The gallery is on the South Bank

The Edwardian oak-panelled building is a far cry from the stark interior of his original gallery in north London.

The permanent collection includes Marcus Harvey's portrait of serial killer Myra Hindley and Chris Ofili's dung-slapped picture of the Virgin Mary.

But what do you think?

Can this be a serious rival to Tate Modern? Has Saatchi's art lost its shock value?

It was self-indulgent, pretentious and soooo 1990s. Postcards were good though.
Nigel Tufnell, London, England

I find great modern art wondrous, but let's face it - BritArt is total rubbish and in this gallery Saatchi has done the decent thing of bringing lots of it all together so we won't have to see it when we go to the other galleries!
Rachael Wall, England

Tut tut. The gallery is for British art, and the website describes South Bank as "an important center". Charles, we Brits spell it "centre". With such a lack of appreciation of our own language, is it any surprise Saatchi has such a dreadful appreciation of our modern art?
Kieran, UK

A giant trash can full of rubbish. Let's hope the dustmen come round quickly and carry this lot off to the tip where it belongs. What on earth is Saatchi on - his judgement is becoming really screwed. Come on London - let's have something deserving in this site, not something to be really ashamed of.
Paz, UK

Charles Saatchi was an advertising agent and his collection of 'contemporary art' works on the level of 'contemporary advertising': tricks, gimmicks and shock tactics which soon wear very thin. Saatchi's collection does not shock but bores the public who are much more sophisticated in their cultural critique - they don't buy into Saatchi's advertising art.

Will his collection stand the test of time? The answer is no: it is already dated; locked firmly in the 1990s.
Alex Russell, England, UK

There were about three pieces of art that I felt worth seeing Joe, UK

Another perfect example of "the rich have no taste" axiom.
Rob, UK

Hmmm... It actually all looks very old-fashioned. Not classic, not timeless, not standing strong against the whims of fashion and time, just a load of old-fashioned and cringingly embarrassing stuff. How very, very sad that such a pleasant building is used for such a load of rubbish.
John Hughes, UK

I actually enjoyed the whole experience. Finally getting the chance to see Richard Wilson's work, which was fantastic! Although I do think more works should have been displayed. But we'll have to wait and see that!
Stephen Robertson, United Kingdom

But it's not contemporary art. It's not contemporary, and it's not art. Although there are some items of junk like this at the Tate Modern, one can quite easily avoid them, because at least there are some better examples of real art elsewhere at the site. No, this is not a serious rival to Tate Modern. It's simply puerile trash exhibited by a bloke who's taken self-promotion of his Saatchi brand into ridiculous realms of stupidity. This is a gallery of his ignorance, not a gallery of art.
Robert Singleton, UK

As one of the naked visitors it was interesting to see some of the famous items on display. But many of the exhibits only warrant a cursory glance and the exhibition is unlikely to be a place to revisit - unless it was made a 'clothing optional' gallery as on the opening night!
Mike, UK

As somebody who actively enjoys art, having visited Tate Modern, the Aztecs exhibition and the National Gallery on numerous occasions, I can honestly say that this alleged exhibition is not art at all. It is inane, lacking in originality, self-obsessed and quite amusing in its attempts to be shocking and provocative - it only succeeds in being ludicrous and tacky. Sorry, but if this is art only the Iraqi Information Minister could state that... and we all know what that means...
Kiran, UK

I agree wholeheartedly with Mike. As NakedGuy 47 I spent about one hour wandering around the gallery. There were about three pieces of art that I felt worth seeing. Perhaps if you are more into conceptualism than myself you might like it, but otherwise I would say the Tate Modern was a better bet.
Joe, UK

Absolute utter rubbish. The artists must be laughing all the way to Soho House at the fact they have found someone as stupid and as rich as Mr Saatchi to buy their talentless, laughable attempts that should never even be called art.
Chloe, London, England

A waste of money and a waste of time. I've seen better art at local car boot sales Sandy, UK

I am living in London at present and have been to the National Gallery four times but still haven't seen all the paintings on display. An admission price of �8.50 for about 100 works is hardly making modern art accessible to a large audience.
Natalie, Australia

