Boo Hoo. The Art Market is softening.

[sixmile]

"Collectors and dealers have warned for years that too much modern and contemporary art was being sold, and that the prices were too rich.

Art Basel Miami Beach, where wealthy collectors have sprinted across the convention center to be the first to buy, came to symbolize the inflated market.

But as the still-unfolding financial crisis deflates luxury spending and prices for many major works fall, the art industry is questioning whether the feeding frenzy is ending.

''Prices have been overly inflated and speculative,'' said Rita Krauss, a New York art consultant. ``But these are not the good old times when everyone was throwing around money.''

In a worrisome sign for Art Basel Miami Beach, which begins Dec. 4, results at the major fall auctions for Impressionist, modern and contemporary art have been dismal. Many works failed to sell, and a number that did went for less than they would have a year ago.

At Christie's contemporary art sale in New York last Wednesday, nearly a third of the 75 lots offered went unsold. Among them was Francis Bacon's oil on canvas Self Portrait No 1 1964, which had been estimated to sell ''in the region of $40 million.'' Sales at the auction totaled $113.6 million, just half the low presale estimate of $227 million.

The night before, at the contemporary sale at Sotheby's New York, results were also dreary. Of the 64 pieces on offer, almost a third did not sell. Sotheby's pulled in $125 million for the night, far below the low estimate of $202 million."

http://www.miamiherald.com/business/story/777922.html

And the luxury sponsors are pulling in the reins, too.

"With the new economy constraining the luxury brands and banking firms that underwrite Miami Basel, its sister fairs, and dozens of other events that week, the sponsors are facing a tough challenge: how to make the same impact with less money—without appearing chintzy to their high-net-worth clients.

Yes, the bean counters are coming to the bacchanal. BMW, which has ferried V.I.P. cardholders around Miami for years, pulled out of its sponsorship for 2008. A couple of spinoff fairs have been canceled amid softening sales of contemporary art. Fashion companies, in particular, are backing away from big events. Pucci, which last year celebrated its 60th birthday with a high-profile bash, won’t be hosting a followup party. Even music producer Russell Simmons is feeling the pinch. To defray the cost of some of the charity events he is throwing during Miami Basel, Simmons says he is seeking in-kind donations of works and services.

More significantly, some art dealers who have done well in Miami in the past foresee a sober mood. They predict sales of better-quality works by established artists and some spot-a-star shopping for cheaper works but expect sparse activity in the all-important middle market. Robert Goff, co-owner of Goff & Rosenthal, a New York gallery, is bypassing showing in Miami altogether, citing “art-fair fatigue.”

http://www.portfolio.com/culture-lifestyle/culture-inc/arts/2008/11/19/Art-Basels-Funding-Woes

[Atman]

1. Yeah, boo hoo. Artists don't need to actually eat or anything.

:eyes:

.

[sixmile]

3. Yeah. Damien Hirst and Cindy Sherman are starving artists

Read the article.

[Atman]

4. So you're into the "punish for success" thing?

They're successful. They worked hard to attain they're success. They didn't do it by outsourcing their paintings to China or shutting down other local artists.

.

[sixmile]

7. The point of the OP was that all speculative bubbles eventually burst

We can argue all day about whether or not their success is due to hard work or not, but I'll leave that for another thread.

High-priced (overpriced) contemporary art is finally hitting it's price ceiling and, as an asset, may not be the safest place for the rich to park their investment dollars anymore.

This art market money does not 'trickle down' therefore it has little effect on me or mine. I just found the articles interesting if only to peek inside the big tent for a moment.

[Lorien]

14. Art market money does not "trickle down?? WTF do you think we artist's do

with our money? The same thing everyone else does- buy a home, pay for the kid's college, pay for our own health insurance, employ our agents, etc. etc. Maybe if you were renting a home to a professional artist you would see us as worthwhile human beings?

[sixmile]

17. Did you have a piece at Christie's?

Congrats to you if you did.

[madinmaryland]

35. Since the rich aren't spending money on exhorbitant costs like art and ads, I'm sure you must

be broken up that Tiger Woods has lost his contract with Buick.

