Blogs and Stories

Arne Glimcher

Art's New Price Hype

Article Page - Glimcher Art Top Right Christie's Images Ltd. As the second week of spring art auctions begins today, Arne Glimcher wonders whether the Sotheby’s and Christie’s have overestimated the market.

The spring auctions are in full swing but the art market is dancing to a radically different rhythm this year. Gone are the days when discretion was the better part of excess. But what happens now as the aftershocks of embarrassment follow the earthquake of financial collapse?

For one thing, everyone expected an avalanche of art to come to market—especially from the collections of hedge-fund guys and real-estate moguls whose fortunes dissolved even more rapidly than they were made. We anticipated auction catalogs stacked liked skyscrapers, but we were wrong. The auction houses are suffering major losses. Sotheby’s reported $24 million in losses last fall as the result of overestimating the value of work and giving hefty guarantees to collectors. The speculators and nouveau mega rich in a heady age of devil may care have already burned most of their money behind them. Some of the rock-star artists who experienced meteoric rises, helped by manipulations on the auction block, are now in freefall. The current lack of demand for their art has left their factories wanting. Although some of these artists are significant, the collapse of hyped and manipulated markets may take a generation to disassociate the art from the feeding frenzy of the 2000s for it to find their place in history.

Click Image Below to View Our Gallery

Article Page - Glimcher Art Gallery Launch

Great art that is inextricable from the history of art is still “hot.” And the focus is on the most important artists of 20th century rather than on this year’s new sensation. At last week’s impressionist and modern sale at Christie’s, two late Picassos were offered. This much-maligned period was shown at my gallery, Pace, in 1981 in its first exhibition since Picasso’s death. That exhibition influenced a generation of artists and created a new market for the work. Currently there is an exhibition of Mosqueteros (one subject of Picasso’s late period) curated by John Richardson at the Gagosian Gallery, which once more brings this era into even greater focus. The exhibition had a profound influence on the prices paid for the two late Picassos up for auction last week.The first (and the cover of Christie’s catalogue) is highly decorative, colorful, and easy to like, which, predictably, brought the highest recorded price for a late painting: $14.6 million. The second (which was sold by Julian Schnabel) is an "artist’s" painting; strong and challenging, devoid of decoration and gravid with the passion and fury that accompanies old age. It brought a considerably lower price of $7.7 million, even though, to my mind, it is a better painting.

These are clearly not recession prices. Still, Sotheby’s and Christie’s are not placing realistic and conscionable estimates on many of the works of art offered. This is done to secure the work and readjust the reserves later, if interest is fallow. At Sotheby’s last week, Giacometti’s Cat, largely considered a dog of a sculpture, in contrast to Giacometti’s Dog, which is unanimously considered the “cat’s meow” of Giacometti’s sculpture, failed to sell. The last “top of the market” price for the Dog was $16 million while the much-hyped Cat was estimated pre-sale at $16 million to $24 million. A sweet, charming but unimportant Picasso of Maya holding a toy boat, worth between $8 million and $10 million, in my estimation, was overestimated at $16 million to $20 million. The reality check on these preposterous estimates was that both works failed to sell.

The fact that art auctions are only a part of the art market is rarely acknowledged. The auction houses should not be confused with art galleries as they are sales rooms for art today, and wine, jewelry, memorabilia, furniture, and real-estate tomorrow. But auction houses can no longer afford to guarantee the sale of works of art and owners of great works are loath to take a chance at auction. For two reasons: They fear that they will not achieve top dollar in a time of crisis and the fear "burning" the work if it doesn’t achieve its reserve price. A work that doesn’t sell loses its luster and value for years until the stigma passes. Consequently, more collectors are often selling through dealers, where the work is shown privately to few clients and the sale is made without "burning" the painting. The art gallery market in total far exceeds the auction market annually, but you don’t read about it in the papers.

Back to Top
May 12, 2009 | 5:42am
Comments ()
CultureVulture

Mr. Glimcher, thank you for your post. I hope to respond in greater depth a bit later, but must ask why - when you so kindly mentioned the late Picasso exhibition at Gagosian curated by John Richardson - you did not credit the incredibly young (at the time) and brilliant exhibition organizer/curator Matthew Marks, who so ably assisted the Pace Gallery in its 1981 exhibition. It was a watershed exhibition that also launched a great new dealer in Mr. Marks.

