Tag: art market

Categories: Art, cultural property, Culture, Endangered Speices, News – Posted on

As They Please

Impending Regulations Will Destroy the Decorative Arts Trade

By MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH          March 25, 2014

A certain amount of information about the meeting of the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking on March 20th has been passed on to me by members of the art trade who were in attendance.

It’s clear that the Council has no authority to make policy and is merely advising the Obama administration on policy options. However, it’s equally clear that the Council represents the will of a small group of wildlife organizations. Federal advisory bodies are usually dominated by interest groups that are able to place their members on the committee, which for these groups means that the government receives good information on the “true preferences” of private interests. Only in Washington can the interests of a narrowly focused group be considered an accurate reflection of the nation’s needs. The fact is that the Council contains no member with knowledge of the arts and antiques market, and, as a result, cannot offer any real advice to the White House on dealing with the issue of antiques. An example of this is the Council’s recommendation to the administration that it should start a public campaign to decrease public demand for goods made from endangered species: the Council’s discussion of the “demand” for ivory could articulate no sophisticated distinction between bona fide antiques containing ivory and tourist trade materials. In consequence of this, the “ivory problem” will remain a ripe target for a total ban on the sale of objects containing the material.

In a letter sent to Director Ashe of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on March 7th, the Art and Antique Dealers League of America (“AADLA”) and the National Antique and Art Dealers Association of America (“NAADAA”) proposed the creation of an art advisory panel to assist the Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing whether objects being imported, exported or sold in interstate commerce are antiques. The implementation of an advisory panel would provide an effective solution to a problem viewed by the Council and the Administration as complex; it would encourage transparency, promote the lawful trade of ESA-permitted objects, and discourage the black market in unpermitted objects.
These two dealer groups were represented at the meeting last week by Clinton Howell, the President of the AADLA and a member of NAADAA. Mr. Howell provided the Council with strong critique of the administration’s recent actions, especially of Director Ashe’s “Order No. 210” that places severe restriction on the ability of dealers and auctioneers to sell antiques containing endangered species. Mr. Howell also distributed an excellent survey of the use of ivory in antiques, entitled “Ivory and Its Widespread Use in Cultural Artifacts,” done by the British Antique Dealers’ Association. Mr. Howell other materials included a report on the use of ivory in jewelry and a fact-sheet on the illegal ivory trade.

While the meeting contained a discussion about Senator Feinstein and Representative Garamendi of California developing legislation that could ban all ivory sales in the US, the immediate concern for the art and antiques trade remains the ominous restrictions in Order No. 210. Legislation could take months if not years to complete, but the Fish and Wildlife Service has already begun to impose new restrictions on the import and export of objects containing endangered species, and will likely begin enforcement of the new rules on the interstate trade within 60-90 days. These new regulations will destroy many small businesses long before a vote is taken in Congress.

Categories: Art, Culture, News – Posted on

Suite for the Sweet

Artist Resale Rights in the United States

By MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH          February 19, 2014

Whenever I read about efforts to legislate an “artist resale royalty” in the United States, there comes back into my mind the memory of a conversation I had about ten years ago when the British Parliament was debating the implementation of the EC Directive on artist resale rights.

I was interviewed by an aide to a British MP who was writing a report on the likely effect of the artist resale right upon the British art market. The artist resale right was adopted by the European Parliament in September 2001, and those countries like the UK that did not already have a resale right at that time were required to put one in place in 2006. The Brits were one of the last in Europe to adopt the right; the artist resale right was first introduced to Europe by France in the 1920’s (for auction sales only) – which is why it is often referred to by the French term “droit de suite”.

My interview focused on the competitive disadvantage brought about by the artist resale right to those British auctioneers who competed with auctioneers in the United States for consignments. It was my opinion at the time that the resale royalty put auctioneers in Europe at a competitive disadvantage to auctioneers in countries without the royalty. This is especially true at the high end of the art market where a seller can choose a sale venue in one of several different countries around the globe. I still believe this to be true, but I don’t think the royalty’s effect on the market is so great as to make it punitive; by way of example, the maximum payment under the UK law is €12,500, a miniscule amount in light of today’s nine-figure sale prices. In consequence of this, I don’t believe an artist should be denied the right to share in the financial gains upon the later resale of an artwork. I do, however, believe that-for very different reasons- there will not be an artist resale royalty in the United States anytime soon.

