CultureGrrl

Judge Ott Declines to Reopen Barnes Case; Appeal Still Possible

2008-05-16T04:00:14Z

My guess as to how Judge Stanley Ott of Montgomery County Orphans' Court would rule on the question of whether to reopen the Barnes Foundation case has proven, unfortunately, to be correct.

A bit less expeditiously than he had promised at the Mar. 24 court hearing, Judge Ott yesterday issued his ruling: He stood by his Dec. 13, 2004 decision to allow the Barnes to move from Merion, PA, to Philadelphia, saying that neither the Friends of the Barnes nor Montgomery County had appropriate legal standing to bring a suit requesting that the case be reopened.

In a press release (not online at this writing), Derek Gillman, executive director and president of the Barnes, commented:

This very clear ruling ends the present distraction and we are forging ahead with plans for the new building.

Carolyn Carluccio, deputy solicitor for Montgomery County, said this to me yesterday afternoon in an e-mail:

We are certainly disappointed. I will be meeting with the Chair of the County Commissioners, Jim Mathews, to determine whether it is in the County's interest to pursue an appeal.

There is more than a little irony in this part of judge's ruling:

As the Attorney General and the trustees point out, the County's "special interests" in protecting historical resources and nurturing economic welfare are matters within the purview of the Attomey General's office. That Office...protects the general public, and there is no authority for a second sovereign [i.e., Montgomery County] to participate on behalf of a subset of the general public.

The attorney general's office (as I previously stated in the post linked at the top) did a shockingly inadequate job in protecting the interests of the general public in the Barnes case, as Judge Ott himself scathingly observed in an earlier written opinion. Montgomery County did not seek to discredit the performance of the attorney general's office when it requested reconsideration of the judge's decision, because it did not feel it could properly attack another government entity. I'd call this a "Catch 22."

The Philadelphia Inquirer's report, quoting reaction from Friends of the Barnes, is here. The text of Judge Ott's ruling is here. We can only find it amusing that the judge confides he decided to do a Google search on "The Barnes Foundation," discovering "about 2,590,000 hits." If only he had clicked on Result 37---the CultureGrrl post to which I linked to at the top of this one.

Another Sotheby's/Christie's Windfall: Unredeemed Auction Settlement Coupons

2008-05-15T16:37:20Z

A. Alfred Taubman, Sotheby's former chairman, out of jail and back (as a client) at the auction house last night

Last night was a watershed for Sotheby's, not just because of its many records broken by its Contemporary sale, but also because it was the last day for redemption of the antitrust settlement coupons (issued to compensate clients who were hurt by illegal collusion between Sotheby's and Christie's in setting commission rates). If you still have those pieces of paper, shred them or frame them as souvenirs: As of today, they're worthless.

I don't know how Christie's carried those coupons on its balance sheet, but since Sotheby's is publicly traded, we do know, from its SEC filings, that as of Mar. 31, some $41.8 million of those coupons were unredeemed of the original $125 million, with each auction house then having potential liability for half of those amounts. Sotheby's reflected its $20.9 million share of those unredeemed certificates as a liability on its balance sheet. That means that it should be reporting a one-time windfall equal to the final unredeemed amount in the next quarter. A total of $125 million in coupons was originally issued as part of the antitrust settlement.

A. Alfred Taubman (above), Sotheby's former chairman, who was jailed for his involvement in the commission-fixing conspiracy, was back in good form this month at his old haunts, chatting up other attendees and buying two works at the Christie's Impressionist/modern sale, as he told me when I ran into him before Sotheby's Contemporary sale. He had no clue that this was a landmark day in the antitrust annals. "I wasn't even involved in the operations of the company when I was there," he assured me---the same stance that he (unsuccessfully) took at his criminal trial.

A few other interesting revelations, quoted from the latest Sotheby's Form 10Q:

As of March 31, 2008, the Company had outstanding auction guarantees totaling $301.4 million, the property relating to which had a mid-estimate sales price of $313.8 million. The Company's financial exposure under these auction guarantees is reduced by $41.9 million as a result of risk sharing arrangements with unaffiliated partners. The property related to such auction guarantees is being offered primarily at auctions in May and June 2008. As of March 31, 2008, $88.9 million of the guaranteed amount had been advanced by the Company....