|
|
Reply
|
12:06 pm, May 12, 2009
ArneGlimcher

The watershed exhibition of Picasso that you mention was curated by me not by Matthew Marks. I spent five years preparing the exhibition and in my history as an art dealer and curator it's preposterous to think that I needed a fledgling assistant to curate my exhibition. The two assistants on the exhibition were my son Marc Glimcher, who was fresh out of Harvard as student of Seymour Slive, who with Matthew Marks assisted with details of the exhibition, which was installed by me in the manner in which I install his exhibitions. I don't know where you found your erroneous information but I'm sure Matthew would be very embarrassed at being given credit for an exhibition he did not curate.

|
|
Reply
2:16 pm, May 13, 2009
boredwell

Call me a barbarian. A philistine. I can not fathom the price tags on these pieces. Koons? Argue until the cows come home but, ah, he's no artiste. Arriviste. Gimmick monger. Ok. But worth 6mil? No way. Hockney and Basquiat. C'mon, 6mil! Not worth it. The "I" of the beholders bidding on these works will come to mean "I"nane if the ante up for this lot.

|
|
Reply
|
1:24 pm, May 12, 2009
guerrilladude

here here boredwell - the prices being spent on art with little or no true cultural value is astounding. jeff koons, damien hirst, et all are laughing themselves silly all the way to the bank while duped 'collectors' hang on to their ersatz treasures demanding ever increasing returns on their lame investments. auction houses, gallery owners, and dealers all feed this insane fantasy world that is built on providing some kind of cultural cred to uncultivated billionaires who don't know what to do with all the wealth they've accumulated (usually for doing NOTHING). what a world we live in...

|
|
Reply
3:00 pm, May 12, 2009
nickels1

Takami Murakami, Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst are historical figures. Oval Buddha, Hanging Heart, For The Love of God are each historical works. One critic has said 'they will bow down before this five hundred years from now', speaking of the Buddha. These things are made so precise, perfect and void of the human touch. Ideas perfectly realized with modern technological craft. The high craft of engineers; between the artist and the work is the engineer and the medium is technology, producing works culminating the hundred years of achievement from the industrial revolution. They are flawlessly manufactured things that epitomize the very pinnacle of the industrial revolution. Epitomizing a perfect, culturally reflective idea, realized. The space of time between the idea and realization is transposed without the artists mark. These guys are managers like Andy Warhol was at the factory and Peter Paul Rubens as historical precedent, but more, very much more. The production of these things requires so much of the artist's management skills and attention to others detail.

I wonder if we will want to see the artist hand now, rather than the clean idea produced so flawlessly. Will we want to remember what can come out of an artist's studio? How it smells and drips and dries and clanks. This era is at terminus and there is an ever expanding air pocket created by the laparoscopic injection of air under the skin of the market made by the wild millions that were pumped into the market of the engineered art piece. Any of us that want to make our own ideas, replete with fingerprints, will find plenty of space to breath and work in the void left by a market corrected.

|
|
Reply
3:10 pm, May 12, 2009
Bozoski

Glimcher is a famously great salesman and like many a good salesmen, he sells himself first.

Arne Glimcher on late Picasso:

"This much-maligned period was shown at my gallery, Pace, in 1981 in its first exhibition since Picasso's death. That exhibition influenced a generation of artists and created a new market for the work."

Here he pitches his readers with a heliocentric - Glimcher as sun - history of the artworld. Pace's exhibition rather than late Picasso itself as generative muse. The market mention a mere coda to a transparently self-promotional paragraph.

Arne Glimcher on exemplary late Picasso and Julian Schnabel's eye:

"The second (which was sold by Julian Schnabel) is an "artist's" painting; strong and challenging, devoid of decoration and gravid with the passion and fury that accompanies old age. It brought a considerably lower price of $7.7 million, even though, to my mind, it is a better painting."

Loyal-to-Pace auteur Julian Schnabel is touted for having the better of two auctioned late Picassos...and by implication the superior eye.

Late Picasso has always been great. The fact that Glimcher's practiced eye noticed and that he seized an under-priced moment and rightly profited from his prescience says more about Glimcher's knack for late capitalist positioning and market timing than it does about his place in the history of art and influence.

Someone of Glimcher's evident intelligence might consider the evident hollowness of his claims and the weakness of his argument. That his fictions are amateurishly written also undermine any credibility he might pretend to beyond his showroom floor.

|
|
Reply
6:00 am, May 13, 2009
finderj

John Dewey said that art expresses that which cannot be expressed in any other way.
This stuff isn't art. It is ego and craftsmanship.
Give me Carravagio any day.

|
|
Reply
12:31 pm, May 13, 2009
Leave a Comment
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments
Leave a comment

Please log in to leave comments.

Art's New Price Hype

by Arne Glimcher

Info
RSS
Arne Glimcher
Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |