Damien Hirst's art leaves me cold. But that is beside the point. From other people's perspective it has worth, although I do wonder how much of this is an aesthetic appreciation and not a confidence in the ability of the work to hold or increase its monetary value. The point is made here that an original conceptual sketch, hand drawn by the artist, is worth many times less than the finished work which is made via a production process in which the artist plays no physical part.

Is the person willing to pay £500,000 for the final piece making a statement to others, pleasing themselves or simply obtaining a portable piece of wealth?

The Bank of England doesn't print individual bank notes worth half a million quid, however given the publicity surrounding the Hirst auction I'm now confident people know the value of a Hirst as well as they do a printed piece of paper featuring the head of the monarch. In that sense the artwork is no different to a house or anything else that a person invests in based on faith that we hold some collective belief it is worth something. I could not bring myself to buy or take out a mortgage on a place I intended to make a home that I did not find aesthetically pleasing.

In the wider world there seems to be an abstract notion of ever-increasing worth that's causing the wheels to wobble precariously on the capitalist bandwagon. If I were Hirst my next series of works would be wallet-sized pieces of art mass-produced for the wealthy who wish to pay for items with something less vulgar than a piece of plastic with their name embossed on the front.

Would £111m in liquid assets and a well-known signature be enough to set up your own small bank in these turbulent days?