[contextly_auto_sidebar id=”CSqzCJ4xE7EHbdXINKB6lexVqcruUcQp”]
GOOD news! Queens has gotten an enormous art space in Long Island City. Says the New York Times
The modern-looking facility, built from the ground up at a cost of $70 million, is set to span 280,000 square feet when an adjacent building opens this spring. The complex will be packed with thousands of works of art, from old masters to contemporary rising stars. But unlike at a museum, few will ever see the works that live inside it.
It’s the largest structure for the art-storage company Uovo, and it can only be visited by very wealthy collectors. William Alden’s article goes on:
The wealthiest Americans have grown wealthier since the Great Recession, and many are investing their wealth in art. Especially with bonds and other assets offering rock-bottom yields, the art market — where reports of record-high sales now emerge regularly — has an obvious appeal. According to a survey last year by Deloitte and ArtTactic, an art-research firm, 76 percent of art buyers viewed their acquisitions as investments, compared with 53 percent in 2012. And with more collectors viewing art as a financial investment, storage can become an artwork’s per
manent fate.
Reader of this blog will probably not be surprised to hear that the arrangement is great for the investors, but not so satisfying for the artists. Whole story here.
I wonder how many contemporary artists are involved here. The article makes is sound like there are at least hundreds in contention, but are there really that many? I admit I don’t keep up with the cutting edge myself, but I just don’t understand the mechanics here. Do that many artists really have such big public reputations that they can be traded like commodities? And if so, why is there so much concern that artists aren’t getting the support they need?
I suppose more broadly I don’t understand how there can be both a glut of very successful artists and a dearth of support for them.
And what on earth will become of all that art? I speak from a bit of experience, because I know of two fine artists (different generations but both now passed away) whose work sits in a warehouse because no one wants. it.
When artworks are traded like commodities for large investment, demand is congregated on only a few artists at the top, possibly irrespective of quality, while the rest are largely neglected. The second problem is that the artworks often gain most of their value after an artist’s death, since that clearly indicates that the supply of his or her work will not be increased.
Bingo.
I agree with the points made, and also wonder, given the size and number of storage buildings alluded to in the article, just how many contemporary artists are represented in these vaults.
I understand that it’s the biggest names and reputations that are being commodified, but apparently there’s also a huge amount of work by other artists. Is there no active market in those artists? I live in New York, and I see that Chelsea and Brooklyn are filled with galleries and the galleries are full of ever-changing exhibitions. Aren’t those works being sold too?
The only thing I can think of is that a lot of the new art is simply not appropriate for a private home or a small apartment, so storing it might be the only practical way to own it.
I live in Taos, NM in the summers, an artist colony. Taos only has about 5000 people but the third most galleries of any city in the USA — behind NYC and Santa Fe. During the recession, just in the few blocks around the plaza area, there were eight empty store spaces most which had been galleries. The average price for paintings in Taos is probably under $1000. All the gallery owners were complaining about the loss in revenue. It was so extreme that the loss of tax receipts affected the town’s budget. It would be good to have some numbers for what happened to lower and mid-range art sales during the Great Recession. Only then do we really know what’s happening.