_PNG.png){kind=small}
Damien Hirst’s Most Famous Artwork: The Story Behind the Shark in Formaldehyde
- Sutithi
- Aug 26
- 5 min read
Updated: Aug 29
It’s hard to imagine contemporary art without the image of a shark in formaldehyde. But Damien Hirst’s daring installation The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living did more than evoke shock—it altered the trajectory of British art in the early 1990s, catapulted the Damien Hirst artwork into global infamy, and forced us all to ask: What really defines an artwork? Its material or its idea?
Here’s the full, dramatic saga—from procurement of the shark to decay, replacement, and debates about authenticity—told in a vivid, human‑tone way.
How It All Began: Financing a Provocation
It was in 1991 when Charles Saatchi, the bold art collector behind the explosion of the Young British Artists (YBA), told Hirst: “Build me the most shocking piece you can imagine. I’ll pay.” Hirst responded with a request: a shark—big enough to eat you.
That shark cost a modest £6,000, and the final price for the installation was around £50,000. It arrived from Hervey Bay, Australia, and was preserved whole in a steel‑framed vitrine filled with 5% formaldehyde solution. Hirst named the piece The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living—a mouthful, but a phrase as existential as the subject itself.
Damien Hirst Revealed: A Concept over Craft
It’s worth noting: compared to his controversial artworks, his notorious Damien Hirst paintings—spot paintings, butterfly canvases, pill cabinets—it was the shark piece that sealed his reputation. This Damien Hirst artwork transcended paint and pigment. It embodied conceptual art’s insistence on idea over execution, forcing viewers to confront mortality staring down a preserved predator.
When first shown at the Saatchi Gallery in London (then at St John’s Wood), the piece quickly grabbed headlines—sometimes bitter, always bold. The Sun quipped: “£50,000 for fish without chips.” It was provocative theatricality, raw and real.
From Pristine to Putrid: Decay and Disarray
Shock turned into scrutiny when, within a couple of years, the shark began to deteriorate. Its skin wrinkled painfully; the fluid turned murky. Some curators say the Saatchi team had added bleach—which only accelerated decomposition.
By 1993, the original carcass was removed. In its place: a fiberglass cast with the shark’s stretched skin mounted over it. Still suspended in the formaldehyde—but no longer organic. As Hirst later observed: “It didn’t look as frightening… you could tell it wasn’t real. It had no weight.”
Was it still the same art? That question became central. For Hirst, it was the concept that mattered most. The original had fulfilled its philosophical intent; the replacement simply continued it. He insisted: “It’s the same piece.”
A New Shark for a New Keeper
In 2004, hedge‑fund billionaire Steven A. Cohen purchased the piece—widely reported at about $8 million. Hirst immediately volunteered to replace the shark once again. The second specimen—a middle‑aged female caught off Queensland—was shipped in a 20‑foot freezer with power backup. Over two weeks, it was soaked in 7% formalin and injected with formaldehyde in tiny holes drilled to aid absorption. The Natural History Museum’s Oliver Crimmen oversaw the scientific preservation.
This process reportedly cost over $100,000, making it one of the most expensive art restoration—or renewals—in history. Yet Cohen reportedly described it as “inconsequential” in the context of the artwork’s value.
Once more, the shark shone—fresh, formaldehyde‑bright, conceptually intact.
Conceptual Identity: Idea Over Object
This is the moment where The Physical Impossibility… stops being simply a spectacle and becomes a dense philosophical case study. Hirst's principle: the Damien Hirst artwork exists in its intention. The physical shark or its precise chemical solution are secondary.
He faced critics who argued that replacing the original shark meant losing the authenticity, the aura, the history of decay. Hirst responded by aligning with conceptual art traditions (dadaism founder Marcel Duchamp and Duchamp‑style Fountain replicas). As long as the intention—the confrontation with death—remains intact, the piece qualifies as the same art.
Authenticity Controversy: Back‑dating 2017 Works
Even decades later, the piece remained at the center of debate. In 2024, The Guardian revealed that Hirst’s studio produced several animal‑in‑formaldehyde works—including sharks—created in 2017 but deliberately dated to the 1990s. Instead of signaling when they were physically made, the dates reflect the conceptual birth of the idea. Hirst’s company explained it as standard practice in conceptual art—dating to idea rather than production. Critics argued this violated norms of transparency in provenance.
This controversy reopened questions: Is an idea timeless? And how should art markets value concept versus material reality?
Why the Shark Continues to Resonate
What makes this shark in formaldehyde endure as Hirst's single most famous work?
1. Visceral shock meets existential weight
You stand before a majestic, lifeless predator—caught mid‑life and frozen mid‑death. That tension between life, death, and the human gaze is what makes it unforgettable.
2. Symbol of BritArt and the Young British Artists
Few works have defined a generation like this one. It helped forge the identity of BritArt and made people queue for the Turner Prize as if it were a rock concert. Without it, the trajectory of British contemporary art—and institutions like Tate Modern—might look very different.
3. Conflation of spectacle and philosophy
Unlike most Damien Hirst paintings, which rely on pattern, color, or composition, this artwork uses biology as medium. It’s theatre, science, and metaphysics in a tank.
4. Open question of authenticity
By replacing the shark twice, Hirst forced the world to decide what matters: the original material, or the enduring concept. That debate lives on.
Beyond the Shark: Hirst’s Broader Practice
While the shark remains Hirst’s most famous Damien Hirst artwork, his Damien Hirst paintings—from spot paintings to insect‑encased color fields—also occupy a prominent place in the art world. Yet none command the same immediate visceral power. The shark is exceptional: life meets death, science meets tradition, spectacle meets philosophy.
His Natural History series spans other animals—cows, sheep, calves, even doves—all preserved in formaldehyde. But The Physical Impossibility… is the flagship.
Legacy, Reflection & Future
In 2024, as Damien Hirst turned 60, he reflected on his career at length. He spoke of evolving beyond shock tactics, planning a legacy involving notebooks of ideas that could be carried out up to two centuries after his death. He remains a provocative, market‑savvy figure—no longer just about the sensational, but also about legacy and longevity.
The shark piece remains the anchor in that legacy. It’s not just an artwork—it’s a question posed to every new generation of viewers: what matters more, the raw visceral moment or the enduring idea?
In Conclusion
So there you have it: the full story of Damien Hirst’s most iconic work—a shark in formaldehyde that transformed perceptions of Damien Hirst artwork, challenged norms in Damien Hirst paintings, and provoked rich debates about art, authenticity, and mortality.
From its commissioning in 1991 through decay, replacement, legal and aesthetic controversies, and the ongoing debate over back‑dating—this work remains a touchstone in contemporary art. It’s a piece that lives longer than flesh; it endures because the idea endures.
