Art History Essay: Damien Hirst's Diamond Skull Provenance Research

This essay delves into the provenance research of Damien Hirst's controversial artwork, 'For the Love of God,' a platinum skull encrusted with diamonds. The essay explores the artwork's creation, including its materials, design, and manufacturing. It examines the initial display at the White Cube Gallery, the reported sale, and subsequent exhibitions in various museums. The essay highlights the controversies surrounding the artwork, including questions about the sale process, the valuation of the skull, and allegations of art crime. It also reviews critical responses to the artwork, including arguments about its commercial nature and its place within the art world, citing various articles and critiques. The conclusion summarizes the key points, emphasizing the artwork's impact on the art market and its status as a symbol of both artistic innovation and commercialization.

Running head- PROVENANCE RESEARCH
Provenance Research
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1Provenance Research
The artist named Damien Hirst in the year 2007 primarily sculpted the sculpture for
the “Love of God.” The structure of the skull consisted of a platinum-based skull that was
sculpted during the 18th CE. The skull was entrusted with around 8,601 pure diamonds,
including a pear-shaped pink colored diamond that was located in the middle of the forehead
of the skull, which was also known as the “Skull Star Diamond.” The teeth of the skull were
original Hirst purchased that in London. This artwork was a sign of the mortality of the
spectator and was signifies as “memento mori.” In the year 2007, an art historian named
“Rudi Fuchs” claimed the work as an exceptional and out of the world artwork that
successfully proclaimed the victory over decades1. As for a reason, it signified the demise as
somewhat relentless substantially as associated to the unhappiness in a act of vanitas as the
diamond skull indicates the splendor itself. This sculpture cost around £14 million for the
production, and the work was displayed at the White Cuba Gallery in an display named
“Beyond Belief” that kept the sculpture’s price as £50 million at the highest.
This artwork was based on a work of human skull that was bought in a shop in
Islington upon a person who lived between the years of 1720 to 1810. The title of the work
was inspired by Hirst’s mother, who once asked him that what he can do for the love of God.
The design and the sculpture were done by Jack du rose and the manufacturing by the
Picadilly jewelers2. The idea of this artwork came from the “Aztec turquoise” skull that was
displayed in the British Museum. However, it was seen that LeKey made the skull covering
crystals in the year 1993.
1Hoffie, Pat. "Belief, complacency, hype, hubris: Damien Hirst's' demon with a bowl'in Venice." Eyeline 88
(2018): 23.
2 Bergande, Wolfram. "The Liquidation of Art in Contemporary Art." Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 48 (2014).

2Provenance Research
In the year 2007, on June 1, “For the Love of God” was first displayed in a glass case
that was kept in the darkroom in the highest floor of the White Cuba Gallery located at
London. It was kept with substantial inspection and security. It was noticed that a well-known
vocalist George Michale and his wife Kenny Goss, was concerned in buying or purchase the
sculpture at a price of nearly £50 million. For the first time in the year 2008 from November
to December, the diamond skull was exhibited in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. There was
much controversy upon the exhibition, but apart from all these, it was demonstrated
subsequent to the display of paintings from the various collections from different museums
that were curated by Hirst. The primary focus of this exhibition was to attract more customers
and viewers that will affect the image of the museum in a positive way. Although the
controversy for placing the sculpture remained a controversial topic. Later in the year 2012,
between April to June in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. This work displayed Hirst's main
single display in the Middle East in the year 2013. Between 16the September to November in
the year 2015, it was displayed in Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern art in Norway.
The issues that were faced in the sale process stated that the labor was vended on
August 30, 2007, for around £50 million to an unidentified consortium3. The main
controversy was due to the claims of the editor of the art newspaper that Hirst initially
miscarried to discover a buyer and was demanding to conduct the sale of the kull for less than
the amount as he stated. However, as per the claims of Hirst, he conducted the sale for the
full amount as stated, but there were no traces of any documents of the sale paper and was
alleged that the group that bought the sculpture included Hirst himself4. Such conduct can be
alleged as an art crime as the creation was for the interest of the viewers, and it does not make
3Reiss, Michael J. "The cultural history and learning affordances of natural history dioramas." In Natural
History Dioramas, pp. 279-289. Springer, Dordrecht, 2015.
4 Enhuber, Marisa. "How is Damien Hirst a cultural entrepreneur?." Artivate 3, no. 2 (2014): 3-20.

