Damien Hirst’s Backdating Scandal Explained

Once again, Damien Hirst, the globally acclaimed artist, finds himself stirring up controversy in the art sphere. Surprising? Not really. However, this time around, the ensuing 'scandal' could prove to be more troublesome than anticipated.

Death Denied (2008). Photography by  P C Robinson.

Young Damien Hirst undoubtedly revolutionized the ancient theme of memento mori, a reminder of the inevitability of death, by placing deceased animals in formaldehyde tanks and presenting them as art. This includes his famous, or better said now infamous, 4-meter-long shark sculpture preserved in formaldehyde as if it was frozen in time. However, a recent investigation by The Guardian in March 2024 has shed light on some intriguing claims regarding Hirst's artworks. Allegedly, these works were not created in the 1990s as believed, but rather some two decades later. At least three animal sculptures, including a dove, two sharks, and two calves, have been backdated to 2017.

The shark sculpture, bought by the Fertitta brothers for an estimated $8m. Photograph by Isaac Brekken/Los Angeles Times.

The artworks in question include Cain and Abel, featuring twin calves positioned side by side in separate white tanks, symbolizing “brothers” kept apart, dated by Hirst to 1994. Dove, dated to 1999, showcases a bird with wings outstretched as if in flight, displayed in a single liquid-filled acrylic box. Lastly, Myth Explored, Explained, Exploded, dated by Hirst to 1993–99, contains a dissected shark presented in three pieces. These pieces, created through the preservation of a dove, a shark, and two calves, have been exhibited in galleries across Hong Kong, New York, Munich, London, and Oxford in recent years, purportedly as examples of Hirst’s works from the 1990s, during his Turner Prize-winning period.

Damien Hirst in front of Myth Explored, Explained, Exploded at the Gagosian, Hong Kong, November 2017. Photograph by South China Morning Post/Getty Images.

Dove (1999). Photography by Julian Simmonds.

However, investigations reveal that all three artworks were crafted by Hirst’s employees at a workshop in Dudbridge, Gloucestershire, in 2017. They made their first appearance at an exhibition hosted by Gagosian’s Hong Kong art gallery the same year. Surprisingly, The Guardian could not trace any documentation of these works existing in any form before 2017. Some sources even claim that the sculptures were less than a year old when they were exhibited in Hong Kong. Journalist Maeve McClenaghan reported that Hirst’s art-making company, Science Ltd, allegedly instructed employees to artificially age the sculptures, giving them the appearance of being crafted in the 90s. Hirst’s lawyers admitted that his works had occasionally been altered to look older or distressed but insisted that such actions were part of the “artistic process.” They vehemently denied any directive for Science Ltd employees to physically age artworks to falsely represent their age.

It is no secret that Damien Hirst has faced what some describe as an “artistic decline.” There is a perception that artworks can become more valuable when backdated, leading to speculation that this could be Hirst’s strategy to revive interest in his creations, reminiscent of the frenzy seen in the 90s, the pinnacle of his career. It is also plausible that other formaldehyde works by Hirst from the same period were actually created in subsequent decades.

So how does an artist - and a highly respected one, might I add - justify these claims? In response to queries from The Guardian, Science Ltd asserted that formaldehyde works are conceptual artworks, and Damien Hirst assigns the date based on the conception of the piece. According to them, Hirst has consistently emphasized the importance of intention and idea in conceptual art, rather than the physical creation or maintenance of the object. As reported by The Guardian’s Jonathan Jones, Hirst now contends that some dates he assigned to his formaldehyde works indicate the year of their physical creation, while others signify the year of conceptualization. He maintains that in conceptual art, dating reflects the date of conception, with no established industry standard dictating otherwise. Essentially, this means that if Hirst conceived the idea of slicing a shark in three in 1993, the resulting sculpture is considered a 1993 work, regardless of when it was actually crafted, as explained by Felix Salmon, author of Axios Markets. However, this explanation has failed to convince those outside Hirst’s inner circle, who find it both unconvincing and truly bizarre.

Jones suggested that the evelation of backdating could severely tarnish Hirst’s artistic legacy. By questioning the origins of his previous works, Hirst has not only raised doubts about his past but also undermined faith in his future works. In the closing remarks, Jones wrote: “What he’s done feels to me like a bitter private joke, not just on the art world – which probably deserves it – but on history itself.” It appears that Hirst might just be completely oblivious to how he is affecting his career, a long career marked by success and several controversies, essentially casting doubt on his art career as a whole.

Myth Explored, Explained, Exploded, exhibited at Gagosian, London, March 2022. Photography by Justin Tallis/ Getty Images.