Anatomy of an Art Scam?

I'm still travelling around on assignment, but couldn't resist taking note of the latest speculation about Damien Hirst's $100 million — or is it? — skull. When I posted a few weeks ago about news of the sale, I wondered out loud if the details of this "sale" would ever be made fully public. Today both the Washington Post and the New York Times have pieces that pick up on the questions about just what it means that Hirst retains some kind of unspecified interest in the piece. One theory: that the unidentified "investment group" that supposedly purchased the skull for the full asking price might actually consist of Hirst, his dealer and his business manager.

As I mused when the "sale" was first announced, Hirst's skull is essentially a Conceptual art joke about the mindless art market. It's a pure commodity, it's value as a work of art entirely a consequence of its market value. And if it didn't score the $100 million that Hirst loudly proclaimed its market value to be? Well, then maybe the joke is on him.