2006年10月14日 星期六

Power list shows growth of British influence in art

By Louise Jury, Arts Correspondent
Saturday, 14 October 2006

British influence in the art world has surged in the past year, although the most important player of all is François Pinault, the French owner of Christie's auction house.

That is the conclusion of the ArtReview magazine as it announces its Power 100 list, which has been tracking collectors, gallery owners, curators and art fair organisers for the past five years. M. Pinault takes the top spot thanks to his new museum at the Palazzo Grassi in Venice, the opening of which was attended by almost everyone of importance in the art world. Americans dominate the list with 40 entries, but the British have 25.

John Weich, the editor-in-chief of ArtReview, said: "The Americans just have the numbers, but the British market has definitely jumped in prestige - not just in numbers but in influence."

Sir Nicholas Serota, director of the Tate Gallery, is the most powerful British player, at number three in the 2006 survey - the same position he held in 2003 and 2004 before dropping a place last year.

He lies behind Larry Gagosian, the New York gallery owner who also deals in London, and ahead of Glenn Lowry, the director of the Museum of Modern Art (Moma) in New York. Damien Hirst has dropped from pole position to 11th, but Charles Saatchi, the collector, and Matthew Slotover and Amanda Sharp, who founded the Frieze art fair, are in the top 10.

Mr Saatchi, whose holdings of contemporary American art have just gone on show at the Royal Academy, is at seventh place, up from 19 last year. "He's very hands-on. He's really tuned in to what's going on," said Mr Weich.

Mr Slotover and Ms Sharp rose from 33rd to eighth on the back of the huge pull of the fair they founded with considerable élan in London three years ago. Mr Weich said a few people outside London might have difficulty in accepting the Frieze duo in the top 10. "But in just a few short years they've been able to rally an entire metropolis to adapt its schedule to theirs," he added.

Of the decision to place Sir Nicholas above Mr Lowry, Mr Weich added: "No one can compete with Moma in terms of money. But in sheer numbers of visitors, Tate is the largest contemporary museum in the world. And if you look at authentic attempts to be innovative and evolve what a contemporary art museum can be - for example, with its website - I think Tate is at the forefront."

Gallery owners such as Victoria Miro, who represents Grayson Perry and Chris Ofili; Sadie Coles, whose artists include Sarah Lucas; Maureen Paley; and the Haunch of Venison team, Harry Blain and Graham Southern, have all seen their influence rise.

Jay Jopling, who has just opened a giant new White Cube gallery in St James's, London, in addition to his existing gallery in Hoxton, leaps into the top 20 at 19.

Gallery directors and curators including Iwona Blazwick, of the Whitechapel; Ralph Rugoff, the American who has taken over at the Hayward; and Hans Ulrich Obrist, the curator at the Serpentine, have all risen in the power stakes. Artists included this year include Tracey Emin, who is to represent Britain at the next Venice Biennale, Gilbert and George, Gavin Brown and Anish Kapoor.

Mr Weich said: "Even though Rugoff and Obrist aren't British, [the fact they have come to work here] does indicate the pull that London has as a growing and important art capital."

The importance of sponsorship is recognised, with UBS and Deutsche Bank winning a place, and the increasing use of the internet has secured Google 100th place. Other British-based entrants include David Adjaye and Rem Koolhaas, architects; Simon de Pury, auctioneer; and James Lingwood and Michael Morris, from the art commissioning body Artangel.

The top 20

* 1: François Pinault, collector and the owner of Christie's

* 2: Larry Gagosian, dealer and gallerist

* 3: Sir Nicholas Serota, director of the Tate

* 4: Glenn D. Lowry, director of the Museum of Modern Art, New York

* 5: Samuel Keller, director of ArtBasel fair

* 6: Eli Broad, collector and philanthropist

* 7: Charles Saatchi, collector and gallery owner

* 8: Matthew Slotover and Amanda Sharp, founders of Frieze art fair, London

* 9: Bruce Nauman, artist

* 10: Jeff Koons, artist

* 11: Damien Hirst, artist

* 12: Brett Gorvy and Amy Cappellazzo, directors of Christie's international post-war and contemporary art department

* 13: Robert Storr, curator and academic

* 14: Iwan Wirth, dealer and gallerist, Hauser and Wirth

* 15: Marian Goodman, dealer/gallerist

* 16: David Zwirner, dealer and gallerist

* 17: Gerhard Richter, artist

* 18: Marc Glimcher, dealer and gallerist

* 19: Jay Jopling, dealer and gallerist, White Cube

*20: Mike Kelley, artist

2006年10月9日 星期一

Andreas Whittam Smith: Has the Turner Prize lost its way?

