Art Market

The Art Newspaper — i.e., correspondent Laura Gilbert — has been reading the legal documents in the case against Knoedler Gallery following the admission of guilt by Long Island dealer Glafira Rosales, and they are juicy.

Knoedler and its former director Ann Freeman face five lawsuits in federal court. These papers highlight the gap between what Knoedler paid for works and what it charged for works — the very question I had back in August, when Freeman asserted that she was the “central victim” of the fraud. At the time, I wrote:

Knoedler sold 40 allegedly fraudulent works for $63 million. But she paid much, much less to Rosales. How does she explain that gap? Rosales knew what she had. How did Freedman get such giant markups without doing additional research, conservation, or any of the other things that allow dealers to double and triple the prices they charge?

The court documents provide details the support that question. Some of the more egregious examples:

Jaime Frankfurt bought a Franz Kline, Untitled, 1956, “for a client” for $3.375m on 10 July 2008. Knoedler paid Rosales $1.25m for the work “owned jointly by she [sic] and her brother-in-law, although originally from same collection as the other pictures”.

Michael Hilti, from Liechtenstein, bought a Rothko, Untitled, 1956, for $5.5m in November 2002. Knoedler paid Rosales $775,000.

John D. Howard, from New York, bought a De Kooning, Untitled, around 1956-57, for $3.5m on 19 June 2007. Knoedler paid Rosales $750,000.

Pierre Lagrange bought a Pollock, Untitled [pictured], 1950, for $15.3m in November 2007 through Jamie Frankfurt. Knoedler paid Rosales $950,000.

The “Nordrhein-Westfalen Museum” was offered a Barnett Newman, Untitled, 1949, through Oliver Wick, for $18m, but the work was “not yet sold”. Knoedler paid Rosales $1m.

Some markups. I’d like to hear someone explain them.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of The Art Newspaper  

Like art museums (see here), auction houses are increasingly “curating” their sales to themes. On November 5, Swann is presenting a sale called “The Armory Show at 100,” for example. And soon Phillips in London will offer “The Architect,” a sale of furniture and other objects created by architects, Christie’s South Kensington will present “The Art of Food and Drink,” and Sotheby’s will have “The Courts of Europe: From the Renaissance to the Rococo.”

Expect more. As Marc Porter, chairman of Christie’s Americas, told me of themed sales, “They are growing in importance and relevance.” Themes, of course, aren’t needed for the big evening sales where buyers are not entering the market, but they draw in new collectors to lower priced and less-prized art, by giving them a hook to latch onto — a story, context.

That was the subject of an article I wrote for The New York Times, in Sunday’s paper, headlined Auctions Organized by Theme, With a Narrative Pull. 

Yes, this is driven by marketing, but I think it’s a good thing anyway. Themes draw more people into art, and they learn more about the art. Several of the titles could have been titles of museum exhibitions and, in fact, “The Armory Show At 100” is one — it’s the title of a show at the New-York Historical Society. That’s one of the lots, a nude by Alfred Maurer, at right.

It may be a fad — I don’t know how long it can last. But I’ve looked at a few catalogues for some of these shows, and they provide good information. Let’s enjoy it while we can.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Swann Auction Galleries

 

 

 

PINTA NY — the six-year-old Modern and Contemporary Latin American Art Fair — is more than a month away, but I’m writing about it now because it has what I think is a unique part called the Museum Acquisitions Program. Through it, a group of museums chosen each year work with PINTA NY and exhibiting galleries to select and acquire artworks by artists represented at the fair, and — the good part — PINTA NY provides matching funds to the museums to make the deal.

According to PINTA, participating museums so far have included:

• The Museum of Modern Art
• The Bronx Museum of the Arts
• El Museo del Barrio
• Museum of Fine Arts Boston
• Harvard Art Museum
• Museum of Fine Arts Houston
• Los Angeles County Museum of Art
• Centre Pompidou
• Tate Modern
• Museo Tamayo
• Pinacoteca of the State of Sao Paulo

All told, they’ve received more than $1 million in matching funds from PINTA. This is worthy of imitation, I say to other fair organizers. PINTA itself, along with corporate sponsors, foundations, and individuals, provide the matches.

To get the matching money, museums have to be selected and it’s unclear to me how they are chosen.  You might try Natasha Bunten, PINTA’s Museum Program Manager.

This year, PINTA is moving to 82MERCER, a Soho loft building, for the Nov. 14-17 event. The fair is also changing its format, moving to a curatorial model.

In this program, though, its own model is worth emulating.

Photo Credit: Sebastian Errazuri ‘s Untitled (Bird Chandelier), Courtesy of PINTA-NY

 

 

As I’ve written, I am saddened and aghast that Christie’s is aiding Detroit creditors who want the collection of the Detroit Institute of Art to be sold to pay them by assessing the collection’s value for some unnamed creditor.  I wrote:

If I were a collector wanting to sell, I would not patronize Christie’s because of this.

Yesterday, I received my first email with a collector who came to the same conclusion. He sent me a copy of a letter he just sent to Christie’s and is allowing me to republish here without his name and with a few edits, indicated by CAPs:

As you know, in the past year, Christies auctioned for me three lots, TWO CONTEMPORARY WORKS and ONE ITEM OF EUROPEAN DECORATIVE ART. They were three items from the list that NAME OMITTED evaluated in her letter to me of June 12 of last year. I am about to begin the procedure of selling at auction eleven more items from that list, for sale presumably in the fall of 2014.

I regret to inform you that I will no longer do business with Christies. My reason is that I have learned about Christies’ predatory behavior toward The Detroit Institute of Art. I was dismayed to hear of their positively rapacious attitude, displaying mouth-watering glee at the possible prospect of their treasures being torn from that museum, to pay off debts that it did nothing to incur.

I hope you will convey my attitude and decision to those in the upper echelons of your company.

Meanwhile, permit me to say that I have nothing but the warmest feelings for you, personally. It has been a great pleasure working with you and doing business with you. I always felt you used great care and attention in working on my behalf, and I commend you to your employers.

Now, no one is under an illusion that Christie’s would pass up what will no doubt be a very large commission if it does auction the DIA’s art in favor of keeping individual collectors happy. But that doesn’t mean individuals shouldn’t voice their objections. I’m glad this man did, and I’m happy he let me share it with you.

For all we know, others may have written to Christie’s withdrawing business as well.