Archive for Collecting Art
April 30, 2008 at 1:42 am
· Filed under Art, Art Market, Auctions, Collecting Art, Uncategorized ·Tagged Auctions, Contemporary Art
We’re getting close to the major art auctions in NY and a lot of people are paying attention. Last week we analyzed Sotheby’s upcoming Impressionist and Modern Evening Sale scheduled for next Thursday, May 7. Overall the sale has potential to beat last year’s May Impressionist and Modern Evening sale. If that happens, wait for the frenzy to continue with the Contemporary Evening Sale on May 14. After looking at the Sotheby’s catalogue, I’m pretty excited about it. It should set a lot of records. Below is a quick look at the auction.
This year’s Sotheby’s Contemporary Evening Sale will have 83 lots with a low estimate of $186,850,000 and a high estimate of $256,860,000. There are two additional lots whose estimates were not released, a Francis Bacon triptych and a signature Mark Rothko canvas. Last year, Sotheby’s sold a comparable Rothko for $72,840,000 and they sold an outstanding Bacon for $52,680,000. The Bacon on the block this year is superior to the one at auction last year and should easily surpass the 2007 figure. Look for this sale to potentially top $315.0M – $350.0M.
The upcoming auction has an even distribution of artists ranging from Hans Hoffmann to Banksy. In fact there are 42 artists represented by two or fewer lots. Works by artists who have been more popular in recent years are still plentiful though. There is a variety of works by Hirst, Koons, Richter, Klein, Rauschenberg, Judd and Prince. And Warhol is still the most represented with eight works for auction. Below is a listing of the number of lots and estimates for each artist.
| Artist |
Lots |
Low Estimate |
High Estimate |
| Andy Warhol, 1928-1987 |
8 |
$28,700,000 |
$39,800,000 |
| Robert Rauschenberg, b. 1925 |
3 |
$13,500,000 |
$19,700,000 |
| Yves Klein, 1928-1962 |
3 |
$13,000,000 |
$18,000,000 |
| Gerhard Richter, b. 1932 |
3 |
$10,400,000 |
$14,800,000 |
| Jean-Michel Basquiat, 1960-1988 |
2 |
$10,000,000 |
$13,500,000 |
| Joan Mitchell, 1925-1992 |
2 |
$9,500,000 |
$13,000,000 |
| Roy Lichtenstein, 1923-1997 |
2 |
$9,000,000 |
$12,000,000 |
| Jeff Koons, b. 1955 |
4 |
$8,800,000 |
$11,200,000 |
| Donald Judd, 1928-1994 |
3 |
$7,750,000 |
$10,750,000 |
| Tom Wesselmann, 1931-2004 |
1 |
$6,000,000 |
$8,000,000 |
| Richard Prince, b. 1949 |
3 |
$5,800,000 |
$7,700,000 |
| Frank Stella, b. 1936 |
2 |
$5,000,000 |
$7,000,000 |
| Georg Baselitz, b. 1938 |
2 |
$5,300,000 |
$6,700,000 |
| Piero Manzoni, 1933-1963 |
1 |
$4,500,000 |
$6,500,000 |
| Damien Hirst, b. 1965 |
3 |
$3,600,000 |
$5,000,000 |
| Takashi Murakami, B. 1962 |
1 |
$3,000,000 |
$4,000,000 |
| Agnes Martin, 1912-2004 |
1 |
$2,500,000 |
$3,500,000 |
| Carl Andre, b. 1935 |
1 |
$2,500,000 |
$3,500,000 |
| Robert Indiana, 1928 |
1 |
$2,500,000 |
$3,500,000 |
| Brice Marden, b. 1938 |
1 |
$2,000,000 |
$3,000,000 |
| Ellsworth Kelly, b. 1923 |
1 |
$2,000,000 |
$3,000,000 |
| Hans Hofmann, 1880-1966 |
1 |
$2,000,000 |
$3,000,000 |
| Claes Oldenburg, b. 1929 |