I don't get it. This is, like Duchamp's urinal, art only because the artist says it is art

Andreas Whittam Smith

Monday, 9 October 2006

The annual exhibition of the shortlisted entries for the Turner Prize, which is to honour the achievements of an outstanding artist under the age of 50, living and working in Britain, regularly raises the issue: is this art?

The new show is no exception. Greeting visitors to Tate Britain, in London, are a video installation which contains within it a working production office (Phil Collins); a quasi-scientific installation (Mark Titchner); new sculptural works described as "deliberately anti-heroic" (Rebecca Warren) and a set of 11 abstract paintings (Tomma Abts).

"Is this art?" is a famous trick question. Robert Hughes, the critic, gave the wrong answer when he first came across contemporary art as a young man in Australia.

In his autobiography published this month, he recounts that a Sydney museum had put on an exhibition of abstract painting in Europe. "Everyone, including myself, thought it was some kind of joke," Mr Hughes recalls. One painting in particular struck him as peculiarly offensive, with its paint "daubed on" and its main motif "the numeral 47 painted in black in a funny-looking cursive script". It was by Miro.

One is also put on notice to retain an open mind by the distinguished list of previous Turner prize winners in its 22-year history. They include Howard Hodgkin, Gilbert and George, Anish Kapoor, Rachel Whiteread, Antony Gormley, Damien Hurst, Gillian Wearing and Chris Ofili.

The results are good because the method of arriving at a shortlist and then a winner are well conceived. A jury spends a year making its choices. It is always chaired by Sir Nicholas Serota, the director of the Tate, and this year it also comprised a writer, a gallery director, a curator from New York and an academic, Their choices are then exhibited for two months and are accompanied by filmed interviews with the artists. Finally, the announcement of the prize winner is broadcast live by Channel 4 (4 December).

All the same, I struggled this year to know what to think - not realising, as I shall recount, that help was at hand. In Phil Collins' installation we watch continuous film of people being interviewed on Turkish television, whose lives have been ruined, as they believe, by appearing on reality TV shows.

We can also see a fully functioning office called Shady Lane Productions that is planning the artist's next set of projects. I don't get it. This is, like Duchamp's urinal, art only because the artist says it is art.

Some measure of Mark Titchner's work is given by its ridiculous title: How to change behaviour (Tiny Masters of the World Come Out). You see hand-chiselled "machines", a computer-designed billboard and kinetic sculpture that employs optical illusions and hypnotic effects to manipulate the viewer's perception. I didn't feel negative about this; rather not much moved. The work is oddly artless in the sense of lacking guile, being unsophisticated and unworldly, even unaffected. Yet the objects have charm.

As to the other two shortlisted artists, there is no question that Rebecca Warren's unfired clay sculpture, bronze figures and vitrines filled with various found objects and Tomma Abts' abstract paintings in acrylic and oil are "art" as conventionally defined. I preferred Abts, and I would vote for her. Nonetheless, I left the show after the second of my two visits thinking that this is not a vintage year for the Turner prize.

And then, next day, I became certain. For I went to the Royal Academy to see USA Today, an exhibition of paintings, sculptures, photographs and installations by 40 young American artists. With its sheer energy (Kristin Baker), its elegance (Ryan McGinness and Matthew Brannon) its wit (Aleksandra Mir) and its cleverness (Wangechi Mutu), it is a thrilling spectacle. I think only Abts' work would have got into the USA Today show.

It would be wrong, however, to take the exhibition as fully representative of the state of American contemporary art. More accurately, it is what currently interests Britain's greatest collector, Charles Saatchi. All the work on show comes from the Saatchi Gallery. Is it Mr Saatchi, or American artists in general, who tend to see the world not as utopia but dystopia, where deprivation, oppression and terror are our everyday condition?

Some artists in the show focus on the bleakness of urban life, where decisions that affect our lives are made by people we cannot reach, where social divisions are like chasms, and where people often feel as if they were worker ants in a huge nest. And some are anti-consumerist, like Banks Violette, who has an installation which comprises old refrigerators and other domestic equipment, as if found abandoned in a store room after a new ice age, their owners long since disappeared, presumed dead, and everything now covered with a salty white frost, all utterly useless.

