Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Art Market

More On Christie’s Behavior

Mark Stryker, a staff writer at the Detroit Free Press, picks up today on my Tuesday post about Christie’s vulture behavior, and adds:

Some other art world insiders, who declined to speak on the record to the Free Press because of the sensitivity of the situation, privately characterized Christie’s actions as predatory. They noted the company was risking possibly alienating other museums, which buy and sell work through the major auction houses all the time.

Both Christie’s and Sotheby’s declined to comment to Stryker, but he found another auctioneer who would:

Joan Walker, a partner at the Detroit-based DuMouchelle, a respected regional auction house, was adamant that if DuMouchelle were asked to participate in a forced sale of DIA art, the company have nothing to do with it.

“We are completely against the sale of any works at the museum,” Walker said. “Our treasures should be kept at the museum for the enjoyment of the public, and I think the city should find a solution in other areas.”

Asked to comment directly on Christie’s sending appraisers to Detroit, Walker said curtly: “That’s up to them.”

Here’s the link to the Freep’s story.

 

Appalled By Christie’s “Vulture” Behavior

When a company goes bankrupt, a certain kind of investor comes out of the woodwork trying to make a killing: if they buy assets at distressed prices, really cheap, they can often wait a few years and resell at a very big profit. They are called vulture investors.

detroit-institute-ofI’ve been thinking about the term ever since I read the article headlined Detroit’s Creditors Eye Its Art Collection in the July 20 New York Times, which of course is about the people who would like to sell the art collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts so they can collect on money owed to them by the city. I’ve been thinking about it, not just because of Detroit’s creditors, but rather because of Christie’s, the auction house. The article had this passage:

About a month ago, the institute’s officials were contacted by Christie’s auction house, which asked for an inventory of works and asked if appraisers could visit to assess the collection. It is unclear whether such a visit took place and whether it was creditors or someone else who enlisted Christie’s to begin an appraisal. (Mr. Nowling said that the emergency manager’s office did not do so, and Christie’s declined to comment.)

All I can think of is, shame on Christie’s. Sure, business is business, but let’s remember here that it is NOT the Detroit Institute of Arts that has mismanaged the city and led to the bankruptcy. As far as I can tell, the DIA has husbanded it resources very well and acted responsibly over the last several years.

Is Christie’s so hard up that it will take any business, no matter how reprehensible? That’s sad. Of course Christie’s is positioning itself for the sale, should it be ordered. But if I were a collector wanting to sell, I would not patronize Christie’s because of this. If wanting to buy, yes, I know collectors go with whoever has the “material.”

BTW, I applaud the behavior of the Detroit Institute during this crisis. It just keeps going about its business, trying not to get distracted, and head down. Yesterday, I received this in a press release:

The Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA) will examine and digitally photograph 13 full-scale drawings, known as cartoons, created by Diego Rivera in his preparation for painting the DIA’s internationally renowned Detroit Industry murals. The drawings have not been looked at in more than 30 years, and have never been digitally photographed. The project will take place from July 22 to Aug. 2 and is made possible by a grant from Bank of America’s Art Conservation Project. The grant will also fund any necessary conservation work on the delicate drawings.

ETC. Some of us are “liking’ the DIA on Facebook in a show of support. As of  now, it has 231,851 fans — versus 223,00 in mid-June.

BTW, tomorrow’s New York Times has an article about the closing of the Fresno Metropolitan Museum, which over-expanded and had to close in 2010 — offering it as a template for, or lessons relevant to, the situation at the Detroit Institute of Arts. I don’t think so. They are just not comparable.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the DIA

 

 

The Absolute Mess In Warhol Matters

In the upcoming June 20 issue of The New York Review of Books, Richard Dorment pretty well demolishes the Andy Warhol Foundation and the Warhol Art Authentication Board. It’s a long, detailed article — posted already online — and I recommend it. Here are a few key passages, which deal with the lack of independence — which was claimed — between the two bodies, and far worse, how the authentication board seemed to change its mind on certain works when it behooved the foundation.

warholSome of Dorment’s reporting comes from public court documents that have heretofore been overlooked.

…In one electrifying moment during his deposition, on July 7, 2010, [Vincent] Fremont [Warhol’s former assistant] admitted that on at least one occasion he sold as authentic Warhols paintings that the estate of Andy Warhol had confiscated from the owner on the grounds that they were not the work of Andy Warhol. He also admitted that the authentication board on which he sits decided that the same body of work had been created under what one member called false pretenses. What made the sales legitimate, he said, was that the authentication board later declared the paintings to be genuine after all.

And:

…when [Rupert Jasen] Smith [one of Warhol’s offsite printers] himself died in 1989 they [44 paintings] were in the printer’s estate. In a letter dated September 25, 1991, the Warhol estate asked Smith’s executor Fred Dorfman and heir Mark Smith to hand over the forty-four paintings…The reason the estate gave for its request was that these paintings were not the work of Andy Warhol. The September 25 letter, which the foundation’s chief financial officer K.C. Maurer has said appears to be signed by Vincent Fremont, explained that “because of the similarity of the Paintings to authentic works by Andy Warhol, their releases might threaten the integrity of the art market and Andy Warhol’s reputation.” Dorfman brought the pictures, as requested, to the Warhol Estate personally. He did not receive compensation….

