As offered by the firm of Jopling & Sulzberger

It was hard to miss this line in NYTer Carol Vogel's Monday story about the London art market:

[London] is teeming with contemporary art galleries, and most of them had special exhibitions timed to the auctions. One, White Cube Gallery, is getting the most attention as people line up to see Damien Hirst's $100 million, platinum skull set with 8,601 diamonds. (It was still unsold as of Friday.)

You can't blame the New York Times for the skull's availability. The paper has written about Hirst's opulent tchotchke five times in the last 24 days, six times in all. While the NYT's critics rail against the impact of the art market, their own editors have apparently decided that a mere 'for sale' sign is newsworthy. (Meanwhile the Times' critics haven't said one word about the Hirst.) What Paris Hilton-goes-to-jail is for Perez Hilton and cable news, Hirst's skull is to the NYT.

The paper's coverage started on May 23, 2006 when the 'Arts, Briefly' section mentioned that Hirst was creating a work out of "8,500" diamonds costing $15-18.8 million. Nice, quiet, sure, fair enough.

Just over a year later the Hirstian onslaught began in full: On June 2 Alan Riding cited the price as $98 million and upped the diamond count to 8,601, where it has remained ever since. The next day William Shaw reported in the Magazine that "if, as expected, it sells..." it would be" the single most expensive piece of contemporary art ever created." (No, not the most expensive ever created, the most expensive ever sold. If it sells..)

Still, at least Shaw and the Magazine hedged, however mildly: That Vogel story yesterday declared the Hirst a bona fide $100 million work of art even though $100M is only the publicity-seeking asking price. (In a related story, I'm a $15/word magazine writer.)

Back to the onslaught: On June 13 Riding wrote about the skull again, questioning the price tag: "But $100 million for a diamond skull that cost $23.6 million (£12 million) to make? Even Russian oligarchs and hedge-fund billionaires might think twice." (And they apparently are.) So in an effort to perhaps be helpful, Vogel checked in last Friday with tips on how to view the bloody thing. Given the continued availability of the Hirst, maybe that's where the Times should have started.