Yet even I, one of nature's optimists, more likely to imagine utopia than dystopia, thoroughly enjoyed USA Today. It isn't like an art museum, or even a normal Royal Academy exhibition, where only good stuff is on display. There is dross, too. But above all, USA Today insistently asks questions. Erick Svenson's model of a dead white deer on frozen city cobbles, what was that all about? The distorted female figures in Inka Essenhigh's oil-on-linen picture Shopping, what were they telling us?

Is this art? Yes, it makes us see more clearly, feel more passionately and think more deeply. But, of course, art provides no answers.


2006年10月7日 星期六

Leading article: A contemporary view of the world

Saturday, 7 October 2006

Charles Saatchi could be forgiven for wondering if much has changed in our attitudes to contemporary art in the past nine years. The opening of his new show, USA Today, at the Royal Academy has been greeted by the same moral outrage that was hurled in the direction of his Sensation exhibition in 1997. Despite the depressingly familiar nature of the latest controversy, though, the truth is that we are much more willing to engage with new work today. And Mr Saatchi deserves a good deal of the credit for that transformation.

Many of the artists featured in Sensation - among them Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, Jake and Dinos Chapman - have gone on to become respected figures on the international art scene. Neglected media such as installation, video and performance have entered the mainstream thanks to Mr Saatchi's sponsorship. Artistic institutions have also benefited from his patronage. His philanthropic donations have swelled the coffers of several art schools.

Mr Saatchi is not universally loved, of course. Peter Blake has argued that his commercial influence is such that those new artists who do not catch his eye - or fall from favour - can suffer unjustly. Others note that Mr Saatchi's adeptness in generating publicity (using the presentation skills learnt as a advertising executive) has significantly boosted the value of his own art acquisitions.

But similar accusations could be levelled at many wealthy patrons throughout history. And despite the huge public interest in his personal life, he has always put the art first - and it is here that his real achievement lies.

Mr Saatchi has helped to make contemporary art part of our culture. People think about, debate - and, most importantly, view - contemporary art in a way they simply did not before he began collecting. He has also made Britain a world centre for contemporary art. Witness the growing popularity of the Frieze Art Fair, which opens next week. Tens of thousands of visitors come - not to buy but just to enjoy. Regardless of your opinion of contemporary art, it is impossible to deny that there is now a substantial public appetite for it.

He may be no artist himself, but Mr Saatchi has helped to change the way we see the world.

2006年10月4日 星期三

The states they're in

From
October 4, 2006

Charles Saatchi shows that he has lost little of his sharpness in the Royal Academy's show of new American art

USA Today

Royal Academy

Charles Saatchi has appeared to switch allegiances back and forth so quickly over the past decade or so, from British art to German to American, that one is inclined to view the arrival of this new survey of contemporary American art with some jaded lack of interest. But one is also inclined to forget with what authority Saatchi stands as a judge of American trends: when he opened his Boundary Road gallery in 1985 he began with a show of Americans, and he has shown them six times since.

Critics may whine churlishly about his conservatism (while championing exactly the same artists) and they may complain — with more justice — of the silly razzmatazz of his now defunct County Hall gallery, but we should remember how much good art this man has shown us.

When you walk into the entrance foyer of the galleries and find Terence Koh’s neon rooster, Big White Cock, one suspects he’s right on the button again. Having said that, the prevailing accent in recent surveys of American art has consistently been one of anxiety and self-laceration (summed up in the title of the Serpentine’s concurrent show, Uncertain States of America), and the most compelling accents in US art of the past half-century have been dark and often violent.

But one has to look very hard to find pointed references here to America’s recent troubles, either 9/11 or the Middle East. However, politics in art is not a dish that is good when served to order. Better are the artworks that come to it obliquely, even though one might question their conclusions: Matthew Day Jackson’s tableau of altered found images, Dance of Destruction, touches on patriotism and hysterical religiosity but seems to put down the whole violent tumult of America’s problems to an ancient and enduring death drive.

Other surprising and powerful ensembles also deliver stern indictments: Erick Swenson’s Untitled installation is a paved and frozen wilderness that has claimed a young white deer; opposite is the bloody red abstraction of Barnaby Furnas’s Flood (Red Sea); and in between is Furnas’s Hamburger Hill, in which troops-cum-gangsters arrive over the hill in a charge of gunfire.

There is more of this elsewhere, with canvases by the reliable Kelley Walker including Black Star Press, in which silkscreened images of civil rights protests meet with dirty plumes of thrown paint; and Jon Pylypchuk’s arrangement of tiny stuffed dolls, Hopefully, I will live through this with a little bit of dignity, a wish that seems unlikely to be fulfilled amid its crowds of injured black troops.

