Hitler statue sells for $17.2m
May 10 2016
Video: Christie's
In case we needed any more evidence that 'value' in the contemporary market derives in large part from an artwork's ability to shock, Christie's yesterday sold a statue of Hitler - titled 'Him' - for $17.2m. Normally, Hitler is a taboo subject, as both auction house and artist stressed in their marketing of the piece. But because 'Him' wasn't a statue of Hitler put up by the Nazis in the 1930s, but rather made by Maurizio Cattelan out of wax and 'human hair', that made it ok.
As Christie's press release said, 'Him' set a new:
WORLD AUCTION RECORD FOR THE ARTIST [their caps]
And looking at the price databases I can see that the previous auction record for Cattelan is $7.9m. In other words, one could say that the 'Hitler premium' was worth almost $10m.
Art that fetishises dictators is nothing new, of course. Indeed, it is partly because of Andy Warhol's Mao prints that we tend to gloss over the tens of millions killed by Mao-ism, the Chairman's thinly threatening smile made jaunty and benign by Warhol's brash colours.
Is Hitler now to fall into the same category? Does making 'thought-provoking' art based on Hitler's crimes in some way help us see the Nazi legacy in a different or more thoughtful way? Or is it just another means to generate headlines, and make money? Doubtless to even ask such questions is to raise eyebrows among the contemporarti. I won't deny that much of the world is, despite the horror and magnitude Hitler's crimes, still grimly fascinated by every aspect of his story. But I find it instinctively uncomfortable to see people bid millions of dollars, with such euphoric joy, for an image that celebrates the most savage meglomaniac the world has ever seen - even if, we are told, it does so critically. Ugh.
Update - Christie's press release tells us the bidding lasted for 'five minutes':
The depth of interest for this work speaks to its international notoriety, and its ability to breach the boundaries of fine art and popular culture, forcing the viewer to reconsider challenging questions about action and absolution.
Update II - a reader writes:
Surely ‘Him’ is the ‘new nadir’ for the contemporary art market, compared with which selling themed dinners is innocent if daft fun? It seems to me that the price makes ‘Him’ more tasteless than the market in Third Reich ‘souvenirs’. One would hope that someone with $17.2m knew better than to own such an image, even if intended to satirise its subject.
Update III - another reader adds:
You're so right about Hitler. He should arouse many emotions, but not the curiosity of supposedly intelligent people. This Robert Carlyle 'young Hitler' series on Netflix is a worrying symptom.
The Christie's waxwork reminded me of the 'Pope Hit By Meteor' at Sensations in 1997, and it's by the same guy. These megabuck shock-artists never touch subjects that could actually get them killed of course.