[mitchum]

26. Actually artists such as Kostabi and Koons do quite a bit of "outsourcing"

if ya know what I mean

[sixmile]

28. Talk about 'outsourcing'

read this article about Damien Hirst from The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12202493
"In London Mr Hirst presides over two large industrial units producing the butterfly-wing pictures and his photo-realist paintings. In the Gloucestershire countryside he leases two wartime aircraft hangers for the manufacture of the spot paintings, the spin works and the formaldehyde tanks. He also has a large workshop and an exhibition studio. More than 180 people work for him, creating Damien Hirsts. Two specialists oversee the formaldehyde unit, which on a visit in July contained four dead ponies, a wild boar, an upended cow and, in good “Godfather” style, a horse’s head in a plastic bag.

In the workshop three women were talking about the “Hedgehog”, a device attached to a Hoover. It is a small plastic tube with 20 holes cut into it in which are inserted cut-down cigarettes, some ringed with lipstick. Switch on the Hoover and, hey presto, instant cigarette butts for lot 134 (top estimate, £300,000). In another workshop, three fabricators were painting precisely measured round circles at regular intervals on a white background. These are the famed spot paintings that Mr Hirst says were inspired by playing snooker. The fabricators choose which colour each spot is to be, and use ordinary household paint to apply the shades. The butterfly pictures are made by fabricators who are given the dimensions needed, but are otherwise left to themselves to choose the colours and designs they want. Having given his final approval—sometimes, one fabricator says, only by looking at a photograph—Mr Hirst signs and dates the back of the work."

[mitchum]

29. Yeah, Hirst makes Warhol look like freakin' Van Gogh

[GReedDiamond]

32. I wouldn't call Hirst's, or Kostabi's...

...or Koons' operations "outsourcing." I'd call these operations "traditional," as in, going back hundreds of years when Master Artists maintained studios where apprentices studied under them and actually worked on many pieces attributed to those Masters.

I once shared a cab ride in Cambridge, MA, with an artist by the name of Timothy Phillips (Arturo Schwarz was in the cab too!), and Timothy, a former assistant to Salvador Dali, spoke of how he had painted on "lesser works" by Dali.

But, again, this is not "outsourcing" in the neo-liberal/wto, trade policy sense

[mitchum]

33. Yeah, I know all about the "master workshop" arguement...

a very convenient nod to the traditional for such "groundbreaking artists"
Very convenient indeed.
Frankly, if fools want to pay obscene amounts of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for works by Hirst, Kostabi, Sherman, etc...., more power to them. That's fine with me (sorta the same reason that the fleece operation run by Scientologists really doesn't bother me)

A confession; if I had the money, I would buy a Koons. I really do enjoy his work. So much of modern work seems to be dependent on wit, but most of it is rather...witless. However, Koons always makes me smile :)

[Neshanic]

49. Koons is a one trick pony.

[mitchum]

53. Yes, that is true, but I have to confess that I really like that trick

his work always delights me

[geckosfeet]

6. Point being? You resent their success?

[sixmile]

8. No. I celebrate it

I'm dancing as I type.

[Hannah Bell]

38. can't criticize any aspect of the division of surplus income without being

accused of "jealousy," can one?

right, it's all about "jealousy".

[madinmaryland]

42. Jealousy? No. How about wealthy people spending money on stuff of no

value. Why can't they spend it (or be taxed on the excess money) on projects that will benefit mankind.

:shrug:

[Atman]

44. Art has no value? Doesn't benefit mankind?

What the fuck are you, an uber Republican? I can't believe I just read that statement on DU. I'm stunned.

.

[GReedDiamond]

10. I'm sure Damien and Cindy are doing just fine...

...but there are thousands of street level artists who will see their markets decline, as well.

I'm not talking about Sotheby level art auctions with multimillion dollar pieces on the block, I'm talking about the proverbial starving artist types who are hurt by bad economic conditions, just like everyone else.

I collect quite a bit of art from local artists and other lesser knowns, and I know personally many artists like this, as well as a few who are higher up the ladder, but there is no denying that the market is down for all. To my way of thinking, this is not something to gloat about.

We're all in this together.

[sixmile]

12. Maybe a new WPA?

Could be a great time since we produce little else in the USA.
The starving artist should go the way of the Dodo.

[evlbstrd]

5. That's right.

Everyone knows we do it for fun and will die early anyway.

[Lorien]

11. Yeah, and that 50% gallery cut doesn't matter a bit, either

I know hundreds of artists. Most are in the same boat I am; fighting like mad to make it to next month without going under. If a tiny handful didn't "make it" the rest of us would all give up hope completely.

I wonder; what would the OP deem an "acceptable" way to make a living? I spent five and a half years in art school and work nearly every day of week, 12-16 hours a day. Apparently, my chosen profession as an artist is "dishonorable" because a tiny, tiny handful of artists become huge successes. :eyes:

[sixmile]

15. You're comparing apples to oranges

Art at these levels equals investments, or speculation. Nowhere do I intimate that art is a dishonorable profession. I'm sure you'd agree with me that art should be enjoyed and price is not a direct component of the TRUE value of owning and appreciating art.

However, a group of ultra rich patrons and galleries have created an oversupplied market for fine art. Most collectors I know do not hang their art, they keep it crated in fortress-like air conditioned warehouses waiting for it to appreciate. Does that sound like the art you create? Is that why you chose to go to art school?

The art market has become the stock market which is overbought.

[pitohui]

13. how does francis bacon selling a painting for $40million help you?

if you are an artist, seems like it would hurt you

in writing, the phenomenom where a few names get millions and everybody else gets nothing is well-known, i'm glad that nice guys like stephen king and john grisham get millions but the reality is that the amt of money in the world is limited -- and for many many years now most publishers have focused almost their entire budget on a few "stars" so that the new writer has no realistic chance of making money from writing unless she has a gimmick (hence the growth in the fake memoir, because it's the only way to get attention)

high prices for the few do not help most artists, they harm them, budgets are not infinite, and the $40 million a bank spends for one francis bacon is $40 million that won't be used to buy multiple paintings from mid range artists that could have looked just as well in their corporate offices

that's just my opinion, do you honestly see it differently?

the rise of the multi millionaire artist has not helped the average artist on the ground from what i've seen, most artists i know have to take other jobs -- actually, this time of century, i think ALL of them have other jobs -- and it is not because of lack of talent

it's because most of the money has been chasing a few "investment" type names

at some point if the industry model is that a few get all the toys, which is what has happened in publishing and apparently in painting as well, people should be asking themselves what is the point of pursuing such a career -- one of the reasons i stopped teaching writing classes is because many of the students expected to be able to write for pay and i knew it wasn't going to happen, i was part of a fraud, selling them a dream that was cruel and a waste of their time, their money would be just as well invested in the lottery because if only one in a million is going to make it, let's face it, that one in a million won't be you and me and pretending it will creates a miserable life

[Atman]

18. All of us artists aspire to be the next Francis Bacon.

Francis Bacon sets a value that relates to all other art, believe it or not. The serious collectors will often buy much cheaper art by lesser known (but still successful) artists, in hope that their newly acquired piece will one day be worth $40,000,000 as well.

Does it happen often? No. But what would be the motivating factor for ANY person in ANY business if not success? If not to dream and believe that if you, too, work hard at your craft that one day your paintings won't also be worth $40m?

A women in the studio down the hall from me experienced this several years back. She was getting contract offers from all sorts of print companies and those mall framed-art stores. Lots of money involved. Lots of royalties and licensing fees. She was very resistant. She thought it would mean "selling out."

In what other business besides art (music included) does acknowledging your popularity equate to "selling out?" Did you ever hear Steve Jobs say he just wanted to keep making Apple IIe's because trying to gain inroads into Microsoft's market share would be "selling out?"

It's called "being successful," and it doesn't matter what your career field is. Achieving the next level is what working is all about for most of us.

.

[pitohui]

30. but you're not -- hence why so many artists come to hate their dream, i guess

you're not going to win the lottery so having a hope so futile just makes your life unhappy

it's like w. musicians, most of them end up playing at weddings and holiday inns, and then they're bitter and angry and make everyone around them miserable

having a very tiny few at the top that soaks up all the income, so that you can't make a living wage, is not actually helpful

do you remember the story of pandora's box? the last evil in the box was "hope"

i know people who have lost their entire lives to "hope" but they were never going to be one of the few, they weren't of that class, didn't have those connections, didn't go down on the right person, whatever

i could share a story here, of a new orleans writer i knew, who published many books, won awards, was viewed as very talented and witty and well worth reading, and who could never ever get ahead financially and finally died bitter and broken, and who was pretty much always unhappy his whole life -- that's what his dream of being a celebrity did for him

and that's what it will do for the overwhelming majority of you

it's just sad, i guess

there is so much talent out there, i just think it would be nice if MORE artists were awarded -- i'd rather see 40 paintings sold for $1 million by varied artists than 1 painting sold for $40 million

only in a world of unlimited budgets is it REALLY good for the mid level or undiscovered artist that francis bacon got $40 million for a painting

the real world has limits

i'm very sorry for you if you cannot feel successful until you have made millions from a painting, because it pretty much guarantees you will have an unhappy life

[Atman]

31. Wow...stereotype much?

I couldn't stomach your reply past the first two sentences. But I did go back and read it fully before I posted.