As of May 8, 2008, the Company had outstanding auction guarantees totaling $232.5 million, the property relating to which had a mid-estimate sales price of $239.9 million. The Company's financial exposure under these auction guarantees is reduced by $42.6 million as a result of arrangements with unaffiliated third parties. The property related to such auction guarantees is being offered primarily at auctions in May and June 2008, with the remainder of the property to be offered at auctions in the second half of 2008. As of May 8, 2008, $84.4 million of the guaranteed amount had been advanced by the Company and will be recorded within notes receivable and consignor advances....

At March 31, 2008, consignor advances issued to the one borrower totaling $62.6 million comprised approximately 22% of the net Notes Receivable and Consignor Advances balance. Of this amount, $57.5 million is related to an auction guarantee.

Sotheby's would provide me with no further details about the megamillion loan to one borrower, nor would Bill Ruprecht, its president and CEO, disclose to me the final figure for the amount of the auction settlement coupons that were unredeemed as of today.

Sotheby's stock has perked up a bit since my report last Friday. It was trading at $28.58 as of 12:15 a.m., up 7.04% from yesterday's close.

Hits and Misses at Sotheby's Highest-Grossing Auction in Its History

2008-05-15T05:30:36Z

Why is this artist smiling?

No, the above photo was not taken at the Brooklyn Museum. It's Takashi Murakami, posing in front of his $15.16-million "My Lonesome Cowboy," immediately after last night's Sotheby's Contemporary sale, which set auction records for him and 17 other artists.

When I wrote yesterday about having once seen Robert Rauschenberg at a major auction of his work, it occurred to me that you just don't see artists attending their sales any more. So imagine my surprise when I beheld Murakami (who, happily, has ditched his celebrity stylists and looked very much like an artist), sitting at the back of the saleroom where another example of the raunchiest work in his current retrospective at the Brooklyn Museum sold for an astonishing hammer price of $13.5 million ($15.16 million, with buyers premium), trouncing its $3-4 million estimate. (It comes from an edition of three, plus two artist's proofs.) The price was more than five times his previous auction record. Murakami told me later that none of his works had ever sold for that much privately either.

The artist returned the favor to Sotheby's by himself purchasing the last lot in the sale, Yoshitomo Nara's "Light My Fire," for $1.16 million, setting an auction record for a sculpture by that artist. He looked excited and gleeful as it was hammered down to him.

You can see the similarity in these two Japanese manga-influenced artists' sensibilities. Here's Murakami's new acquisition:

The $362.04-million total made this the highest grossing auction in Sotheby's history. It also outdid Christie's $348.26-million Contemporary total of the night before. But Sotheby's offered 83 works, compared to only 57 at Christie's. After some exciting bidding wars during the first half of the sale, some of the fizz was lost and 10 works went unsold.

The big success was the $77-million hammer price for Francis Bacon's "Triptych," against an estimate of approximately about $70 million. Setting an auction record for any work of contemporary art at $86.28 million (with buyers premium), it sold to a private European collector. Sotheby's has not, at this writing, provided the customary geographic breakdown of buyers.

Also astonishing was the $21-million hammer price (against an estimate of $6-8 million) for a golden Yves Klein, "MG9." At $23.56 million with premium, purchaser Philippe Ségalot, the Paris/New York dealer, set an auction record for the artist. Sotheby's joy was tempered, though, by the failure of the lot with the night's second-highest estimate---a Mark Rothko that had been estimated to bring "in excess of $35 million." It went unsold at $33 million, and, what's worse, the catalogue disclosed that the auction house itself had a direct ownership interest in it.

The one poignant moment of the sale occurred when this lot came around the turntable:

Robert Rauschenberg, "Overdrive," 1963

I had to fight back tears, seeing the earthbound stop signs that, to me, signified the stopping of Rauschenberg's life, and the bird at the top, representing his soul flying free. In writing about another work with (according to the auction catalogue) "many of the same elements" as "Overdrive," Calvin Tomkins once quoted Rauschenberg as saying this:

Look at that. The birds have freed the stop signs.