One of the founding principles of American jurisprudence is the idea that private property can never be taken by the government without just compensation. This is the concept of “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours,” and Americans prefer things organize in this clear and tidy manner. In other countries, artwork and other types of personal property can be taken away by the government without any compensation; in other words, “what’s yours is mine.” Americans don’t care much for others coveting their wares; envy and jealousy are fine, but no coveting.

In light of this principle, the artist resale royalty looks very much like a version of “what’s yours is mine.” Most visual artists retain the copyright to their artwork, so they are free to exploit their images commercially should they choose to do so. And an artist can, and many do, create images in series or multiples, so that a single image or concept can be exploited over and over again. Many who favor the artist resale right point to the ability of authors and composers to be remunerated for the reproduction or performance of their work, and the artist resale right is intended to create a parallel benefit. This comparison breaks down very quickly when you realize that in the artist example no additional instance of the original artwork is brought to the market; the correct analogy would be if Salmon Rushdie could claim some further payment for every copy of Midnight’s Children resold in a used bookstore above the $13 price at which it was originally published in 1981. No such right exists today for the author or composer. In fact, what is being proposed in the artist resale royalty is a new right that is not really a royalty at all- it’s more like a profit share- and fits awkwardly with existing concepts of property and ownership. As I said earlier, such a right seems like a good idea at first blush, as most things do, but to justify the right upon the comparison of payments to authors and composers is dubious.

The strongest argument against the resale royalty is also the most fundamental; it simply doesn’t work. The high end of the global contemporary art market is driven by the sale of artworks done by about a thousand artists. The other million-and-a-half artists who worked at some point in the past seventy years are excluded from the revelry. The same is true for the visual artists of the Impressionist and Modern eras. If you don’t believe me then visit any regional auctioneer to view their auctions and you will find that many very good paintings and sculptures can be purchased for under $1000. Most of the artwork created over the past century, when adjusted for inflation, has not appreciated in value at all, so the concept of helping the poor, starving artist is little more than a fiction. The experience in Europe is that the vast majority of artist resale royalties are paid to artists or the families of deceased artists who are financially secure. The fact is that successful artists, just like successful authors or composers, are rewarded commercially; if you compare the art-derived income of creative individuals of equal seriousness and achievement across creative platforms, then you will find that visual artist do very well. Compare Damian Hirst in relation to Cormac McCarthy and Thomas Ades; Marina Abramovic to Joyce Carol Oates or Jennifer Higdon; or pick your own comparison. If you do it fairly, you will find that visual artists usually fare better than their peers who work on royalties.

Creating an artist resale royalty in the United States would also tarnish the attractiveness of art as an investment, thereby decreasing the pool of funds available to purchase artwork. Any legislation aimed at helping struggling artists should address the need for an initial market for their work, as today’s artist struggles for access but manages quite well once the market accepts them. A good way to help artists would be to give collectors incentives to buy more artwork- to abolish the sales tax on purchases of artwork below $5000 or to defer capital gains on artwork that is sold to purchase more artwork. Like it or not, the free market works very well for many artists and the goal should be to keep it that way.

Categories: Art, Culture, News – Posted on

Chasing Myanmar

By MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH          March 21, 2013

The Global Art Market in 2012

I suppose I started to notice it about eight years ago, when art fairs became the major source of income for most new galleries. Before that, collectors were content to visit individual galleries and attend shows based upon the strength of the artists and artwork on view; to a certain extent, they still are. The art fairs, however, offer a broad range of works in a single event which caters more to those who want to “find” works to buy than to those who want to be “shown” them. As a result, the major fairs have become somewhat of a status symbol for galleries to be taken “seriously” by this new breed of buyers, reminiscent of a trend several years ago where artists needed to have a presence on Google in order to sell their art. All of these are the organizing forces of a nascent global market in artwork, where information and public events provide fodder for market participants to adopt certain palates, follow major trends and purchase artwork.

TEFAF, the world’s leading art fair, opened last Friday and held a symposium to review the global art market during 2012. As TEFAF is the first major fair of the season, it’s quite clever of them to assume the wise-old-man role, and I suspect these market reviews will be a regular event at their fairs. In conjunction with this, they released a report, “TEFAF Art Market Report 2013” analyzing trends in the global art market last year. To no surprise, the worldwide art market contracted by 7% in 2012, as the Chinese market beat a retreat and shrank by almost a quarter.

