The Art Market

Over the years, we've bought a lot of art: paintings, prints, photos, posters, sculpture, etc. We're overloaded with it because we hardly ever get rid of anything. And of course being the kind of folks we are, both of us create art. I'm looking around our living room as I type, just to get an idea of what's here on view right now, and it's kind of overwhelming, starting with some art photographs under the Art Deco mirror over the sofa. There's one of Half Dome in Yosemite, one that I took in the early 2000s of the Aztec Motel on Central in Albuquerque (since demolished), and one of the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers at Harper's Ferry. Each has meaning to us, places we've been, places where the spirits of the place seemed very alive and stayed with us to the present day. The Aztec was especially notable in this regard, for when it stood, the buildings and grounds were literally covered with art. Anything and everything was put on view, and the result was what I thought was a folk art masterpiece. The city apparently ordered it to be demolished, and its loss is still keenly felt by many. But of course, many more don't even remember its existence. 

There's a small tray with an arrangement of tropical butterflies, and on the other side of the photos is a framed crocheted piece featuring my last name which was done by a friend in Wisconsin and gifted to us for an anniversary (not sure which). Above that part of the wall are three large prints by Native American artists, a raven, a wolf and a bison. 

That doesn't cover all the art on that wall, but it samples some of what's here.

The Native prints were bought directly from the artists. I'm looking around to see if there's anything we bought from a gallery or at auction, but I would say not in here. There are several pieces in the entry hall, photos, prints, paintings and sculpture that came either from galleries or auction purchases, and there are more in the bedrooms, and even in the bathroom. 

Since I've been home recovering from my illness, I've taken to watching art auctions by Christie's and Sotheby's on the UTubesTV, and while we've sat in on and bid on similar events from time to time, they have really not been anything like what I'm seeing the big auction houses do. We haven't been to auctions featuring high end "name" artists like Van Gough and Rodin and Picasso and such; we haven't been to auctions where we have to prove our wealth to get in; we haven't ever witnessed an auction bid over $1,000,000. I'm not sure we've seen one even that high.

Christie's and Sotheby's focus on the Names, and they sell and resell collections with values almost beyond belief. There was one auction I saw where a collection brought in over $300,000,000. Mmm. Part of a collection of a very wealthy man (now married to one of our former Congressional representatives) was auctioned and brought over $20,000,000 to benefit his "good works" foundation. Warhols have brought $60-70,000,000 at auction or more. I thought about that and how friends of a friend's collection in California included a number of Warhols (the Elizabeth Taylor I remember most of all) that they said they bought in New York directly from the artist when they lived there. I think they said they spent a couple of hundred dollars each and they had at least a half dozen hanging on their hallway walls. They had many other prints and paintings by "name" artists which they'd bought, mostly in New York, before the artists became famous. They died, at least 20 years go, and I recall reading their collection was to be sold and was expected to bring $2-3 million but I didn't follow what happened. I can only imagine what their collection would bring today. $2-3 million per piece is more likely.

But why?

The art market is a fickle and funny thing. What you see on the surface obscures what's really going on. Kind of like life, eh?

The works of a certain number of "name" artists are assured of increasing value almost in perpetuity, but recently, those artists' works have exponentially increased in value, from low millions to stratospheric levels, never seen or imagined before.

What's happened?

One thing I know has happened is that enormous amounts of money have flooded the higher classes, most not "earned" through hard work as it were but just given to them by governments and central banks, particularly the US government, in what seemed like endless QE* efforts to overcome the effects of the GFC** on the best off among us. This money, trillions and trillions of dollars, had to go somewhere, and a percentage of it went to buy art.

The inflation in the high end art, jewelry, precious objects and real estate markets should not be underestimated. This inflation has been going on for years and years and yet it was never noticed by our crack economists who only became aware of inflation when the lower orders started having to pay more for groceries, gasoline and rent, and they decided the best way to stop that inflation was to give the upper classes more while curbing or eliminating the ability of the rabble to acquire or pay for debt.

Interesting tactic. 

Whatever else happens, the upper classes must be protected from economic harm at all costs.

So they spend what appears to us to be astronomical sums on the works of mostly dead artists, assuring that the artists themselves, even if living, get nothing. Not a red cent.

One of our Taos friends has been having a Moment in art. He's technically proficient, very handsome and charming, and he has basically stormed the Western art market with his evocative "old fashioned" tributes to art of the past. He's seen the value of his works increase substantially. Now his large scale paintings may bring as much as $200,000, about double what they would bring a few years ago. But this is nothing compared to a Warhol, say. 

After he's dead, of course, he knows his originals will probably bring millions. And millions. And he and possibly his descendants will never see a penny of it.

That's one of the many cruelties of the art market. 

Jean-Michel Basquiat  did well while he was alive and the protege of Andy Warhol. His works are unique to say the least. Instantly identifiable. But once he was dead, the prices of his works skyrocketed in the market to the point where they now sell at auction for tens of millions. And their appearance in an auction is eagerly anticipated. 

Yet it wasn't that long ago that his rough-street style was rejected. If he hadn't been Warhol's protege, it's highly unlikely that the People Who Matter would pay any attention to his work at all. But while he could sell his works for tens or hundreds of thousands while he was alive thanks to his association with Andy Warhol (a few hundred dollars if that before then). But now, the sky's the limit, assuming there is one.

What's happening, I believe, is that a small number -- maybe 20 -- of absurdly wealthy people are competing with one another to possess something that nobody else has or can have. Back in the day, collections could be formed from available works by living and dead artists, and having art in that way could be seen as ostentatious display, or contrariwise as public service. A public service when the collection was put on view by the public at little or no cost as an educational effort. 

Then, when the collector died, the collection could be/would be donated to a museum which in turn would open it to more or less permanent public view.

In some cases, collections still go to museums, but often it can't be done. There's no room. Museums won't take them. Collectors can open their own museums, or they can trade the works among themselves. Back and forth between those 20 or so. With dealers, agents and auction houses taking an ever larger cut. 

What could go wrong?

In a way, it's funny. In another way it's very sad -- and a model of our economic failures -- because artists are the losers. 

*QE=Quantative Easing (ie: Giving more money to the rich)

**GFC=Great Financial Crash/Crisis (The meltdown of 2008 which led to a decade of economic blah)