It set a new auction record for the artist. So what. Read Barbara Rose's appreciation from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, and forget about the financial appreciation.

For the complete price list, go here. The sale was 88% sold by lot, 86.8% sold by dollar value. The hammer total was $320.64 million---within the presale estimate of $288.05-356.65 million. Unless you include the buyers premium (which you should not, since the estimates don't include it), the total did NOT exceed the presale estimate---no matter what Sotheby's, the NY Times or Bloomberg tell you.

Contemporary Auction: Christie's Roars Back

2008-05-14T17:33:32Z

Top Lot: Mark Rothko, "No. 15," 1952

You've probably already heard about the bravura performance of Christie's in pulling off a highly successful contemporary art auction last night:

---Second-highest contemporary art auction total ever: $348,263,600
---Record auction price for a living artist, set by Lucian Freud's "Benefits Supervisor Sleeping": $33,641,000
---Auction records set for seven more artists
---Top lot: Rothko's "No. 15," 1952 (above), $50.44 million, the second-highest auction price for that artist (behind the $72.84-million Rockefeller Rothko).

The sale was 95% sold by both dollar value and number of lots, which sounds like a boom, not a bursting bubble. That perennial bear, collector Eli Broad, was quoted at the end of Carol Vogel's NY Times report as saying:

The market is defying gravity. It was amazing.

But wait. I'm amazed too! Did I really see Vogel correctly compare presale estimates to HAMMER PRICES (as distinguished from final prices, including buyers premium), no fewer than FIVE TIMES? Could it be that my point about the need to compare apples to apples is, at last, being taken?

Now if she would just do the same for sale totals. Vogel wrote:

Only three of the auction's 57 lots failed to sell, bringing the evening's total to $348.2 million, well above its $282 million low estimate but below the $398.6 million high.

Actually, the hammer price total, which is the only one that should be compared to the presale estimates, was $309.01 million---still comfortably within the estimate range, but not, as Bloomberg has it, "closer to the top" of the range. That assessment only works if you misleadingly compare presale estimates (which DON'T include the buyers premium) to sale totals that DO include the buyers premium---the apples-to-oranges fallacy.

Lindsay Pollock and Philip Boroff, do you read me?

For Christie's complete results, go here.

On we go to Sotheby's tonight, home of the highest-estimated work in this spring's New York evening sales---Francis Bacon's "Triptych," which the auction house hopes will bring around $70 million. The entire sale is estimated at $291.05-360.65 million, making this a potentially close horse race with its archrival.

My "Youth vs. Experience" Musings on WNYC's Radio "Smackdown"

2008-05-14T15:35:34Z

John Schaefer, referee for WNYC's "Soundcheck Smackdown"

The undefeated CultureGrrl and my debate opponent, arts consultant Barry Hessenius, floated like a butterfly but didn't sting like a bee as we danced around the unanswerable question posed at yesterday's half-hour New York Public Radio Soundcheck Smackdown (for which I borrowed the empowering Wonder Woman costume from the Metropolitan Museum's display case).

Host John Schaefer (above) asked us who should lead arts organizations---veterans or rookies? The answer, of course, is, "It depends"---on the merits of the candidates and the particular needs of the arts organization. Duh.

Speaking of which, what were all those chauffered limos doing yesterday blocking the entrance driveway of the Metropolitan Museum's uptown outpost, the Cloisters? A security staffer told CultureSpouse, who was taking CultureMom there for a visit, that the Met's trustees were cloistered inside---something that he said very rarely happened in Washington Heights (instead of Fifth Avenue). A Philippe-succession conclave, perhaps? Or just a pleasant change of scenery?

But back to WNYC's unglamorous studios in Lower Manhattan: In the course of playing rope-a-dope, I did make some comments about the Met succession, as well as general remarks praising the Clark Art Institute's director, Michael Conforti; maestros Riccardo Muti and Pierre Boulez; the Morgan Library & Museum's new director, William Griswold; and J. Paul Getty Trust president James Wood (who, unbeknownst to me, while my ears were stuffed between headphones, had just instituted some stringent cost-cutting measures).

