Results tagged “art market” from Real Clear Arts

As I said several days ago, I've been away, in the Canadian Rockies, where I saw nothing in the cultural world I can comment on -- just the wonders of nature. But, ever the news junkie, I've been plowing through the week's newspapers -- which are saved for me -- and emails, and have discovered a few things. Here's one:

Christie's has apparently decided against starting an art-investment fund and art-lending unit, according to an article by my friend Lindsay Pollock on Bloomberg. She writes:

The move is another sign that the global economic slump is hurting the once-booming art market. At least seven employees working on Christie's financial projects have been fired or have left the London-based auction house since December, the people said.

A Christie's spokesman declined to comment.

There's little disputing that Christie's caution indicates that demand for art isn't booming: first-half auction sales in New York at Christie's declined by more than 50%.

But that's not necessarily bad, long-term. The market will be better off if it rises slowly, rather than take off like a rocket. Smart investors know that a stock market that climbs a "wall of worry" often fares better, its rally lasting longer, than a market that jumps and jumps into bubble territory.

Photo Credit: Courtesy Christie's

Coming soon -- this fall -- a movie that's bound to infuriate the contemporary art and contemporary music worlds, make them howl with knowing laughter, or both. It's called (Untitled), and I went to a preview of it last week, thanks to my co-blogger Amanda Ameer (Life's A Pitch). One of her clients, Pulitzer-prizing-winning David Lang, wrote the music.

The plot follows a contemporary-art gallerist in Chelsea who makes her money from sales of vapid paintings by a terrible artist, but seduces his brooding brother (played by Adam Goldberg, left), an unsuccessful composer who disdains his brother's schlocky paintings but envies his success. His music is so awful that even his parents walk out of his mostly empty concerts ("40 minutes of pure tedium").

"Ten thousand dollars a picture," the father says of the one son, in front of the other, "he's a genius."

But Madeleine, the gallerist (played by Marley Shelton, below) who exhibits dreadful works (many involving taxidermy, including a monkey with a vacuum cleaner) by a crazy, boorish artist, has a solution. She invites the composer, named Adrian, into her world, to present his music at her gallery. The story proceeds from there.

The zingers never stop. One collector is "not familiar" with Matisse. Ray, the taxidermy artist, leaves Madeleine her for a better dealer. Then she discovers a tongue-tied artist named Monroe whose works include a pushpin (which he hilariously "hangs") and a post-it note inscribed "Do!"

What are these things about? "I think I want what I want to say to go without saying," says Monroe. 

And there's a chubby-fingered new collector who made his fortune in technology and doesn't understand that money won't necessarily buy him the hot works he wants.

All the while, Adam's brother Josh yearns for a show of his paintings, but Madeleine hides his works in the back room, lest she be embarassed. An older, unfashionable art advisor comes in regularly to buy Josh's paintings, which all look alike, in bulk -- for hotels.

Is this a film a clef?

Remember that "confidence report" from London-based ArtTactic that I wrote about here several days ago? Most of the study, which involves interviews with key participants in the art market, was behind a pay wall, and I was able to give you only a few bullet points.

Now ArtTactic has posted a podcast, with video charts, showing much more of its hand. It reveals more evidence for ArtTactic's verdict that there is "less negativity" in the contemporary market. But that's all relative. As is explained, the index ranges from zero to 100, so any index below 50 means that the firm received more pessimistic than optimistic views of the market. That index shot from 11 in December to 28 in June. But that's still gloomy, just less gloomy.

ArtTactic also breaks down the market by price categories; perhaps not surprisingly, the only category in truly positive territory was the segment for art priced at less than $50,000. There is also some, but less, confidence in the $50,000 to $100,000 and for works selling for more than $1 million. The middle market is the most dicey. Anecdotal evidence over the last six months has suggested the same thing.

In December, a significant number of people thought that recovery would take more than five years. With prices skidding since then, more than 60% of respondents now believe that recovery will take just 1 to 2 years. And the pace of price declines has definitely slowed down. As a result, people feel that the market is much less risky than it was in December. Because there is less liquidity in the financial world, there is perceived to be less speculation.

ArtTactic also ranks artists, and the top three rated for "long-term" value are Gerard Richter, Jeff Koons and Cindy Sherman -- the same as those at the top in December. Damien Hirst is not in the top five, but he has apparently moved up smartly since December.  

The entire podcast, with charts, can be heard and viewed here.