…After declaring in 1991 that the confiscated paintings were not the work of Andy Warhol, more than ten years passed, during which time Andy Warhol’s work became increasingly valuable. In his July 7, 2010, deposition in the suit brought by Simon-Whelan, Fremont explained what happened next. The more he looked at the works confiscated from Rupert Jasen Smith’s studio, he said, the more he came to feel that they resembled “other” (presumably real or at least authenticated) works already owned by the foundation. In his own words during his deposition: “There was less and less there that was problematic—with the exception of the signature…and some sizes of some of the work, but they became, to me, worthy of review.” By “review” he meant reexamination by the authentication board.

In due course Fremont proposed that the pictures be resubmitted for authentication….

…[eventually] some of the paintings produced by Rupert Jasen Smith without Warhol’s knowledge were, after all, deemed to be authentic works made by Andy Warhol. In Fremont’s words, the paintings turned over by Dorfman, including those with bad signatures, “went through the normal process. Some were authenticated, some weren’t.”

The Foundation, it appears, sold some of those works — though Dorment says he knows not which or to whom.

Dorment’s tale is a tangled one, but for anyone who owns a Warhol or wants to someday own a Warhol, it is must reading. He concludes “…the coming year may prove to be the most difficult yet for the Warhol Foundation.” Andy himself might be frightened.

 

China’s Art Galleries — Including Foreign Ones — Are Suffering

The art market may be buoyant in the West this spring, especially at the auction houses (we’ll see more this week and next), but it’s still winter in Beijing’s art galleries.

Beijing is the center of China’s art market — of the 1,560 galleries in the country, 742 are in Beijing — according to a recent article in China Daily. The English-language newspaper, supported by the Chinese government, said that “fewer than 7 percent of the national total were able to make ends meet in 2012,” and attributed the comment to Cheng Xindong, director of the Art Gallery Association and founder of Xin Dong Cheng Gallery. Cheng, the article said, estimated that average sales for galleries in Beijing in 2012 declined 20 percent versus 2011 sales.

pacebeijing_1334306685_600Not that many closed,  however — they’re hoping for an upturn and hanging in there because, according to Meg Maggio, the founder and director of the Pekin Fine Arts gallery, the artists are there. Pace (right) in China feels the same way:

Pace Beijing, the China branch of the New York gallery, said it is still hopeful about Beijing as ittries to fulfill its original intention of “connecting to the local artists”.

“They are still the most creative breed in Chinese contemporary art circles. As long as they arehere, there will be art,” said Li Jia, director of Pace Beijing.

The article suggested that the biggest problem for the market is uncertainty about who’s up, who’s appreciated, and who’s not. But there are technical issues as well, such as a crackdown on tax evasion by art buyers, and structural issues:

“Working in China has become more difficult in recent years due to high import taxes and bureaucracy over the import and export of contemporary art,” said Urs Meile, founder and director of Galerie Urs Meile, a Swiss gallery with a branch in Beijing. “If Beijing is to have a chance to play a leading role among the competing art centers in Asia in the future, it is vitally important that those problems are solved and that the structures are improved.”

Given the past troubles Chinese artists have had with authorities — in 2010, you’ll remember, some Chinese artists were beaten by authorities and evicted from their studios — this update seems a bit encouraging. Though there’s no way to tell how truthful it is, perhaps artists there are persevering, come what may.

Tag Sale Wonder: From $3 to $2.23 Million

You can’t make this up. Some lucky person who purchased a pretty white bowl at a tag sale in 2007 for “no more than $3” has now sold it for $2.23 million. It happened at Sotheby’s this morning.

8974 Lot 94 rare and important ding bowlApparently, after displaying it in their home for a few years, the owners — names undisclosed, naturally — got curious and took it to Chinese art experts. They recognized it as a Northern Song dynasty specimen. It ended up in the Sotheby’s sale with an estimate of $200,000 to $300,000. labeled “Rare And Important ‘Ding’ Bowl Northern Song Dynasty.” It measured just 5 inches in diameter. 

Four bidders in the room and on telephones actively sought the little bowl this morning, and it eventually sold “after a prolonged battle” to London dealer Giuseppe Eskenazi for $2,225,000.

Per Sotheby’s:

The bowl is a remarkable and exceptionally beautiful example of Song pottery, celebrated for its thin potting, fine near-white body, and ivory-colored glaze. The only known bowl of the same form, size and almost identical decoration has been in the collection of the British Museum in London for over 60 years having been bequeathed to the museum by the prominent British collector Henry J. Oppenheim in 1947.

I wonder what the tag sale owner will think, if he or she ever finds out.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Sotheby’sÂ