
As an investment. This stuff appreciates.

Alisa,
I know exactly what you mean by Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not judging it as art. i just like it as, I don't know, a little mind exercise. Not that it applies to the diamond skull but some of this contemporary stuff is quite jolly in it's way. I suspect though it largely jumped the shark with Duchamp...

Oh, who am I kidding... I would kill for a Vermeer (any Vermeer) or the Rokeby Venus or Rembrandt's "Woman bathing". I wouldn't mind some Da Vinci cartoons. If I looked at the long enough I might finally get the joke.

As an investment. This stuff appreciates.

As an investment try pork bellies. Why art ?
What is art ? Besides things you like ?

... some of this contemporary stuff is quite jolly in it's way. I suspect though it largely jumped the shark with Duchamp...

Exactly. Duchamp made quite a good little joke (and a fair point, I suppose, although I think he was rather missing what the word "art" actually means) about a century ago, but it just isn't funny any more. Yes, Tracy, you can put junk in a gallery as well. Very good. Now please go away.

I suspect Hirst and his minions just didn't want to expend the time and effort to create something quite as beautiful as the Mitchell-Hedges skull (pics and history here) - also, in Hirst tradition, there's the need to have dead organic matter involved...

Oh Nick, I would certainly kill for The Girl With The Earring (no, I did not see the movie and not going to), but any other Vermeer will do.

Jacob: Nick is certainly right about investment, but I was not talking in the specific context of privately purchased art, rather the more general context of art "consumption". Still: Munch is not entirely my cup of tea, but I am a big fan of Goya, not because all of his paintings are pleasant to look at, but because they are profound and inspiring, even though\because some of them are quite disturbing, (at least as much as some of Munch's work). If I were stinking rich, I would buy all of Goya's paintings. But some of them would go in a room where I did not have to see them every day, because that would prevent me from functioning normally. Or, even worse, they would eventually lose they power to move me.

BTW, what I would really have done if I bought all the art I like, is to lend/donate it to museums, but that is a different story.

Now, what was the name of the guy that wrapped the beach?

Dave, what is the point of creating something that was already done by someone else (and at least five times at that)?

Alisa,
I think you mean Cristo.

BTW, what I would really have done if I bought all the art I like, is to lend/donate it to museums, but that is a different story.

The point of having an art collection is to be able to look at the pictures whenever you feel like it (not necessarily all the time). I wouldn't put in my (alas -nonexistent) art collection a picture I don't like. As to lend/donate to a museum... maybe after I am dead.

Nick: yes! Wasn't it something?

Jacob: The point of having an art collection is to be able to look at the pictures whenever you feel like it
Of course, but you only speak for yourself, I am sure.

Jacob is right about the investment angle; the stock market is crap right now, but over the long run, say 10 years, you are better off buying a tracker fund that mirrors the performance of the S&P 500 or the MSCI Emerging Markets Index and forgetting about chasing such alternatives like diamonds.

Guy, good point about the market. DeBeers, however, is losing some of its control; BHP Billiton and others have made strides; there are some new discoveries coming out of Canada.

I think it was Nick that brought up the investment angle, as an answer to Jacob's remark about reasons for buying art in general, not necessarily diamond-encrusted "art". In that vein, there is another reason for collecting art: pretentiousness.

Was that 'Portrait Of A Woman in Black' by Sargent?

Can't find the one I remember dimly, but how about this(Link)?

Of course, but you only speak for yourself, I am sure.

I speak within the limits of my understanding.

True collectors collect works they love, and you have to have a look, at least, at your loved one from time to time. Phonies just show off (but don't hide). Why collectors would buy art then hide it away in some cellar - is beyond my understanding. As to giving it to a museum - that is - sharing a work of art with others - it makes sense, for some persons; I can understand that, but again: only as long as you love the work of art. I would not give a work of art I hate to a museum. Why would I do such a prank ? Aren't there enough beautiful works out there ?

I am, afterall an international jewel thief and man of mystery.

Oops. And me thinking more along the lines of an inspector best known for chasing "an international jewel thief and man of mystery". Wrong movie, I guess.

Oh no! Not that! Surely you don't think I was suggesting ... I thought of the inspector because of your great sense of justice and property. Honest. That's why I thought of the inspector. Because I thought you would be on the side of property rights. Really.

Cross my heart and hope to ... Well, maybe that's a bit extreme.

Shirley Surely you believe me, don't you? (Oops, another wrong movie.)

As much as I may be slightly amused by this creation, I admit I wouldn't want to have to look at it often. If I owned this "piece" I would keep it in a cupboard until I could find someone not afraid of writing large cheques.

Lawyer: I agree. You have to admit though, that although it probably is not art, it is a great conversation piece, as this thread in itself actually proves.

It's not really that original, is it. There used to be quite a market for these sorts of things, albeit not of this extravagance. It would have been called a memento mori.

That said, the linked BBC article is a bit of a mess. Is it a "diamond-encrusted human skull", as the lede and the picture caption say ("[t]he diamonds encase a real human skull"), or "a platinum cast of an 18th Century skull"? Other sources I've read say it's not a real skull, but a cast of a skull. Go figure.

I don't imagine it sold for so much because it's probably the best example of pave set diamond jewellery anyone's ever going to see.

I imagine it fetched such a high price partly because its record-breaking sale will probably make all other Hirst works more valuable and partly because - like Britain's crown jewels - this dazzlingly vulgar bit of heavy metal bling will pull paying crowds wherever it goes.