3Provenance Research
him eligible to continue the usage of the rights of the property after the sale of the property.
After a sale, a property is generally for the usage of the party buying it. So without any kind
of papers, the sale of the property will constitute an illegal use of the sale of the diamond
skull. As per the reports, the vice-chairman of the London Diamond Bourse Club estimated
the real value of the skull and mentioned it to be not more than £10 million, so the amount in
which the sale was fixed was unethical and not as per the rules and regulations without any
documentation5. It was an allegation upon Hirst that the artwork was not sold but was used by
Hirst himself to gain more value out of it. It was to gain the publicity out of the reuse of the
same artwork6.
As per the coverage of media, the auction of the large diamond skull was a question
of fact that questioned the validity of the news and the announcement of the sale of the
sculpture that was never made evident due to the lack of documents and paperwork required
for that purpose. In an article by Germaine Greer stated that Hirst became a great brand as the
Fine art form was used in the 21st century as a publicizing tool to build a reliable marketing
tool through a conspiracy by the use of such sculpture7. In another article by Richard
Dorment in the Daily Telegraph stated, “If anyone but Hirst had made this inquisitive object,
we would collide with by its offensiveness. It looks like the kind of
thing Asprey or Harrods might sell to gullible companies from the oil states with limitless
quantities of money to devote, little taste, having no actual knowledge of the art8. Hirst made
5 Preece, Chloe, Finola Kerrigan, and Daragh O’Reilly. "Framing the work: The composition of value in the
visual arts." European Journal of Marketing (2016).
6 Kelly, Marjorie. 2016. "Richard Serra, Damien Hirst And Public Art In Qatar". Public Art Dialogue 6 (2):
229-240. doi:10.1080/21502552.2016.1205400.
7Marshall, Andrew James. "The Death Knell of Damien Hirst's Brand." (2018).
8Carroll, Noël, and Filippo Contesi. "A Taxonomy of Disgust in Art." In Art, Excess, and Education, pp. 21-38.
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019

4Provenance Research
the sculpture upon these imaginations.” All these comments and discoveries question the
existence of the skull to be made for the business purpose to earn a lot of money and not to
depict love to God. There was various criticism upon the artwork as it was alleged as a
decorative object. This criticism included various depictions of art by another artist that made
fun of his artwork and created images and sculptures where Hirst was shooting himself.
In conclusion, it is stated that the artwork, in reality, was not a demand for the artwork
but for the money it could make. This was an artcrime as was sold to a much higher rate
without any authorization. The price of the sculpture was high due to the growth in the
market trends in order to gain money out of it. This piece of Art is an example of making this
artwork a brant and utilizing it to increase the business profit. Hence, it can be stated as a
piece made to increase the market value and not for fine art.

5Provenance Research
Bibliography
Bergande, Wolfram. "The Liquidation of Art in Contemporary Art." Nordic Journal of
Aesthetics 48 (2014).
Carroll, Noël, and Filippo Contesi. "A Taxonomy of Disgust in Art." In Art, Excess, and
Education, pp. 21-38. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.
Enhuber, Marisa. "How is Damien Hirst a cultural entrepreneur?." Artivate 3, no. 2 (2014): 3-
20.
Hoffie, Pat. "Belief, complacency, hype, hubris: Damien Hirst's' demon with a bowl'in
Venice." Eyeline 88 (2018): 23.
Kelly, Marjorie. 2016. "Richard Serra, Damien Hirst And Public Art In Qatar". Public Art
Dialogue 6 (2): 229-240. doi:10.1080/21502552.2016.1205400.
Marshall, Andrew James. "The Death Knell of Damien Hirst's Brand." (2018).
Preece, Chloe, Finola Kerrigan, and Daragh O’Reilly. "Framing the work: The composition
of value in the visual arts." European Journal of Marketing (2016).
Reiss, Michael J. "The cultural history and learning affordances of natural history dioramas."
In Natural History Dioramas, pp. 279-289. Springer, Dordrecht, 2015.