“It raises an interesting point,” explained Charles. “It's basically to expose the lie, the falsity of claiming something ordinary is extraordinary when it's not and always remains ordinary – if you take a shark to be ordinary in the first place.”
“If Hirst's shark is recognised as great art, then how come Eddie's, which was on display two years beforehand, isn't? Do we perhaps have here an undiscovered artist of genius, who got there first, or is it that a dead shark isn't art at all?”
And with its million pound price tag, the preserved creature forces the viewer to re-evaluate such artistic value systems.
While we can't help but find the idea of paying £1 million for this item ridiculous, the comparison to Hirst's work is obvious. One sits in a gallery and is admired and/or debated by the many people who go to look at it, the other hangs on the wall of an electrician's shop.
Of course that isn't the only difference between the two, but the point is that a work of art is only attributed value and only worth what a person is prepared to pay for it – Damien Hirst's shark reportedly set Charles Saatchi back £50,000.