Oh, yeah, and regarding the just-concluded June sales on London (versus the May sales in New York,

Even while galleries in Chelsea are closing, or hinting that they will this summer, there are people who believe that the art market is close to its floor.

That's the message today from ArtTactic, a British company that tracks, analyzes and  comments on the art market, is out today with a new U.S. and European Art Market Confidence Survey -- much like the consumer confidence index for the U.S. economy published by the University of Michigan.

Art Tactic charges 75 British pounds for the report, and therefore doesn't publish it for all to see. But it does reveal a few things, free:

• Confidence in the market is on the rise: After an 81% drop in the ArtTactic Art Market Confidence Indicator in December 2008, the recent survey from June 2009, shows that confidence is cautiously coming back again.
• Increased optimism about the 6-month art market outlook: ArtTactic's Expectation Indicator currently stands at 46% above the Current Indicator, although the majority of respondents still have a short term negative outlook.
• Speculation risk abates as market contracts: With buyers becoming increasingly selective, and with auction liquidity down 70-80%, there is little room for short-term speculation in the current art market.
• Market recovery could take place earlier than expected:  64% believing the contemporary art market could rebound in 2010/11.
• Price correction loses momentum:  A majority (74%) of the survey sample believe the art market would adjust another 10-20% or less, indicating that prices could be about to level out.

ArtTactic was established in 2001, but most of its research is behind a wall -- so there's no way I can see its track record.

Photo Credit: Courtesy Art Basel  

The Yankees aren't the only ones having trouble selling tickets.

The other day I was reading an article on nytimes.com when I noticed an ad offering free tickets to the International Fine Art Fair, which runs at the Park Avenue Armory in New York from May 1 through 5. This is a fancy fair, and I'd never seen that before. I clicked on the tab and printed out a complimentary ticket for two.

Then on Wednesday, I saw the same offer on the New York Social Diary site:

Hmmm. Art fairs often give free passes to museums and collectors, or to dealers who pass them on to collectors. But I'd not noticed such an offer, on the web or in print, to the general public. That had to say something about the state of the art market. The tickets go for $20. 

"We realize the economy is tough," Magda Grigorian, the spokeswoman for the organizer, Haughton International Fairs, told me when I called. She confirmed that this is a first for this fair. "This is the new regime."

Grigorian said the Haughton organization chose the two websites I happened to be on for their "very targeted audience. It's very qualified people, and we thought we'd try it. Foot traffic is very important for the fair. We know that sales may be down but it's also important to have good crowds."

The International Fine Art Fair has been around for about 15 years, with dealers offering works from the Renaissance through the 20th century. This year it has shrunk -- from 61 dealers last year to 40. Still, it's proceeding: the Haughtons cancelled their International Asian Art Fair this year, which had been set for March.

With so many fairs on the art-market circuit in the last few years, there have already been many cancellations, and there are bound to be more. Organizers and dealers will surely be watching the outcome of this tactic.

Here's a link to the fair's site. You may have to rummage around nytimes.com or NYSD to find the free-ticket offer, but it was still available last night.  

 

is more Jack Nicholsons. Seriously.

This revelation came in Monday's New York Post, which said that a new memoir from Allegra Huston, Angelica's sister, included a passage on Nicholson's acquisition habits. "He collected paintings to the point of obsession," she wrote.

A little snooping around turned up more details. Nicholson apparently owns an eight-room  home, modest by Hollywood standards, on Mulholland Dr. that is stuffed with just part of his collection -- not just on the walls, but stacked in unoccupied rooms. The rest is in storage. Among his paintings are works by Picasso, Magritte, Bonnard, Matisse, Bacon and Dufy. In late 2007, he told the Times of London:

"I just like art...I get pure pleasure from it. My grandmother was an amateur painter."

And: 

"I got involved in buying paintings when Diana Vreeland [the former Vogue editor] got me to an auction in England. Up came this beautiful Tiepolo drawing at Sotheby's. I bought it for Anjelica Huston as a present. That's how I got started."

And:

"People look at an abstract painting and ask, 'What's it supposed to be? What's the point?' Hell, it's a painting, that's the point. It's not supposed to be anything. Its job is to get you to look in a different way. That's also what actors are supposed to do. Provide a stimulating point of departure for thought and feeling."

Spoken like a true collector. 