The whole horrible parade comes to a spectacular conclusion with Banks Violette’s Untitled installation, in which an empty coffin lies before a rock-concert stage set that has turned into salt, just as Lot’s wife was when she looked back on the destruction of Sodom.

At times one feels that revelling in squalor is a substitute for dealing with more substantive issues: Dash Snow’s F*** the Police, an arrangement of press clippings sprayed with his semen, does not deserve its wall-space. At other times one feels that the artists are hopelessly striving to equal those brilliant, never-bettered State of the Union paintings, Jasper Johns’s Flag series. Many attempt that here, so many fail: Jules Balincourt attempts commentary with goofy maps of the US, Rodney McMillian does the same with his floppily hanging depiction of the Supreme Court; and Gerald Davis takes a different tack with weak paintings of cartoonish figures. The most powerful image in this vein is one of the simplest: Josephine Meckseper’s Pyromaniac 2, which shows an American beauty sucking, not on a cigarette, but on a burning match.

Amanda Sharp, the director of the Frieze Art Fair, recently told me that she thought American art had had a bad decade — indeed, that Europe was ahead. But, while one might look in vain for a stand-out prodigy of the calibre of Matthew Barney ten years ago, there is much here that is full-blooded, articulate and eloquently angry enough to persuade you that she’s wrong.

USA Today is at the Royal Academy, London W1 (0870 848 8484), from Friday to Nov 4, £2.80-£10 (www.royalacademy.org.uk)


2006年10月1日 星期日

Swimming With Famous Dead Sharks

Steve Forrest/Impact-Visual, for The New York Times

Damien Hirst with a spare frozen shark.


Published: October 1, 2006

ASTON DOWN AIRFIELD, England

IN this vast Gloucestershire flatland dotted with abandoned airplane hangars, a former Royal Air Force Station where pilots once plotted classified missions during World War II, the artist Damien Hirst was overseeing a secret operation of his own one recent morning.

It was a delicate undertaking, one that required rubberized protective jumpsuits, long tables of medical equipment and more than 224 gallons of formaldehyde. The goal: to replace the decaying tiger shark that floats in one of Mr. Hirst’s best-known works of Conceptual art, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.”

As rap music quietly played in the background, five men and one woman wearing bright yellow suits, black rubber gloves and breathing masks huddled over the shark’s hulking 13-foot-long replacement. The immediate impression was that the shark was being treated by a team of acupuncturists: some 200 large needles dotted its body.

So toxic was the air that the property could be reached only through security-coded iron gates, and no one, not even the artist, was allowed near the shark without protective gear. As Mr. Hirst, 41, looked on, he plucked a long hypodermic needle from a nearby worktable.

“Three different lengths of needles are being used to inject the shark with formaldehyde,’’ he said proudly, with the air of a child showing off a new toy. He flexed the syringe to demonstrate how the needles are inserted into the animal twice, each time penetrating deeper into the body cavity. “The last shark was never injected, so it decayed from the inside.’’

The original shark — a 14-footer that was caught and killed by a fisherman in Australia at Mr. Hirst’s behest in 1991 — was first unveiled to the public in its glass tank the following year at the Saatchi Gallery in London. It quickly became a symbol of the shock tactics common to the circle known as the Young British Artists.

Charles Saatchi, the advertising magnate and collector, had commissioned Mr. Hirst to make the work for £50,000, now about $95,000. At the time that sum was considered so enormous that the British tabloid The Sun heralded the transaction with the headline “50,000 for Fish Without Chips.’’

But as a result of inadequate preservation efforts, time was not kind to the original, which slowly decomposed until its form changed, its skin grew deeply wrinkled, and the solution in the tank turned murky. (It didn’t help that the Saatchi Gallery added bleach to the solution, hastening the decay, staff members at Mr. Hirst’s studio said.) In 1993 Mr. Saatchi’s curators finally had the shark skinned and stretched the skin over a fiberglass mold.

“It didn’t look as frightening,’’ Mr. Hirst recalled. “You could tell it wasn’t real. It had no weight.’’

In recent years Mr. Saatchi has been selling off works by the Young British Artists that he collected so voraciously in the 90’s, and two years ago “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living’’ was purchased by the hedge fund billionaire Steven A. Cohen, who lives in Greenwich, Conn. He paid $8 million for it, one of the highest prices at the time for a work of contemporary art.