What punches did I pull in this title bout? You'll just have to click below and listen:

Robert Rauschenberg, 82: Forever Young, Always Remembered

2008-05-14T04:02:00Z

Robert Rauschenberg at MASS MoCA during installation of "The 1/4 Mile or 2 Furlong Piece," 1999

The above publicity image of the late Robert Rauschenberg is the only photo of anyone other than my own family that I display in my house. (It's taped to a wall in my office.) He inspired me with the breathtaking audacity of his improbable but irresistible inventions and his feisty, rebellious spirit. As a speaker, he was as impetuous and unpredictable as his art. And I happened to be a few feet away during the legendary moment at the conclusion of the 1973 Robert Scull auction at Sotheby Parke Bernet, when Rauschenberg confronted the collector and declared: "I've been working my ass off just for you to make that profit!"

He was one of those artists who always came back into relevance, for good reason: His was a youthful, constantly questing spirit. Just a few months ago, at the press preview for the opening of the new New Museum, senior curator Laura Hoptman told me that Rauschenberg was one of of the main forebears for the artists in the new facility's very favorably received inaugural show, consisting of collages and assemblages by a new generation.

I can't agree with Michael Kimmelman, who seems to imply in his NY Times obit that the above piece, installed at MASS MoCA in 1999, "did not live up to his earlier achievements." I regarded it as an astonishing, ingenious tour de force.

There is a project I'm working on for which I had been hoping to speak to him soon. I waited too long.

Universal World Heritage...Except When It's Rent-a-Show Time

2008-05-13T14:39:08Z

Henri Loyrette, Director of the Louvre

How has director Henri Loyrette changed the Louvre since the Pierre Rosenberg days?

That's what a BusinessWeek magazine reporter based in Paris wanted to know when she called me yesterday for a phone interview. So I ranted about what I've called the "Louez le Louvre" phenomenon---the proliferating megabucks rental shows, whereby the French museum now raises millions of dollars for its endowment and capital improvements, at the expense of sister institutions around the world. Those borrowers accede to this monetization of museum collections in order to snare exhibitions that typically feature a few major masterpieces, a lot of B-listers and, most importantly, the Louvre's glittering (but now somewhat tarnished) aura.

The Paris palace isn't the only "universal museum" playing this game, nor was it the first: The financially pressed State Hermitage Museum has been using its collection as a cash cow far longer. But Loyrette has raised the stakes to new and disturbing heights, dispatching (or soon to dispatch) megabucks Louvre-branded displays to Atlanta, Indianapolis, Seattle, Oklahoma City, Denver, Quebec, Istanbul, Valencia, Verona and, let us not forget, the planned museum in Abu Dhabi, which is paying $520 million just for the right to use the illustrious museum's name. (I've probably unintentionally omitted a few other stops on the treasures-of-the-Louvre circuit.)

As I pondered all this, it suddenly occurred to me that there is a strange and troubling disconnect in the way the world's premier museums regard cultural property, depending on whether it belongs to them or it is owned by the archaeological source countries where important antiquities have been unearthed. The "universal museums" ardently argue that there should be a free international flow of cultural objects---that source countries should abandon their retentionist cultural-property policies because the objects found within their borders are part of world heritage and rightfully belong to all humanity.

But when it comes to the great works of international heritage in their own encyclopedic collections, some of these same museums are behaving not altruistically but avariciously. They want money---lots of it. And they seem to have few qualms about exacting big fees from sister institutions for works that they traditionally had lent collegially in years past. These masterpieces are also, arguably, a part of world heritage over which they happen to have stewardship. If they want the source countries of antiquities to share their cultural wealth, they should strive to be equally generous---not just with reciprocal loans to cultural property claimants, but with loan shows sent, at reasonable cost, to sister institutions around the world.

As Metropolitan Museum director Philippe de Montebello wrote last October in the French newspaper, Le Monde:

Loans must remain free. We understand that certain developing countries require money. But between developed countries, it's unacceptable....I have alliances with all museums. But no exclusivity. In matters of art, I'm a complete polygamist.

But even the Met and the British Museum have not been above using loan exhibitions as cash cows.