Official word on results from the Armory Show is in, and it's not bad. This year's expanded version -- 243 exhibitors -- drew 56,000 people, versus 52,000 last year. Dealers reported "solid sales" that were better than they expected.

Some of the larger deals:

Lisson Gallery, London: two Anish Kapoor sculptures at $1 million and $700,000 respectively; 

Cheim & Read, New York: a Louise Bourgeois for $1 million;

Galerie Michael Schultz, Berlin: a Sigmar Polke for $340,000 (o.T.(02), 2003, pictured, right);

Sicardi Gallery, Houston: a Gego wire sculpture for $195,000;  

Michael Rosenfeld, New York: a Werner Drewes painting for $170,000.

Galerie Frank Elbaz, Paris, and Peres Project, Los Angeles, both said they sold the entire content of their booths. 

 

In honor of the Armory Show in New York -- where, barring a miracle, sales are likely to be slow -- today I was going to post a cartoon that's on view in an exhibition at the Morgan Library & Museum: "On the Money," a collection of New Yorker cartoons, is full of very funny drawings by artists commenting on money and how it defines us (whether it belongs at the Morgan is a question for another day, and also related to money). But late yesterday, I learned from the Morgan that it could not grant permission for me to reproduce it. So -- you'll have to visualize.

The cartoon, by Whitney Darrow, Jr., shows an man beside his painting, and reads "Buy now, save up to $50,000." It was published in September, 1951. Darrow meant the man to be the artist, but now it could well be a dealer, too! 

UPDATED: Last night I ran into a senior figure in the art world, who told me that he'd been told that sales during February's five-day ADAA Art Show, which I wrote about for the Daily Beast (link), came to just 14 sales among the 70 dealers. I posted that here, with a caveat, and set out to confirm. When I finally reached Linda Blumberg, ADAA's executive director, she said that was wrong. Speaking from the Armory Show, she did not have numbers at hand; but, she said, more dealers sold something than not, and some sold many pieces. "Granted," she added, "more were at the lower end of the price scale." But not all, as I mentioned in the Beast piece.  

I won't be writing about the Armory Show, but The Art Market Monitor has been keeping track of several reports from the floor.    

 

Welcome to my blog, which -- I can say with certainty -- will evolve; blogging is a new experience for me.

I'm going to cut right to the chase (you can read about my plans for this space in "about") and start with what's on everyone's mind: the economy. Everyone's scared. No one knows quite how to cope. It's a rare cultural institution that hasn't cut its budget. But last week's lavish, record-setting Yves Saint Laurent auction in Paris is actually a good sign, not the last gasp of conspicuous consumption.

The total, you've probably read, reached $483.8 million, and one item, an Art Deco arm chair, fetched $28.3 million against an estimate of $2.6 million to $3.9 million! More important, the money spilled forth in every category of art, from Old Masters to German silver. Seventy-seven items sold for more than one million euros.

I don't think the sale augurs well for the art market, near-term; it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy high-quality objects with great provenance. But it does show that there are plenty of people with liquid assets who'll spend money for something they really want.

What if those people really want something everyone benefits from, like a strong museum or a vibrant theater scene, rather than a trophy object. That $28.3 million spent on a chair could have purchased, say, Franz Marc's rare "Grazing Horses III," which set a record at auction last year, and still left $4 million in the buyer's pocket. It could have paid for the entire Museum of American Folk Art, which cost $22 million at its opening in 2001. It could have paid for almost 30% of the grants made by the National Endowment for the Arts in recent years.

Even before the stock market plunged brutally yesterday -- again -- many experts believed that the "conspicuous philanthropy" that prevailed during the boom was dead. And maybe it is -- if it's defined as mega-gifts for buildings. But if the buyers in Paris last week were willing to spend so publicly, can't cultural institutions convince people like them that a rescue gift is also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? And would these donors then be heroes and heroines?

To give them recognition, I would be willing to take nominations for a "national honor roll" published right here on this blog.

What about that other worry -- that donations to arts groups are bound to decline when social needs are so great. It's real, and there will be a drop, as there was after Katrina and other calamities. But, if past is prologue, there will be a rebound; most arts funding comes from individuals, not corporations or foundations.

Riding out these financial troubles won't be easy, and even conspicuous philanthropy won't save the many cultural groups that over-expanded. But there's hope for those who can get back on a prudent course -- with one caveat. If President Obama goes ahead with plans to limit the tax deductibility of charitable contributions, the woes will deepen. That's a subject I'll return to soon.