This really is getting old! Well Done to Saatchi for seizing the opportunity to make millions of �s from the gullible public, who are perfectly willing to view this crap! Great business idea! Wish I'd thought of it!
Loopylu, England

And I agree with Joe, but would add that 100 nude visitors mingling with the celebs formed perhaps the most telling and novel statement of the opening party. Why do none of the media reports include this cheerful fact?
Bernard, UK

An absolute, complete and utter load of rubbish. More con-septic than conceptual. A giant ego ride for Charles Saatchi whose appropriation of what he considers great art is based purely on the external monetary values in the art market, rather than any intrinsic value of the art. He thinks he's the new Medeci, but he's so far off target. My advice to anyone is to walk past this, go along to the Tate Modern, sit in the Rothko room for an hour, and then one will know what truly brilliant modern art is all about.
Tom Franklin, UK

It's the new Millennium Dome of London. Wonderful building. Tripe contents. Not worth a second of anyone's time.
Jane H., UK

None of the object-makers (can't call them artists can I?) will be known in a few years. People will vaguely remember Emin and Hurst for the "surprising factor" that art involves, but their objects will either be destroyed or left to collect dust somewhere and rightfully so. It's simply awful and Saatchi is just making himself look like an idiot.
Fred, UK

The funny thing is, this "shock value" isn't shock at the nature of the work. There's no Rodin-type shock value involved. It's shock that anyone could seriously get up in the morning with a fully functioning brain and spend any energy putting this rubbish together, and more shock to know someone like Saatchi would actually pay for this pile of junk and put it on exhibit!
Samuel, UK

It's an insane mix of the incredible and incredibly silly Stephen, UK

Nigella - I am disappointed. I thought she'd have better taste.
Sophie, England

I went over Easter just to see if it was really as bad as the reviews and initial views inside suggested.

It was. A waste of money and a waste of time. I've seen better art at local car boot sales.
Sandy, UK

I went to the gallery over the weekend and can only say that I was glad I had a voucher enabling myself and my partner to get in for the price of one. It would not have been worth the full price. The London Aquarium was much more interesting and better value for money....
Rachael, UK

What a load of tripe. Nonsense from start to finish, I say. Yes.
Giles Robertson, England

Art takes many forms and if it includes Spencer's nudes, I'll take a broader view of the exhibits in the Gallery. I was one of the people who posed for him at County Hall and found it a very moving experience. Let's all recall that special time together whenever we hear that old sixties hit, Waterloo Sunset.
Will Dawson, UK

I go to lots of galleries (and museums), several times each month and have done for years, all over the world but most frequently in London. I can honestly say that this gallery's collection is the worst I have ever seen in my life. None of it is art, none is inspiring, none moves the soul, none takes skill, none grasps the beauty of the world, none grasps the sadness of the world, none makes you stop and sink into it. It is quite simply a junkyard full of objects put together by people out for a quick buck, presented by a man who's got lots of quick bucks to give them. Tragic.
Chantal, UK

It's an insane mix of the incredible and incredibly silly. Is it a benchmark of success or simply a sign of the times that the words which invariably spring to mind when describing the works on show are words like "grotesque", "gratuitous" and "pretentious"?

At least some of the exhibits are the result of the artist's ability to create something from nothing, whereas arranging sliced offal in glass containers leaves me as cold as the soulless eyes of the unfortunate animals themselves.The Orwellian phrase which reverberated within my mind, as I queued for an hour to enjoy the thrill of standing in a room up to my waist in engine oil, was "I understand how...I do not understand why".
Stephen, UK

I visited the Saatchi Gallery today and was not only moved by the quality of some works eg Mueck's Dead Dad, but also, truly nauseated by others. When the sun came out, as promised by the BBC, and the temperature inside the gallery rose, the smell (not to mention traces of liquid) emanating from Hirst's container A Thousand Years became impossible to shake off. It remained with me until further into the gallery whereupon I began to think that someone had been over-zealous with the furniture polish on the exquisite wood panelling.

But no, it turned out to be the fumes from the vast tank of sump oil that is Wilson's 20:50 - visually stunning but head-numbing and, when mixed with Hirst's wafting head of dead cow, thoroughly stomach churning. Did anyone consider the possible effects on public health in the show's risk assessment?
Gerry Whiteing, England