The impetus was a call from Larry Gagosian, the Manhattan dealer, alerting him to Mr. Saatchi’s intention to sell. Mr. Cohen knew the shark’s history and its problems: that the piece was never properly injected with formaldehyde, and what was floating in the tank was a fiberglass shadow of its former self. But in a funny way, that too had its appeal.

“Is it real? Isn’t it real?’’ Mr. Cohen said. “I liked the whole fear factor.’’

But Mr. Hirst didn’t. When he learned of Mr. Cohen’s plans to buy the 22-ton work, he volunteered to replace the shark. “I frequently work on things after a collector has them,’’ the artist said. “I recently called a collector who owns a fly painting because I didn’t like the way it looked, so I changed it slightly.’’

As it turns out, Mr. Cohen is paying for the replacement project, although he declined to say how much it would cost, other than to call the expense “inconsequential.’’ (The procedure involving the injection of formaldehyde alone adds up to about $100,000, including labor and materials.)


Steve Forrest/Impact-Visual; A.C. International Arts Services; Jonathan Player for The New York Times

In an abandoned airline hangar in Gloucestershire, workers wearing protective jumpsuits inject a dead shark with formaldehyde for one of Damien Hirst’s best known Conceptual works. This shark replaced the original one, which had begun to rot; it is shown at above at the Royal Academy of Arts in London in 1997 and being removed recently from its tank.

Mr. Hirst began by contacting his shark sources in Australia. And a year ago he bought the second tiger shark, this one from a fisherman who caught it just off the Queensland coast and killed it. It was shipped by sea freighter in a special 20-foot freezer with backup power, a journey that took roughly two months. Meanwhile the original tank was being renovated.

PURPOSELY provocative and sometimes disturbing, Mr. Hirst is probably Britain’s most controversial artist. Lines form around the block at gallery openings of his work, and fans often shout when they recognize him in the street. Some art critics praise him for acquainting a young generation with conceptual art nearly a century after Marcel Duchamp unveiled his porcelain urinal; other critics deride him as an artist of gimmicks and one-liners. In 1995, when he won Britain’s prestigious Turner Prize for “Mother and Child Divided,’’ a cow and a calf cut into sections and exhibited in a series of vitrines, Brian Sewell of The Evening Standard of London wrote that it was “no more interesting than a stuffed pike over a pub door.’’

Mr. Hirst has arranged rotting cows to simulate copulation, and displayed sheep preserved in formaldehyde and maggots attacking a cow’s head. He has filled glass-fronted shelves with hundreds of bottles and boxes of drugs, displayed dead animals and skeletons in cabinets, and produced canvases covered with real flies and butterflies.

In the airplane hanger where the shark is being worked on — a vast space with several eight-foot-tall freezers filled with dead animals — he continues to explore variations on those themes. Four crucified fiberglass cows, their skins stretched over molds, lie on the floor. Nearby is a table of skulls. Canvases hold the beginnings of what Mr. Hirst said would become a series inspired by the Beatles’ “White Album,’’ which he said he might call “Bigger Than God, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.’’

“I’ve also tried to do a Pietà with cows,’’ he said, pointing to a marble-edged tank ready to be filled. Nearby is “Mr. Potter’s Curiosity Museum,’’ a doll’s house filled with dead, stuffed animals — rabbits, cats, birds, mice, turtles, frogs — that he bought from a taxidermist in Cornwall.

Reportedly one of the richest men in Britain, Mr. Hirst can now afford to run multiple studios in London and in Gloucestershire, some two hours west of the capital, equipped with freezers full of dead animals and emergency generators in case of a power failure.

Such is his reputation that when a seven-foot shark washed up on a beach in July, and the Natural History Museum in London needed a place to store it until its staff was ready to preserve it, the first call it made was to Mr. Hirst.

“They asked if I had any room in my freezer,’’ he said with satisfaction. He was happy to oblige.

Oliver Crimmen, a scientist and fish curator at the Natural History Museum in London, was in the formaldehyde pool with the shark, directing the operation. Mr. Hirst had enlisted his help to ensure that this specimen would last longer than its predecessor. “It’s like cookery,’’ Mr. Hirst mused. “There are loads of recipes.’’

Mr. Crimmen is experienced mainly in preserving fish like giant squid and swordfish. “Normally the fish I work on are smaller,” he said, “so I have adapted the recipe to the shark’s weight, which is 1.92 metric tons. It is critically important to make sure the fluid penetrates all the tissues.’’