There will ALWAYS be "star" artists, just like there are star athletes and star actors. While the rest of them get paid scale and continue to pursue their dreams. Your assumption that all of those who fail to achieve $40m status are miserable is both ignorant and downright insulting.

The most I've ever sold a painting for was $2500 (although I've sold illustrations and graphics design projects for ten times that much). I have exactly two paintings in "private collections." Meanwhile, I still work full time as an artist, live a comfortable life and am in no way miserable.

Maybe you'd like to offer some broad camel-hair brush opinions about other fields of which you know nothing?

.

[sixmile]

19. Well said.

Thank you. It's funny how others can make your point better than you can yourself.

[NashVegas]

20. Most *Very* Successful Artists Are Bubble Creations

I'm not dissing what you or anyone else does, in any way.

Most people would never buy an original, one-of-a-kind artwork. Most people will only ever hang copies of pieces that have obtained mass public approval.

Of those who will pay more than, say, $300 on a piece, they do so with the expectation it will increase in value. The #1 way art increases in value is for the artist to gain repute. Someone talks the artist up, whether it be a critic or appreciator, but most hardcore propping is done by someone who's looking to get a return on their investment.

The ability to promote one's self and work (or find the right person to promote it for you) is the most important skillset an artist can have, after their eye. Some might tell you it's even more important.

[sixmile]

21. Or have interested parties buying your art

As was the case with Damein Hirst recently:

"DAMIEN HIRST’S own dealers propped up prices at his record-breaking art auction at Sotheby’s with estimated bids and purchases of £40m.

Three of his closest business associates, who have an interest in maintaining the high value of his work, made bids or purchases accounting for more than half of the £70.5m spent on the crucial opening day of the sale."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4795010.ece

The artists on this thread seem to think it is about them. It is not. It is about the investors and the money.

[NashVegas]

37. Nonetheless

It's sad to see the resentment many people do have against even moderately successful artists. Anyone who thinks it's not real work has no idea how much mental energy is used and exhausted in the business.

A local coop was asking for federal grant money to help it purchase buildings in a local warehouse district and convert them to lofts/condos to ensure that when the neighborhood took off with realtors, as artist-improved neighborhoods usually do, they would still be able to afford to live there and help young artists have affordable quarters.

When the local paper wrote about it, the scorn that came from readers would have burned your eyes.

[earth mom]

43. I was looking for a network news video on the recent auction Hirst held but couldn't find it.

It showed how Hirst cut out the galleries/dealers (aka middlemen) and held the auction so that that only he and the auction house profited. Nothing wrong with that except that the galleries who had already invested in his works were the ones bidding to keep the prices artificially high. What total bullshit!

I love art, but it seems to me the upscale art world is filled with nothing but snobby people utilizing Wall Street business practices. :puke:

[Warpy]

24. You won't find an unsigned print or painting in my house

so yes, people are supporting artists. I'm one of them. You will find unsigned photgraphs and wall hangings, they're mine.

What they're failing to support are galleries as middlemen offering their work at ridiculously inflated prices to people with more money than brains who are a-skeered to venture into the type of neighborhood most artists live in to buy directly.

What the Sotheby's auction proved is that they're increasingly leery of supporting other stupid rich people by bidding up hyperinflated work by dead artists.

[ben_meyers]

2. I suppose this means that I can't retire

on the proceeds from my collection of Velvet Elvis paintings.

[dysfunctional press]

9. not at all...

from the article:

"They predict sales of better-quality works by established artists..."