2 |
$2,100,000 |
$2,800,000 |
| Robert Smithson, 1938-1973 |
2 |
$2,100,000 |
$2,800,000 |
| Lee Krasner, 1908-1984 |
1 |
$1,800,000 |
$2,500,000 |
| Alexander Calder, 1898-1976 |
1 |
$1,500,000 |
$2,000,000 |
| Cy Twombly, b. 1928 |
1 |
$1,500,000 |
$2,000,000 |
| Jean Dubuffet, 1901-1985 |
1 |
$1,500,000 |
$2,000,000 |
| John Chamberlain, b. 1927 |
1 |
$1,500,000 |
$2,000,000 |
| Philip Guston, 1913-1980 |
1 |
$1,500,000 |
$2,000,000 |
| Yue Minjun, B. 1962 |
1 |
$1,400,000 |
$1,800,000 |
| Dan Flavin, 1933-1996 |
2 |
$1,300,000 |
$1,700,000 |
| Sol LeWitt, 1928 2007 |
2 |
$1,200,000 |
$1,600,000 |
| Keith Haring, 1958-1990 |
1 |
$1,300,000 |
$1,600,000 |
| Sigmar Polke, b. 1941 |
1 |
$1,000,000 |
$1,500,000 |
| Yoshitomo Nara, b. 1959 |
1 |
$1,000,000 |
$1,500,000 |
| Bruce Nauman, b. 1941 |
1 |
$800,000 |
$1,200,000 |
| Joseph Beuys |
1 |
$750,000 |
$950,000 |
| Erik Bulatov, B. 1933 |
1 |
$700,000 |
$900,000 |
| Joseph Cornell, 1903-1972 |
1 |
$650,000 |
$850,000 |
| Banksy, b. 1975 |
1 |
$600,000 |
$800,000 |
| David Hammons, b.1943 |
1 |
$600,000 |
$800,000 |
| Jeff Wall, b. 1946 |
1 |
$600,000 |
$800,000 |
| Richard Artschwager, b. 1923 |
1 |
$600,000 |
$800,000 |
| Robert Mangold, b. 1937 |
1 |
$600,000 |
$800,000 |
| Jean Arp |
1 |
$500,000 |
$700,000 |
| Subodh Gupta, b. 1964 |
1 |
$500,000 |
$700,000 |
| Mike Kelley, b. 1954 |
1 |
$450,000 |
$650,000 |
| Matthew Barney, b. 1967 |
1 |
$400,000 |
$600,000 |
| Christo, b.1935 |
1 |
$400,000 |
$500,000 |
| Richard Tuttle, b. 1941 |
1 |
$350,000 |
$450,000 |
| George Segal, 1924-2000 |
1 |
$300,000 |
$400,000 |
| Francis Bacon, 1909-1992 |
1 |
Upon Request |
Upon Request |
| Mark Rothko, 1903-1970 |
1 |
Upon Request |
Upon Request |
| Total |
85 |
$186,850,000 |
$256,850,000 |
Permalink
April 29, 2008 at 2:42 am
· Filed under Art, Art Market, Auctions, Collecting Art ·Tagged Art, Auction, Collecting, Russian
For the past few years analysts have been commenting that “emerging economies” have been fueling the rapid increase of the art market. The three economies that have had the biggest effect on the market are Russia, China and India and they have had the biggest effect on Russian, Chinese and Indian art. For anyone who still wants more detail on how exactly this is happening, read Sotheby’s new Art Market Review on Russian art.
Simply put, Russia (or China or India) have experienced a huge increase in personal wealth. The new political climate in Russia has allowed for more exploration of commodities like oil and the increased international trade has resulted in several very wealthy individuals in the former communist region. (Or course there is still a great deal of inequality in the region, but as it affects the art market, we will only talk about the wealthy classes.) Now that there are several new multi-millionaires in Russia, those moguls are showing major interest in the art of their country from nineteenth-century landscapes to Soviet era conceptula works. According to Sotheby’s analysis, Russian buyers accounted for 31% of the lots sold and 32% of the total sales volume.