During a short lunch break, over sandwiches and soft drinks, Mr. Crimmen explained the procedure. The shark — a female about 25 to 30 years old, middle-aged in shark terms — would spend about two weeks in a bath filled with a 7 percent formalin solution, made of dissolved formaldehyde gas and water.

“There are places you cannot reach with needles, like its fin, skull and the spinal column,’’ Mr. Crimmen said. So the shark is immersed in the bath to allow the formaldehyde to be absorbed through the skin. The mission required 34 barrels — each containing 6.6 gallons— of formaldehyde. At night a lid is put over the pool, and the shark is left to marinate.

“You have to have a carefully mapped injection program,’’ Mr. Crimmen said. “There are no nice tests to see if the formaldehyde has been properly absorbed deep inside the shark. You have to see how the specimen behaves to the touch. If it is hard when manipulated and bent, it means it has properly penetrated into the animal’s body tissues.’’

Unlike most fish, the scientist explained, sharks do not have bony skeletons; theirs are made of cartilage, which is relatively flexible. “Even their jaws, which you might think are made of bone, are actually made of hard cartilage, which has a limited life span and can crumble over time,’’ Mr. Crimmen said. So if the body is to last for decades, the shark must be kept constantly moist in the formalin solution.

A shark’s skin is armored with tiny teeth, so Mr. Crimmen and his team had to first drill small holes in the skin, filling them with temporary pins in preparation for the injection of the formaldehyde. Because a shark’s skin is so rough, the tiny holes won’t leave noticeable marks once the fish is properly preserved.

“As a fish curator I generally preserve things for science and then I don’t have to pay attention to aesthetics,’’ Mr. Crimmen said. “This is a novel angle for me.’’

After lunch Mr. Crimmen returned to the formaldehyde pool with five workers from Mr. Hirst’s studio, the rap music still softly playing in the background. Only Mr. Crimmen spent the entire day attending to the shark; the environment was so unpleasant, the workers said, that most of them could bear to be there for only a few hours at a time.

By now the shark had been turned on its side and the process of removing the temporary needles and injecting the animal had begun. Once the shark has totally absorbed the formalin and formaldehyde, it will be taken in a specially designed shark-shaped traveling tank to Bregenz, Austria, for an exhibition that begins in February. (Its original 1991 tank has been refurbished for the occasion.) Sometime in the summer the shark will make its way to Mr. Cohen’s house in Greenwich.

ON a recent Saturday afternoon Mr. Cohen was in Manhattan taking in the latest gallery exhibitions. He had stopped by the Gagosian Gallery on Madison Avenue to see some drawings by Mr. Hirst that had just gone on view. On the walls were studies for “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living,’’ prompting Mr. Cohen to reminisce about the first time he found himself face-to-face with the real piece.

“It was in County Hall in London,’’ Mr. Cohen said. “I grew up in the generation of ‘Jaws.’ I knew it was the piece of the 90’s.’’

Mr. Hirst acknowledges that once the shark is replaced, art historians will argue that the piece cannot be considered the same artwork. “It’s a big dilemma,’’ he said. “Artists and conservators have different opinions about what’s important: the original artwork or the original intention. I come from a Conceptual art background, so I think it should be the intention. It’s the same piece. But the jury will be out for a long time to come.’’

Echoing that argument, Mr. Cohen said the shark could not be compared to a painting. “We’re dealing with a conceptual idea,’’ he said. “The whole point is the boldness of the shark. Damien felt strongly that this was the best option.’’

Rumors have circulated in the art world that Mr. Cohen has promised the work to the Museum of Modern Art. But Mr. Cohen said that he had made no plans to donate the work to the Modern and that he is unsure exactly where he will put it when the tank arrives in Connecticut.

“Ultimately I think it’s a piece that needs to be put in a major museum,’’ he said. “I’ve had discussions with some, but I can’t say which ones, and nothing has been decided.’’

More generally his long-term plans include building a private museum on his property in Greenwich to display his art collection, from a Manet self-portrait to Monet’s “Water Lilies’’ to a Jackson Pollock drip painting to Pop Art by Warhol and Lichtenstein. He also owns Mr. Hirst’s “Away From the Flock,’’ a whole lamb floating in a formaldehyde solution, as well as several paintings by Mr. Hirst, among them examples of his signature butterflies, pills and a skull.

As for the future of the new shark, Mr. Hirst isn’t worried, he said.

“As long as it lasts my lifetime, I’m happy,’’ he said. After a pause, he added: “It’s got a 200-year guarantee. Or your money back.’’