Hirst's Gambit

I thought that I should link over my article from CulturalChicago.com about Damien Hirst to this site, in case someone might want to comment here also. My argument here is essentially that the skull functions as a business plan rather than an objet d'art (emphasis on the decorative and collectible aspect of that word), and is much more interesting as such. The maneuvering of both artist and dealer are so shady and calculated they are more important or at least equally important to the object itself, especially since it is called "For the Love of God." The title (unusually relevant considering the breadth of Hirst's titles) brings to mind not only Hirst's reliable rhetoric of taking on "big" subjects, but the prime part price plays in an artist's career, and especially his career. What he sells at, resells at, donates, buys back, have all been prime concerns of Hirst et al. recently. Not to mention that the media attention was due to its much publicized price: a theatrical $100 million dollars. So why not enjoy the skull for what it is? An expensive pawn, as I posit? The art world is full of art about it's own price as it were, Duchamp, Warhol, and plenty of artists have bought back their works to control them, why not just be up front about it? Anyone else have any thoughts about this? If you didn't click the link above click here to be redirected to the post.