Other strong economies such as Switzerland, Ukraine and UK showed interest in Russian art, but the United States bidders fell short when the hammer fell. Americans definitely showed interest with 42% of the bidders coming from the US, but the weakened economy appears to be keeping Americans from snapping up the premium works. The total sales volume driven by Americans was only 18%.
So as we gear up for an interesting year in the art market, there will definitely be bright spots. Look to the Russian, Chinese and Indian auctions to set new records as these economies and their patriotism continues to drive prices. And look for some key works to be snatched away from US Collections as the dollar continues to slide on the global economic stage.
Permalink
April 16, 2008 at 10:28 pm
· Filed under Art, Art Market, Auctions, Collecting Art ·Tagged Art Market, Auction, Collecting
I’ve been researching the art market for an article I’m writing and I have to be honest, I wasn’t too optimistic about 2008 when I started. Not that I’m jumping with excitement now, but at least I don’t think we’re in for the big correction (ie CRASH) that a lot of people have been talking about. Here are a few things I’ve come across that changed my mind and there are a few topics that scare me about the market’s potential in 2009 and 2010.
The global economy is strong. Yes, the US sucks right now. Our brokerage houses are falling apart, oil prices are crippling the airline industry, subprime lending has killed the housing market, our currency is in freefall. But take a look oversees. The European Union is managing to stay fairly strong and more importantly there are a lot of economies that are waking up like Russia, China and India. Wonder why art from these countries has been making a strong run lately? It’s partly because American and European collectors have been hungry for new art, but a large part of the dramatic run-up has come from local collectors buying art from their countries. The new wealthy Indian elite are collecting artists like Subodh Gupta who have made a huge impact on the interantional art scene and were prominent at the Venice Biennial. Nicholas Forrest points to the emergence of Indonesia in the art market as well.
And judging by the list of works available for the May sales, we’ll probably see a slight reduction in the number of lots offered this year as collectors get nervous about price corrections. You still can’t beat the law of supply and demand. Less supply with increased demand equals higher prices. We’ll see how things play out in three weeks.
What does make me nervous though is the trend for institutional investors to move money from other investments into the art market. According to Artprice, the average price per lot in 2007 increased 18% and the overall sales volume increased 43%. Those are amazing numbers for brokers who have been seeing the market rise and fall (mostly fall) over the past eight months. What happens when the stock market corrects itself? The brokers will dump a lot of their stakes in art and put the money back into stocks. The increased supply is going to have a huge effect on the art market. Fortunately that’s not likely to happen this year, but look out in 2009.
So overall think of this year’s art market like last year’s housing market. There’s a lot of talk about correction, but it will tread water until there is another change in the economy. The last big correction we saw happened about two years after the last US recession. If we use that as a benchmark, 2010 is looking grim.
Permalink
April 15, 2008 at 11:55 pm
· Filed under Art, Collecting Art ·Tagged Art Auctions, Art Market, Collecting
With less than a month to go until the major spring auctions of Impressionist, Modern and Contemporary art, Sothebys and Christies are starting to roll out their catalogues. Who’s getting nervous? The market found a way to stay strong in 2007 even though the subprime lending mess began to weigh down the US economy resulting in the unraveling of brokerages and the weakening of the dollar. Will the market stay strong in 2008? Looking at the auction line up the inventory seems to indicate that 2008 has the potential to hold overall sales volume, but increase price per lot.
