Damien Hirst’s Two-Century Legacy Plan Could Rewrite the Art Market

Damien Hirst has unveiled a blueprint that will let his studio release new works for two hundred years after his death, positioning his brand more like a fashion house than a traditional artist estate. The move extends his long-running habit of bending market rules and raises fresh questions about authorship and value.

The scheme rests on 200 handwritten notebooks, each corresponding to a single year after Hirst’s passing. Inside are detailed instructions for sculptures, drawings and paintings that can be fabricated on schedule. Collectors will buy certificates granting the right to realize a specific work, with the option to trade those certificates on the secondary market before the piece even exists.

By systematizing his ideas in advance, Hirst echoes the way luxury labels continue producing under a founder’s name long after the founder is gone. Observers liken the notebooks to a time-controlled factory that channels the logic of Andy Warhol’s studio into a multi-generation supply chain.

The plan directly challenges the art market’s reliance on scarcity. Futures-style certificates could expand supply at a predictable pace, turning each forthcoming “Year One after Damien Dies” work into a commodity that can be hedged or speculated on well before production.

Hirst’s own history of testing value systems, exemplified by his decision to burn thousands of physical works tied to NFTs to force a choice between digital and tangible art, shows he understands the power of orchestrated scarcity. His posthumous roadmap may do the opposite by locking in guaranteed output, prompting investors to treat his legacy more like a managed asset class than a finite oeuvre.

Legal experts note that the notebooks will require airtight governance to protect authenticity, ownership rights and tax treatment across centuries. The estate must oversee fabrication standards, archival documentation and resale compliance, effectively operating as a regulated publisher of intellectual property rather than a passive custodian of finished objects.

Whether this approach becomes a template depends on how the market prices “author-less yet author-approved” art. If Hirst’s heirs can maintain prestige and demand, other superstar artists may adopt similar pipelines, while smaller estates could struggle to prove relevance without the living artist’s mystique.

For collectors and institutions, the long horizon invites a shift toward portfolio thinking: balancing one-off masterpieces with subscription-style slices of future creativity. Time will reveal whether that outlook enhances artistic legacy or turns it into a perpetual product line.