Renowned Artist, Damien Hirst is putting up a selection of his work at aunction (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Damien-Hirst-Sothebys-Sale-Beautiful-Inside-My-Head-Forever-Works-Expected-To-Raise-Record-Prices/Media-Gallery/200809215095486?lid=GALLERY_15095486_DamienHirstSo thebysSale:BeautifulInsideMyHeadForeverWorksExpect edToRaiseRecordPrices&lpos=searchresults).

It is estimated that total sales will surpass £65m, but do you think his pieces can be defined as Art and worth the high valuations?

First day of sales (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Damien-Hirsts-Beautiful-Inside-My-Head-Forever-Auction-Makes-Multi-Million-Pound-Fortune/Article/200809315099331?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15099331_Damien_Hirsts_Beautiful_Insid e_My_Head_Forever_Auction_Makes_Multi-Million_Pound_Fortune)

I think that art can be defined as anything one finds artistically appealing. I believe that yes, it is most definitely a form of art. This actually kind of reminds me of Body Worlds (http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/prelude/human_saga.html) , the scientific exhibition. People get squeamish when death is made to be something educational and in fact, beautiful...and this is a shame.

As for the huge sums of money that he is prospected to bring in with this exhibit, there can be no value put onto art. It is simply what people are willing to pay to get this piece in their home or place of business. Art is priceless, and that is why good art is so expensive. Everyone wants a piece of it, but only the richest can actually get it.

The value of art is down to the fact that it can't really be mass produced. Anything that is unique is worth more than a boatload of facsimile items, due to people wanting to be the one to own said piece of art/junk.

I think art can be appreciated when talent is involved but sticking a sheep in formaldehyde doesn't constitute art or talent in my book. I do like that skeletal angel thing he's done in that link though!

I think there's a lot of rubbish about... I went to an exhibition recently and someone had exibited some masonry with a strengthening cable through it as art, with some waffle about its artistic values, rather than what it really was - something obviously found at a building/demolition site! That just puts me off the whole 'art' scene, where people talk a load of bull to make their 'art' have meaning.

Of course it's art. As to whether or not it's worth so much really comes down to a question of personal taste.

I'd define art as something we do or appreciate which serves no practical purpose to our lives. Something that really exists simply for it's own sake. Hirst's pieces certainly fill that criteria. And as Ches says, the unique factor adds zeros onto any cheque.

I try to get to the Tate Modern at least once a year on trips to the UK and some of the stuff there is to me, utter crap. Other stuff I find stunning. It's just a personal thing. Not everyone has to like it for it to be art.