Looking at Sotheby’s Impressionist and Modern Evening sale scheduled for May 7, the sales volume at the high estimate is expected to essentially match last year’s Impressionist and Modern Art evening sale. But there are fewer lots available (53 this year compared to 61 last year). But the success of this year’s sale really hinges on one oil painting, Study for Woman in Blue, by Fernand Leger estimated at $35,000,000-$45,000,000. To put it in perspective, the highest price realized in 2007 was $25,520,000 (including buyers premium) for Paul Cezanne’s Still Life with Green Melon (estimated at $14,000,000 – $18,000,000).
Will the Leger be able to carry the session? Seems like there is a lot riding on it especially in the face of increasing skepticism about the strength of the economy. A lot of eyes will be on Sotheby’s on May 7.
Here is an overview of Sotheby’s sale. Images of the works can be found on their site. Christies has not released their Impressionist and Modern evening sale details on their website. The Christies auction will take place on May 6 and will likely set the stage for the Sotheby’s sale.
| Artist |
Works |
Low Estimate |
High Estimate |
| Fernand Léger |
3 |
$ 50,000,000 |
$ 67,000,000 |
| PABLO PICASSO |
6 |
$ 36,000,000 |
$ 52,500,000 |
| Alberto Giacometti |
6 |
$ 25,300,000 |
$ 37,700,000 |
| Edvard Munch |
1 |
$ 24,000,000 |
$ 28,000,000 |
| Paul Signac |
2 |
$ 9,000,000 |
$ 13,000,000 |
| Edgar Degas |
2 |
$ 7,500,000 |
$ 9,700,000 |
| MARC CHAGALL |
4 |
$ 7,400,000 |
$ 10,400,000 |
| Joan Miró |
3 |
$ 7,300,000 |
$ 9,700,000 |
| Paul Cézanne |
1 |
$ 6,000,000 |
$ 8,000,000 |
| René Magritte |
3 |
$ 5,200,000 |
$ 7,100,000 |
| Alfred Sisley |
2 |
$ 4,250,000 |
$ 6,750,000 |
| Kees van Dongen |
2 |
$ 3,200,000 |
$ 4,500,000 |
| Joaquín Sorolla y Bastida |
1 |
$ 3,000,000 |
$ 4,000,000 |
| Paul Gauguin |
1 |
$ 3,000,000 |
$ 4,000,000 |
| HENRI MATISSE |
1 |
$ 2,500,000 |
$ 3,500,000 |
| Giorgio Morandi |
4 |
$ 2,450,000 |
$ 3,450,000 |
| Eugène Boudin |
1 |
$ 1,800,000 |
$ 2,400,000 |
| Lyonel Feininger |
1 |
$ 1,500,000 |
$ 2,000,000 |
| Camille Pissarro |
1 |
$ 1,250,000 |
$ 1,750,000 |
| Egon Schiele |
1 |
$ 1,200,000 |
$ 1,600,000 |
| Claude Monet |
1 |
$ 1,000,000 |
$ 1,500,000 |
| Berthe Morisot |
1 |
$ 900,000 |
$ 1,200,000 |
| Heinrich Campendonk |
1 |
$ 700,000 |
$ 1,000,000 |
| Paul Klee |
1 |
$ 700,000 |
$ 900,000 |
| Victor Brauner |
1 |
$ 700,000 |
$ 1,000,000 |
| Georges Valmier |
1 |
$ 500,000 |
$ 700,000 |
| Julio González |
1 |
$ 500,000 |
$ 700,000 |
| Total |
53 |
$ 206,850,000 |
$284,050,000 |
Permalink
January 9, 2008 at 2:50 am
· Filed under Collecting Art, Museums ·Tagged Art Collectors, Art Museum, Broad Contemporary Art Museum, Eli Broad, Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Eli Broad’s recent decision to keep his collection intact with the Broad Art Foundation is the latest way the collector is shaping the art world. Broad has been one of the most influential patrons of the arts and Los Angeles has benefitted most from his generosity from donations to found MOCA, completing the Disney Concert Hall, donations to build the Broad Contemporary Art Museum at LACMA and the Grand Avenue project downtown (to name a few). But this time, the collector is being stingy. Ironically it could prove to be his most generous act.
