Archives for December 2011

I always feel like Scrooge when I report on situations like that of the Fayetteville Museum of Art, in North Carolina, but in the long run it’s better to publicize troubles, in hopes that other cities may avoid the same ones.

The 40-year-old museum, which ran into expansion problems, is about to be dissolved, according to the Fayetteville Observer. The board is expected to vote on that as early as this week.

The museum sold what it could of its permanent collection in September and used those proceeds to pay off some of its debts. The land and building, put on the market for $1.25 million in 2008, fetched just $250,000. It was purchased by a wedding photographer who plans to turn it into a wedding and events space.

This is a tale of over-enthusiasm, which is where Scrooge comes in.

I wish there were a Ghost of Museums Yet to Come to turn this tale around, but there just isn’t. Even the museum’s website is gone. But hope springs eternal. According to the Observer, “proceeds from the sale of remaining artwork will go to an endowment at the Cumberland Community Foundation for use by a future art museum entity. A task force is forming to help lay groundwork for such an organization, [Mac] Healy [the board president] said.” 

 

Walking to work this morning, I saw a shocking thing that is no longer shocking: On Fifth Avenue, during crowded Christmas week, with traffic piling up into almost a jam and pedestrians everywhere, many jay-walking, the traffic cop on the beat at the intersection of Fifth and 53rd was tapping away on her smart phone, paying no attention whatsover to the mounting troubles around her.

I shouldn’t have been surprised, I guess — not in an age when, according to an article in published in The New York Times on Dec. 15, 

…doctors and nurses can be focused on the screen and not the patient, even during moments of critical care. And they are not always doing work; examples include a neurosurgeon making personal calls during an operation, a nurse checking airfares during surgery and a poll showing that half of technicians running bypass machines had admitted texting during a procedure.

…[it’s] a problem perhaps best described as “distracted doctoring.”

Today’s Wall Street Journal had an article about a new effort in theater:

…Last week, the Public Theater announced–via Twitter, naturally–that it would make 25 seats available for live tweeting during the first performance of “Gob Squad’s Kitchen” in January. And at the Circle in the Square Theatre, the lead producer of “Godspell” is considering a secluded section of “tweet seats.” …And it comes at a time when other self-indulgent audience habits have become standard. Grown men and women hide their in-show texting like 14-year-olds. Ring tones are ubiquitous–just ask Patti LuPone. As for food, Broadway theaters have allowed snacks and drinks for years, and people crunch and munch through Lincoln Center performances all the time.

It was just about two years ago, I recall, that I joked that performing arts centers should set aside areas for people who wanted to use their Blackberries and iPhones and even computers during performances. Who knew it would shortly become a reality?

Not for nothing has the Blackberry long been known as the “crackberry.” Experts everywhere say that we’re becoming addicted to our devices.

Cell phones used to be forbidden in museums, too. Now they serve as audioguides — and that’s a good thing, as long as they are not used for conversations that everyone can hear. Now we have everyone tweeting everywhere, as they walk around observing. If they’re quiet, that too is ok. But I lament the trend toward participatory art museums IF it means we are going to lose the atmosphere of inquiry and contemplation that museums offer.

I’m not — I stress — calling for museums to be as quiet as a tomb. But, without forbidding the use of devices, I’d like to see museums offer refuge from our devices. Device ettiquette should  be enforced. 

And, yes, exhibitions have to be that compelling. 

 

Why do people collect art? For many reasons, obviously, but some weigh heavier than others.

ArtTactic and Deloitte Luxembourg recently conducted a survey of collectors and art advisors called Art & Finance Report 2011 — its first — and it produced some interesting results.

For example, while the exact same percentage of advisors and collectors said that “Investment returns” were important or very important — 48.8 percent — art advisors overestimated by a mile the “social value” and art’s function as an “inflation hedge,” and they underestimated the “emotional value” and the “tax” and “portability” values of art. Are art collectors planning to flee something? 23.1% said portability was important or very important in buying art.

