Artwork: dead shark in formaldehyde. Problem: it's rotting

Some people take their art way to seriously...



The Hirst shark: to conserve or not to conserve?

Damien Hirst's shark floating in a tank of formaldehyde, recently sold for $12 million to US billionaire hedge fund manager Steve Cohen, is disintegrating and will need extensive conservation work to prevent it from further deterioration. This is the view of conservation scientists and natural history specialists who say that the bigger a specimen, the more difficult it is to preserve long-term in formaldehyde.

The shark has deteriorated noticeably to the naked eye since it was first unveiled at the Saatchi Gallery in 1992. The formaldehyde solution in which it is suspended is murky while the skin of the animal is showing signs of wear and tear.

Neither Hirst's company, Science Ltd, nor the Saatchi Gallery would disclose details of the conservation measures that may have been taken in the last 14 years.
In order to preserve an animal in formaldehyde, a scientist would first need to take its size into account. At the Natural History Museum, London, the long-term preservation of larger specimens for scientific purposes requires an alcohol-based solution rather than formaldehyde. Using the alcohol method, the museum has preserved animal specimens in good condition for 260 years. Large specimens in formaldehyde begin to show signs of decay after about 50 years.

Alexis Turner, a natural history antiques dealer, emphasises that the size of the animal would determine how it is conserved as "formaldehyde only penetrates about an inch of the specimen. Anything very large, like a shark, would need to be injected with formaldehyde to prevent internal decay. Otherwise, fluid from internal organs, such as the liver, may seep and leak into the tank".

Oliver Crimmen, curator of fish at the Natural History Museum, advised Hirst on the necessary measures to be taken for the conservation of the shark in 1991 and has since advised the artist on other works that are stored in formaldehyde. Speaking to The Art Newspaper, he said that Hirst "did not inject the deep tissues of the shark with formaldehyde and this has caused it to undergo some changes in shape". He believes that the tissue of the shark may be shrinking and puts the cloudiness of the formaldehyde down to the chemical composition of the solution used by the artist.

According to a 2000 report, which includes a section entitled "The rotting shark", by Alison Bracker of the Royal College of Art, Hirst used a formaldehyde solution of 5% strength. The report states that "conservation scientists have queried the wisdom of employing a weak solution to preserve an entire shark".

Both Dr Bracker and Mr Turner maintain that restoration of the shark after extensive decomposition would be difficult for both aesthetic and conservation reasons. Mr Turner says that if "one were to cut open the shark and remove decomposing innards, then the form would be affected". Dr Bracker stressed that "the challenge that the sculpture's deterioration presents to conservators is considerable. They must negotiate the thorny issue of the work's decay in relation to its iconic status".

Hirst has stated that he did not use formaldehyde for preservation purposes but for aesthetic reasons. Speaking to the critic Stuart Morgan in 1996, he said, "I did an interview about conservation and they told me formaldehyde is not a perfect form of preservation.... They actually thought I was using formaldehyde to preserve an artwork for posterity, when in reality I use it to communicate an idea".

For Hirst these ideas appear to take precedence over issues of preservation. The artist's use of household gloss paint may have already caused cracks in the surface of a 1991 spot painting by the artist, Abelone acetone powder. This paint is more brittle than oil paint and tends to break up when applied to a canvas.

Therein lies the dilemma for the new owner of the shark. Any future conservation work that extends its life could compromise Hirst's original intention. But if no action is taken, the fish will continue to deteriorate. "Proposals to transfer the shark to other long-term preserving fluids may have been rejected by the buyer of the work to avoid compromising the artistic ideas behind the piece," says Mr Crimmen.