Mr. Broad just announced that he will not be donating any works from his collection of over 2,000 top notch contemporary artworks to museums. While the NY Times seems to imply that this is a slap in the face to LACMA who was the anticipated recipient of the collection, the move could actually have a much broader impact on the institutional art world as a whole.
Most museums only show a small fraction of their collection at a given time. They don’t have room to show some amazing works that end up in the basement hanging on racks or stacked on shelfs for several years. (It always amazed me when I worked in the museum industry how many quality pieces we simply collecting dust.) Mr. Broad relizes this and doesn’t want his collection to share that fate.
“We don’t want it to end up in storage, in either our basement or somebody else’s basement,” Mr. Broad said. “So I, as the collector, am saying, ‘If you’re not willing to commit to show it, why don’t we just make it available to you when you want it, as opposed to giving it to you, and then our being unhappy that it’s only up 10 percent or 20 percent of the time or not being shown at all?’”
This makes the collection accessible to infinitely more museums around the globe and will allow the public to see works that would otherwise be invisible. If other major collectors follow suit we could be seeing the beginning of an easier free exchange of work and improved museum exhibitions world wide. Imagine any of the ArtNews 200 top collectors establishing similar foundations whose primary goal is to make sure the work is seen and enjoyed. We wouldn’t have to turn to books to see seminal works; we could easily find them on view and see them in person.
Permalink
January 7, 2008 at 4:52 am
· Filed under Art, Collecting Art ·Tagged Art Auction, Art Collecting, Mugrabi, Warhol
For anyone with a few hundred million dollars lying around and an interest in art, try reading Kelly Crow’s article in the Wall Street Journal. She highlights Jose Mugrabi’s singular collection strategy that allowed him to control nearly 10% of all known Andy Warhol works.
Mr. Mugrabi, a former Columbian textile merchant now residing in Manhattan, first became interested in collecting in 1981 when he bought his first painting, a Renoir, for $121,000. He bagan buying paintings he liked whether or not he knew the artist. (Crow describes an early auction where Mugrabi bought an Yves Klein and after he was awarded the work turned to the person next to him and asked “Who is Yves Klein?”) In 1987 Mugrabi bought his first Warhol and became so enamored with the work that he sold his other works and collected only Warhol for the past 20 years and now owns 800 works by the artist.
Of course owning so many works by one artist puts Mugrabi and other Warhol collectors in an intersting position. Mugrabi bids on any Warhol that appears on the auction block often driving up the prices in the process. Some have accused Mugrabi of doing so to increase the prices of his own collection. Mugrabi says he is just trying to buy more Warhols. In any event this practice does keep Warhol prices moving up and keeps them out of reach for several collectors. But the important thing to note here is that Mugrabi still buys several of the works on which he bids. He has a passion for the artist that first drove him to visit gallery back rooms and auctions to snap up any Warhol he could find at a time when the artist’s work was unpopular and relatively inexpensive.
Mugrabi has the passion (and the bank account) to collect Warhol exclusively, but that potentially leaves him and other Warhol collectors vulnerable to market corrections. Crow poses the question of what will happen if Mugrabi falls on hard times personally and needs to liquidate his collection. It would cause an influx of Warhol inventory and ultimately drive down prices (especially with Mugrabi not bidding on his own works). In essence the Warhol market is somewhat tied to Mugrabi’s personal financial stability. And if Mugrabi needs to sell off his collection, he will do so at a great loss.
But what can we learn from Mugrabi? Is it that we should snap up as many works by one artist as possible? Not really. What is most impressive about Mugrabi is his passion for Warhol and drive to collect his work. Yes, there are financial implications, but there are just as many negatives for Mugrabi as there are positives. The bottom line is if you have the passion and the means to collect a single artist, then it pays to put all your energy into it.
Permalink