Here’s the whole table on the question, “which of the following are the most important motivations in buying art?” (The percentages record those who said the motivation was important or very important):

Motivation                                  % Art advisors            % Collectors

Emotional Value                               79.4                            97.5

Social Value                                     73.7                            22.5

Investment Returns                           48.8                           48.8

Inflation Hedge                                 27.5                           35.0

Portfolio Diversification                     41.8                           29.3

Rarity                                                58.7                           64.1

Luxury Good                                      56.3                           40.0

Safe Haven                                        25.2                           20.0

Tax                                                   12.4                           20.5

Portability                                          13.3                           23.1

 

Despite those misreadings/misconceptions — or perhaps collectors weren’t being totally honest in a few cases — art advisors said elsewhere in the survey that almost half of their clients were driven by the potential for a return on their investment, with smaller but still large percentages recognizing other wealth management aspects of art.

As the report also notes, the growth of the art market over the last several years also means that “we now can start talking about the early stages of an Art and Finance industry.” Clearly they are in favor of this development, which appeals to the world’s high net worth individuals.

For museums and other collectors whose net worth is not all that high, this could be worrisome. The more people treat art as an investment, the more trading there will be, and as these art-finance services are sold to more people, prices for art, overall, are likely to rise. Museums then become even more dependent on gifts of art from collectors.

However, we’ve seen some of this before, with the rise of art investment firms that eventually closed. Whether this time is different remains to be seen. 

The entire study is here.

 

 

The Frick Collection* has wanted to expand for a long time. In the not-too-distant past, it had its eyes on the ex-Salander O’Reilly Gallery that closed in a flameout a couple of years back. The gorgeous 45-foot-wide townhouse around the corner, at 22 East 71st St, would have made a great space, but buying it was not too be. Initially listed at $75 million, the property is still on the market at the reduced price of $50 million.

This post is about an internal expansion, though — like the Metropolitan Museum has over the past several years, the Frick has expanded gallery space within its footprint. On Tuesday, it opened the new Portico Gallery, the first major addition to the museum’s display spaces in nearly thirty-five years, achieved by enclosing the portico abutting Fifth Avenue, overlooking the gardens.

Lest you think that this is a new idea, the Frick was quick to point out that Henry Clay Frick himself wanted to do this — World War I stopped him, and then he died before returning to the plan.

Frick had intended to put his growing sculpture collection in the portico gallery, but the Frick under just-departed director Anne Poulet also added to its decorative arts collection, and the new gallery will house both. It opens with a decorative arts show, an exhibition of Meissen porcelain that are a promised gift from Henry Arnhold —  White Gold: Highlights from the Arnhold Collection of Meissen Porcelain.

I’m more a sculpture person, but the Frick has found room for only two in the mix, both from the 18th century. Jean-Antoine Houdon’s The Dead Thrush (above), a long-term loan from the Horvitz Collection, Boston, and Diana the Huntress, “a signature work of The Frick Collection.”

That’s the new gallery at right. Sculpture will look splendid there, don’t you think?

UPDATE: You can takes virtual tour by clicking on this link.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the Frick

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Frick

 

Well if anyone needed evidence that the rich are still with us — despite the fact that their income, too, took a dive in the last few years — just take a look at auction results from yesterday.

At Sotheby’s, a business contract sold for “$1,594,500, many multiples of the $100/150,000 estimate,” with six bidders vying fiercely for it. The contract, of course, was historical — the one signed by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne founding Apple Computer. But that essentially means it was an early autograph of Steve Jobs. Eduardo Cisneros, CEO of Cisneros Corporation, won the day.

Wayne, btw, wrote the 2 1/2 page contract. He gave 45% each to Jobs and Wozniak and 10% to himself. But he withdrew from the partnership almost immediately. And what regrets he must have — his share would be worth $2 billion-plus. 

That purchase pushed the overall total for Fine Books and Manuscripts to $7,406,138, above the $4.6/6.8 million estimate, which does not include the buyer’s premiums, even though only 66% of lots sold.

Let’s look at some comparisons from the same sale:

• a George Washington letter sent to the House of Representatives in May 1789 sold for $362,500.
• a First Edition of The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler from The Jean-Vounder Davis Collection of the Raymond Chandler Library more than doubled the high estimate to fetch $254,500
• an early Van Gogh letter that exceeded the high estimate to sell for $194,500
• a single Donatus leaf from circa 1456-1458 also fetched $302,500, ten times the $30,000 high estimate

At Christie’s, meanwhile, La Perigrina — a 16th century pearl owned most recently by Elizabeth Taylor — soared to more than $11.8 million, versus a pre-sale estimate of $2- to $3 million. That’s the highest price ever for a pearl. But we knew this one would happen in an age of celebrity.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Sotheby’s