Art or arson? Hirst is back with a blazing vengeance

Damien Hirst, connoisseur of controversy and challenge, has posed a new question for us to face with his latest exhibition ‘The Currency’. Launched back in July 2021, Hirst released for auction 10,000 original pieces of handmade artwork, each with unique titles and signed on the back. The caveat? Each auctioneer, upon purchasing the works, was faced with a choice; either receive the original, physical work, or receive an NFT equivalent of the work purchased, and sacrifice the physical copy to the flames, literally. Hirst plans on incinerating thousands of pounds worth of his artwork. Hirst placed each painting at £2000 per unit. After a year of auctioning and exchanging, the results show that over 4,500 of the original collection are to be destroyed and exchanged for their NFT counterpart. This sounds shocking to some, but unsurprising to many. Hirst is holding a mirror to us all, asking us what we, as a society value, and how far we’re willing to go to prove our faith in the digital world.

The nature of physical art being temporary calls back to conceptual artists such as late 20^th century artist Sol LeWitt, an American painter who would frequently paint his artwork directly onto walls and into the structure of exhibitions, knowing full well that it would inevitably be torn down and cease to exist, much like the impending fate of Hirst’s own works. LeWitt was a firm believer that art cannot be owned in any way other than within the mind. He saw art as innately temporary in this physical world, and that it lives on in the impressions that it made on anyone who saw it. Hirst seems to be replicating LeWitt’s methods of destroying his art, yet Hirst is attempting to immortalise his art in digital form, not mental.

This self-destructive act is not new amongst contemporary artists either, a memorable example being Banksy and his merciless shredding of his artwork ‘Girl with Balloon’ immediately after it was sold at auction. This act ironically increased the value significantly as the piece had evolved, with new meaning being instilled into it. Banksy subsequently changed the title of the piece to ‘Love is in the Bin’, hammering home this idea that the art had evolved and become something new. Banksy’s statement aligns quite closely with what Hirst is trying to display. One key difference being that Banksy chose to desecrate, not decimate his artwork. In Hirst’s case the destruction is far more permanent and complete, removing his artworks entirely from the realm of the physical.

Hirst holds a special fascination with the temporary and with decay. A far earlier work titled A thousand Years (1990) famously displayed an actual life cycle, as maggots hatch from a box and proceed to gorge on the severed head of a cow before eventually dying themselves, either from making unfortunate contact with a suspended bug zapper or simply dying of natural causes inside the giant Perspex prison. This entire exhibition, now 30 years old, still seems to hold the same fascination Hirst has always had for decay and destruction. He himself once said, when asked about his A Thousand Year’s exhibition, ‘There has only ever been one idea, and it’s the fear of death; art is about the fear of death.’ We can now see that despite 30 years passing since his visceral depiction of birth, consumption and death, Hirst is still toying with the idea of permanence versus decay.

This time, however, we are not simply given a depiction of slow decay, forced to accept the inevitable fate of the maggots. We are given a chance to save them. To save the artwork. To give it a sense of immortality? Hirst challenges us on where we place value in a new way, whilst putting our faith in the digital world, which we are all so immersed in, to the test. Is the digital now more valuable than the physical? Are we willing to pre-emptively destroy his artwork in an attempt to immortalise it digitally? If so, then we must truly believe that this new world has a permanent nature to it, unknown to the world of the physical. Clearly almost half of the auctioneers do have this faith, and this is a testament to the integral and ever-growing value we, as a society, are putting into this digital world. Hirst watches on with impartial curiosity as we decide for ourselves what we see as valuable, what we see as real and what we believe will last.

There is, of course, an economic side to this experiment. The exhibition itself being called ‘The Currency’, and this relates to the recent trends we have seen as NFTs gained rapid attention and popularity in the digital world. NFTs are treated as a kind of currency, an investment similar to investing in a piece of physical art. Unlike art in the physical world however, NFTs are subject to incredibly rapid rises and falls in monetary value. Perhaps for many it is less about the art itself and more about an opportunity to invest in a new trend. Young adults, who often cannot afford a house even with a deposit, and don’t want to invest in a pension for the long term, see these riskier investments get a lot of attention on social media, and are attractive.  NFTs seem a risky investment indeed, as we have seen a rapid depression in the value of NFT’s in recent months.

It is fascinating to be challenged in such a confrontational way, and it is extraordinary but perhaps unsurprising just how many people have chosen the digital over the real. This exhibition is typical of Hirst. It is presenting us with questions on what we value, how we value, where we see the world going, and our very motivations for buying artwork.

The burning of his artwork commenced on the 23^rd September at Newport Street Gallery, not ceasing until the 30^th. The burnings themselves will be a spectacle to behold, being a visual testament to a changing era in art, investing, the digital age, and ultimately in the whole of society.

Header image credit: Twitter @HANI