Another problem with charging megamillion rental fees is that the lender has to come up with some world-class masterpieces, or the borrowing institution is getting a bad bargain. But if the lender dispatches too many iconic objects to too many places, it is shortchanging its core audience---the visitors who come to the home facility expecting to see those works in the permanent collection galleries.

The typical compromise involves releasing a few superlative pieces to satisfy the renting institution, but also lots of second-tier material. The lending institution's home audience is still unhappy that their masterpieces are frequent fliers---as witness the petition that was signed against the Louvre Abu Dhabi by thousands who expressed their support of an opinion piece written for Le Monde by three prominent artworld professionals, decrying the use of "works of art as currency of exchange."

Knowledgeable people who visit these high-priced traveling shows are also dissatisfied, knowing full well that their renting institutions may be getting some great publicity value from the illustrious lender's imprimatur, but are not getting their money's worth in terms of overall quality (unless the lender is sending only A-list material, drawn exclusively from permanent collection galleries that are closed for renovation).

Rent-a-show may produce great gains for the lending institution's endowment and capital budget. But for the art-loving public, it's a lose-lose transaction. And works reserved for the highest bidders may be unavailable for more serious projects.

Financial exigencies should not trump scholarly imperatives.

CultureGrrl Represents the Geezers Tomorrow in NY Public Radio Debate

2008-05-12T18:38:40Z

Hey, I'm still on the right side of 60!

Nevertheless, I've been asked (partly on the strength of my Elderfield Too Elderly? post) to take the old folks' side in a debate tomorrow on WNYC, New York Public Radio, on the relative merits of youth vs. age in cultural organizations. I warned Soundcheck associate producer Brian Wise that although I oppose age-ism, I have a nuanced view on this subject: Over-65s who are still at the top of their game should not be put out to pasture, but new blood has some good points too!

That waffling apparently did not disqualify me. So (if all goes according to plan) you can hear me tomorrow live at 2 p.m. on Soundcheck. The youth-will-be-served side of this question will be taken by Barry Hessenius, a nonprofits consultant and speaker, who authored a 2007 book, Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits. Does he play hardball in debates too? Calling Chris Matthews (whose election-related topic on Friday happened to be "Age and race---new focus of 2008?).

Wait! Stop the broadcast! Hessenius' bio informs us that he "represented clients in the music and television industries from 1971 to 1983," after receiving his law degree. That would definitely make him (gasp) even more superannuated than CultureGrrl!

Listen tomorrow at 2 p.m. on 93.9 fm, or hear the live webcast here. I'm not sure yet if I will be able to embed the audio on my blog. If I can, you KNOW I will!

Cleveland Kerfuffle: Italy Again Engages in Repatriation-by-Press

2008-05-12T15:52:07Z

Francesco Rutelli (second from right) at a New York press conference last June where he announced the supposed signing of an accord with Princeton University

Apparently Francesco Rutelli's penchant for pressing for repatriation through the press, rather than through quiet, collegial diplomacy, survives his terminated tenure as Italy's culture minister.

On Friday, the Associated Press made the unexpected announcement that the Cleveland Museum had agreed to send objects back to Italy:

Italy has reached a verbal agreement with a U.S. museum in Cleveland for the return of artifacts Rome says have been looted or smuggled out of the country, a government lawyer said Friday.

Talks between Italy and the Cleveland Museum of Art are near their final stage, said lawyer Maurizio Fiorilli, who has helped negotiate the return of Italian antiquities from several other U.S. museums....
But Fiorilli stressed that that deal was still only a verbal one, although "we are at almost the final phase" of negotiations for a written accord. "There are no obstacles from our point of view," the lawyer said.

Dubious from past experience about Italy's unilaterally announced "agreements," I immediately e-mailed the museum, but received no reply until just moments ago (below).

Happily, the estimable Steven Litt of the Cleveland Plain Dealer did the fact-checking and reported Saturday that the accord was as much of a surprise to the museum as it was to me:

"No agreement has been reached, nor has the museum agreed to transfer any objects to Italy," the museum said in a statement Friday.
Cindy Fink, the museum's director of marketing and communications, declined to comment on Fiorilli's description of a verbal agreement.