[ben_meyers]

22. Thank DOG. I guess I didn't read that part.

n/t

[Fumesucker]

16. In the Gallery...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3D7DmKiDsA

Harry made a bareback rider proud and free upon a horse
And a fine coalminer for the NCB that was
A fallen angel and Jesus on the cross
A skating ballerina you should have seen her do the skater's waltz

Some people have got to paint and draw
Harry had to work in clay and stone
Like the waves coming to the shore
It was in his blood and in his bones
Ignored by all the trendy boys in London and in Leeds
He might as well have been making toys or strings of beads
He could not be in the gallery

And then you get an artist says he doesn't want to paint at all
He takes an empty canvas and sticks it on the wall
The birds of a feather all the phonies and all of the fakes
While the dealers they get together
And they decide who gets the breaks
And who's going to be in the gallery

No lies he wouldn't compromise
No junk no bits of string
And all the lies we subsidise
That just don't mean a thing
I've got to say he passed away in obscurity
And now all the vultures are coming down from the tree
So he's going to be the gallery

-Mark Knopfler

[Starry Messenger]

23. This is bad news.

I hope the new President will bring back faith in American culture so the arts get better support. I love people who complain about rich artists. When artists are walking around like king shit with folding green like Dick Cheney or any other arms dealer, then we'll talk.

[sixmile]

25. This has nothing to do with rich artists

It is about the rampant speculation and obscene amount of money poured into the contemporary art market, and the real possibility of that speculative bubble bursting soon.

[Starry Messenger]

27. Obscene amount of money?

That's funny. Compared to the obscene amount of money pouring into the Iraq war the arts are strictly chump change. Who was your "boo hoo" meant for then? The art dealers?

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

[Deja Q]

34. I had no idea there were rich artists. Starving ones, all the time but never rich ones.

[Atman]

47. Oh, come on! Thomas Kinkaid is obscenely wealthy. And his work is obscenely BAD.

He's the Wal Mart of "fine art." In fact, I hesitate to call his crap "fine art" at all. It is mass-produced formula SCHLOCK. The man is a scammer who pretends to be a religious nut because it's mostly low-intelligence low-income goobers who buy all his tchatkes and snow globes and plates and figurines and prints of his mind-numbingly bad "paintings of light."

But he's stinking rich. Literally, stinking.

.

[SoCalDem]

36. Art has long been a clever way to mask tax-cheating

for the super-rich.. they hold all these fancy-schmantzy parties to show off their jewels & finery, and "donate" a painting for a write off..and maybe a charity gets a few pennies..:puke:

[GReedDiamond]

40. Examples?

You must have examples where the "super-rich" exploit the tax code with such "cheating" schemes, and which also provide them with the desired opportunity to "show off their jewels & finery" while taking a write off for less than the actual value (or potential future value) of a piece or two of art. I'm not saying it hasn't or doesn't happen, but I'd like to know the specifics if you have them.

I have seen artists themselves donate work to charitable causes, but the "tax write off" was not the motivation (I've donated work myself to charity events).

While the focus of the original post was on the softening of the ultra-high end art market, and the ridiculous amounts of money involved, the serious discussion here is on the impact that has on the overall art market, and in turn, on the everyday art worker in this current economy. Some people seem to have a difficult time separating the "super-rich" (whether they be famous artist or collector/investor), from the rest of us, who are making a living doing something we enjoy (at least I enjoy it, compared to my other options).

[FormerDittoHead]

52. Maybe you're not aware that the donors can write off the appraised *market* price...

This has been the rule for some time now, it breaks the traditional "lower of cost or market" rule.

So, buy a painting for $1 million, in 12 months the appraised market price goes up to $10M, they donate it, get $10 million deduction.

http://www.arikiart.com/articles/tax_deductible_donations_of_art.htm

[librechik]

39. One word: Banksy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QPgamTEe5I

[hunter]

41. I'd rather they buy art than politicians.

Art is pretty harmless compared to some of the things very wealthy people spend their money on.

Don't you wish all those assholes who contributed to the political campaigns of George W. Bush had bought art instead?

[AngryAmish]

45. I heard Thomas Kinkade is on hard times.

[JVS]

46. Will Thomas Kinkade be ok?

:scared:

[MadHound]

48. You can experience all the schadenfreude you want, but this is one more ominous sign

That we're coming up quickly on the fact that this recession is turning into a Depression. Prices for energy going down, prices for consumer goods going down, prices for luxury goods going down. Pretty soon that deflation spiral starts feeding on itself, and we're screwed.

[Neshanic]

50. Well late modern art, as shitty as it is generally, does look good in corporate lobbies..

so it goes when the economy is in deflation, the real mark to market for alchoholic, suicided and generally freakish artists works will go down, no matter what the interior designer says.

[Neshanic]

51. Vistaism