Apparently, Rutelli had been behind an earlier AP dispatch which, in Litt's words, had "quoted Rutelli as having said: 'I immediately gave some good news to the new minister. Just these past days we have concluded the agreement---which will be formalized by Minister [Sandro] Bondi---with the Cleveland Museum.'"

Here is the statement that the Cleveland Museum just e-mailed me:

Discussions are continuing between the Museum and the Italian government, but no agreement of any kind has been reached, nor has any timetable been set. A spirit of cooperation and confidentiality has informed the discussions between the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Italian government to date, and we look forward to this continuing.

This episode is reminiscent of Italy's supposed agreement with Princeton University, announced by Rutelli in June 2007 (above), but not finalized until October. The premature announcement had the double advantage of enhancing Rutelli's stature with his countrymen and putting additional pressure on Princeton to close the deal. Similar "agreements" with the Getty Museum were publicized before the real deal was signed.

Is this cultural diplomacy or cultural duplicity? Is Rutelli still trying to act as minister of culture, having lost the post that he clearly relished?

Shoot the Headline Writer (Again): Bloomberg Foretells Freud's Auction Price

2008-05-12T04:25:35Z

Lucian Freud, "Benefits Supervisor Sleeping," 1995

"Freud's Heavyweight Nude Gets $35 Million Price," alleges the headline (which may well be rewritten by the time your read this) for today's online art-market commentary by Martin Gayford in Bloomberg.

That's more than you or I know, since the Christie's auction where Lucian Freud's "Benefits Supervisor Sleeping" (above) may flirt with the auction record for a living artist hasn't happened yet.

Gayford merely (and correctly) observed that "the auction house [is] expecting the 1995 work to fetch up to $35 million" when it is offered on Tuesday evening. The current auction record for a living artist was set last November, when Sotheby's sold another heavyweight, Jeff Koons' "Hanging Heart," for $23.6 million.

We can only wonder if the NY Times headline writer who seriously misconstrued Carol Vogel's report of last week's Impressionist/modern sale at Christie's was let go, only to land at Bloomberg.

What would Freud's illustrious ancestor of the psychoanalytic fame have to say about these slips?

Sotheby's First-Quarter Loss: Commission Margins Down; Buyers Premium Up UPDATED

2008-05-09T16:00:19Z

Sotheby's Stock Chart

There was a lot of news in Sotheby's First Quarter 2008 Earnings Conference Call this morning with investment analysts.

The lead-off revelations: The auction house's revenues ($129.3 million) declined $18.1 million (12%), compared to the first quarter of 2007. There was a first-quarter net loss of $12.4 million ($0.19 per diluted share) compared to net income of $24.3 million ($0.37, per diluted share) for the first quarter of 2007---a $36.7 million decline. First quarters are traditionally weak, with the biggest auctions coming in the second and fourth quarters.

Increased expenses played a significant part in the decline, but Sotheby's said that it was primarily due to lower auction commission margins, as compared to the same period last year. (The auction commission margin equals commission revenue divided by hammer price.) The margin was 13.6% in the first quarter of 2008, compared to 16.6% in the first quarter 2007. Commission margins are typically lower for higher-valued works.

To help boost those margins, Sotheby's will once again raise the fee charged to buyers, effective June 1---25% on the first $50,000 of the hammer price; 20% on the next $950,000 of hammer. (The current buyers premium is 25% of the first $20,000; 20% on the next $480,000.) The charge on hammer price above $1 million will remain at the current 12%.

There was a lot of interesting discussion about guarantees---the amounts that auctioneers sometimes agree to pay to sellers, whether or not the bidding actually reaches those amounts. In the Q&A with analysts, there was a suggestion---uncontradicted by the auction house's officials---that agreements to share a portion of the buyers premium with sellers are sometimes taking the place of guarantees as tools for attracting consignments.

Bill Ruprecht, Sotheby's president and CEO said:

We have been operating in an environment of uncertain economic times over the last nine months, so at the end of last year we focused even more keenly on managing our risks and limiting our exposures to guarantees by taking on fewer deals where we could have exposed our balance sheet to material losses....

Our traditional competitor [Christie's] had approximately $80 million more in guarantees than we did in this most recent 10-day period and by our calculations, we are, year to date, the only firm to have had meaningful profitable guarantee experience....Our competitor did not have strong results in the guarantee line.

When I asked Christie's to comment on the accuracy of these assertions, Toby Usnik, its head of public relations, would only say:

We are very pleased with our results for the week.

Sotheby's reported that its year-to-date sale totals, as of yesterday, were up 11% from last year. In his prepared conference call remarks (which you can read here), Ruprecht quietly corrected a claim made at Wednesday's postsale Impressionist/modern press conference: The average value of lots sold on Wednesday was $5.7 million, compared to $4.8 million (NOT $3.5 million) at Sotheby's weak Impressionist/modern sale last November---a less impressive increase than previously announced.

An interesting moment during the Q&A came when one analyst suggested that giving sellers a portion of the buyers premium is a consignment-getting technique now being used in lieu of offering guarantees. The analyst asked Sotheby's to provide regular reports not just on sale totals, but also on the currently undisclosed amount of the premium relinquished to sellers (which diminishes Sotheby's profit). Sotheby's officials did not refute the analyst's assumptions about the use of the rebate in lieu of guarantees, but they did not offer to change the method of reporting, observing that reports of auction commission revenues reflect the impact of the rebates.

Sotheby's stock is not reacting well to this morning's news: As of 11:38 a.m., it was trading at $24.94, down $2.53 (9.21%) from yesterday's close. One analyst asked whether, in light of the disconnect between share price and company health, management might consider a share buyback. The reply:

That's something we would look at and consider.

UPDATE: Usnik of Christie's e-mailed me with this additional observation about Sotheby's analysis of Christie's guarantees:

As a private company, we don't comment on this aspect of our financials, but we can confirm that all objects guaranteed were identified as such in our catalogue.

It's Official: Sandro Bondi Replaces Rutelli as Italian Culture Minister

2008-05-09T04:28:33Z

Italian Culture Minister Sandro Bondi

What I foretold here (thanks to a helpful tip from Louis Godart) has now officially come to pass: Sandro Bondi has been named by the new Berlusconi government to replace The Great Repatriator, Francesco Rutelli, as Italy's minister of culture. (Above is his official portrait on the Ministry of Culture's website.) In addition to being head of Forza Italia, the political party of the recently elected prime minister, Bondi is a senator.

Here's his biography, as published yesterday by ANSA, the Italian news agency. Well connected politically, Bondi only has one cultural credential mentioned here. He is a published poet:

The son of a Socialist lumberjack who was forced to find work in Switzerland, Bondi, 49, is a former Communist and trade unionist who met Berlusconi through the sculptor who designed the premier's mausoleum.

He became a fervent acolyte of the charismatic mogul and has served as lightning rod for criticism of his boss in his role as Forza Italia spokesman.

He claims to appreciate the many satirical imitators of his priest-like style of dealing with journalists. Bondi is one of Berlusconi's closest aides and biggest fans but is still so in awe of his boss that he addresses him in the formal 'Lei' rather than the familiar 'tu' form. An ex-journalist and published poet, Bondi is proud of his humble background but even prouder of Berlusconi, to whom he has devoted many of the semi-serious poems that have gained a cult following in the Italian edition of Vanity Fair.

A philosophy graduate whose thesis was about an Augustinian preacher, Bondi is a devout Catholic whose books include "Secularists and Believers, a Common Faith" (2006) and "Forgiving God" (2007). He has a fear of heights and hates flying.

"Hates flying?" Does that mean he won't be following in the footsteps of his predecessor, who winged across the Atlantic to major American museums in order to formalize restitutions and compensatory loans?

Sotheby's Impressionist/Modern Results: Relief and Vindication

2008-05-08T01:53:26Z

Simon Shaw

Relief and satisfaction were palpable among Sotheby's Impressionist/modern experts at their press conference (which was viewable online) after tonight's big sale.

The sale's hammer price totaled $208.63 million ($235.33 million with buyers premium) for 52 lots, within a presale estimate of $203.9-280.1 million. (One lot was withdrawn before the sale, which is why the estimate range is lower than what I reported previously.)

Christie's hammer price and the number of lots it offered last night were higher---$246 million for 58 lots. But Christie's percentage sold by value (82%) and by lot (76%) fell short of those at Sotheby's---90% and 79%, respectively. Christie's hammer total fell short of that auction house's presale estimate range.

Americans took home 67% of the sold lots tonight at Sotheby's, compared to only 32% last night at Christie's. Go figure.

David Norman, worldwide co-chairman of Sotheby's Impressionist/modern department, exulted that last night's 90% sold total by dollar value was in line with what one would expect "when the market is strong and booming." The key, he said, was "keep the estimates appealing, choose the right property and promote it with zeal."

And maybe also bring in Simon Shaw (above), who arrived in February from Sotheby's, London, to become the head of New York's Impressionist/modern department. Shaw, who was chief spokesman during tonight's postsale press conference, emphasized that the average value of sold lots tonight was $5.7 million, compared to $3.5 million at Sotheby's lackluster Impressionist/modern sale last November.

"The decisions we took were vindicated this evening," Shaw crowed to the assembled journalists---those on the premises and those of us online. We who watched from home got to hear someone warn Shaw and Norman, before the start of the proceedings, that the microphone for online transmission was already live. Shaw immediately quipped:

I was just about to sing some Celine Dion.

"My (He)art Will Go On," perhaps?

For my coverage of the sale while it was still in progress (including record prices and the priciest of the buy-ins) go here. For Sotheby's official auction results (with buyers premium), go here.

Early Returns: Sotheby's Sale Looks Like a Winner (UPDATED TWICE)

2008-05-07T23:36:01Z

The Big Lot, Léger's "Study for 'The Woman in Blue,'" 1919 (above), achieved a hammer price of $35 million---at the low end of its $35-45 million presale estimate, but enough to set a new auction record for the artist. There have been two unsold lots in the front 20. Only two sold below estimate.

More to come. It's not over till it's over.

UPDATE: More records, more buy-ins. Munch's "Girls on a Bridge," 1902, set an auction record for the artist, with a hammer price of $27.5 million. A new auction record for a Giacometti painting was achieved by "Portrait of Caroline," 1963, with a hammer price of $13 million. There have been a total of five unsold lots on the front 30.

SECOND UPDATE: There's only one big-ticket buy-in in this sale: Léger's "La Partie de Campagne," unsold at $10.5 million, against an estimate of $12-18 million.

NY Times Auction Report: Shoot the Headline Writer

2008-05-07T16:00:24Z

At least the online headline is accurate, but even Carol Vogel, who in her NY Times post mortem emphasized the positive aspects of last night's so-so results at Christie's Impressionist/modern sale, could not possibly have agreed with the editors' headline (above) on Page B2 of today's newspaper:

Sale Results of Impressionist and Modern Art Exceed Expectations at Christie's

As you know from my late night post, the auction made a hammer-price total of $246 million, compared to a presale estimate of $287-405 million. By no measure did it exceed the auction house's professed expectations, other than for only eight of 58 lots that did exceed presale estimates.

Why Vogel and many other art-market scribes persist in comparing the $287-405 million presale estimate (which predicts total hammer price and DOES NOT include the buyers premium) with the $277.28-million final total (which DOES include the commission paid by buyers) defies reason. As CultureGrrl has already observed too many times, this statistical sophistry plays into the auctioneers' desire to make results look better than they really are, but it's comparing apples to oranges. Presale estimates must be compared with hammer prices to be meaningful, not misleading.

Even the higher total, inflated with the buyers premium, fell short of the auctioneers' hammer-price estimate. And the record-setting Monet did not exceed its presale estimate, as Vogel suggested in reporting the $41.4-million price with premium. She reported that Christie's presale estimate for the Monet was $35 million. It's possible that's what they told her after the sale, but last Friday, Christie's had e-mailed to me the various unpublished estimates, and the Monet was pegged at $35-40 million. Its $37-million hammer price last night fell squarely within the estimate, not above it.

I'm cautiously pessimistic about Sotheby's sale tonight. But given last night's iffy indications, there will be a lot of people, some with paddles, with an interest in having this sale to turn out well. Perhaps Sotheby's experts are doing whatever last-minute maneuvering they can to secure a low percentage of unsold works. We'll soon find out.