Regrettably, the report suffers two major flaws from which it cannot recover completely. The first is a miscalculation of the estimated size of the private market, an understandable but fundamental error. The second is a failure to detail the volume of sales in each market sector, which is nothing short of lame.

For instance, they say the public market (auctions) makes up 48% of the total market and the private market (galleries) comprises 52%. To people who actually work in the market, these numbers are off wildly; most people estimate the private market to be at least twice as large as the public market. If my estimates are correct – and we know the global public market was at $27 billion last year- then the global private market was around $54 billion, thus the total global market should have been somewhere around $81 billion. To put this in perspective, if the art market were a separate economy then it would rank seventy-fifth, edging out Croatia and just behind Myanmar (which we should still call Burma).

To the second point, the “art market” is broadly defined as fine art, decorative art and antiques; this is a fair-enough definition, but the report fails to compile statistics on the volume of sales within each category. No reason is given for this omission, leaving the reader to wonder whether their statistics on the private market were so unreliable, or unobtainable, that a finger-in–the-air estimate of the total market size was the best they could do, with further examination relegated to the public market. In consequence of this, the report is only useful in its analysis of the trends within each sector of the market but not for comparisons among them.

One interesting observation is that 83% of the total public market by value is centered in three countries: the US, China and the UK. The US regained its leading position with 33% (up 4% on 2011), China dropped to 25% (down 5%), and the UK remained third with 23% (up 1%). What this really means is that the global public market is focused essentially in four cities: New York, Beijing, Hong Kong and London. This is equally true for the private market, as a brief review of the top galleries bears out.

We should also take note of the continuing strength of the high end of the market. In 2012, 66% of the fine art sales on the public market were of works priced over $250,000, even though these works made up only 2% of sales and 4% of total number of artists whose works sold at auction during the year. The top end of the private market, represented by gallery sales over $13 million, reported an average increase in turnover of 55%. The report mentions anecdotal evidence from gallerists that the market continues to be extremely selective, with some galleries reporting greater difficulty in selling low and medium priced works, while other galleries reported strong sales in higher priced works. Indeed, inquire of any artist or gallerist working in the middle market about its strength and you’ll likely get either a blank stare or a burst of profanity; the middle of the art market is sort of like being on the median of a major highway- everything is passing you by and you can’t seem to get off.

Perhaps feeling a need to explain these recent trends, the report suggests that investors are “minimizing risk by purchasing works by the best-known artists at the top end of the market.” This often-proposed explanation of the art market is, at best, incomplete: wealthy collectors choose art based upon their own tastes and preference with little concern for what market watchers think; investors are just following along for the ride. After all, the art market is still a collector’s market, although maybe just barely.

The report also focuses on China, which supposedly became the world’s principal market for art and antiques in 2011 with sales soaring to 30% of the global total. I recall having a good laugh over these statistics when I was in China last year, as sales figures from Chinese auctioneers were never considered by anyone in the market to be vaguely reliable. In fact, Beijing issued regulations last year to clean up an auction industry fraught with fakes, smuggling and non-payments, all of which tend to have an inflationary effect upon the market. TEFAF says the Chinese art market dropped by 24% to $13.8 billion in 2012, mainly due to a slowdown in economic growth in China and a reduced amount of high quality, high priced works coming onto the market. It also seems that many art funds and other speculative investors in China pulled away from the market last year.

Of course, the most under-reported story in the art market last year was Sotheby’s joint venture in China, which gives the company the ability to have its own auction sales on the mainland. Last September, Sotheby’s invested $1.2 million and took an 80 percent stake in a joint venture with state-owned Beijing Gehua Cultural Development Group. The joint venture, called Sotheby’s (Beijing) Auction Co. Ltd., can take advantage of the new Tianzhu Free Trade Zone in Beijing being developed by Gehua. Sotheby’s will likely gain a sharp market advantage in coming years due to the joint venture, thus propelling the company into a dominant spot in both the auction and private sales markets in China. Other perks of the joint venture are Sotheby’s ability to hold sales outside the free-trade zone and, more importantly, their ability to partner with other entities outside of China.

In fact, on Tuesday of this week TEFAF announced that it has entered into “exclusive discussions” with Sotheby’s to explore the possibilities of developing a high-end art fair for China in 2014, via Sotheby’s joint venture. “TEFAF Beijing 2014,” they say, would represent a ground-breaking collaboration between a leading international auction house and the world’s most important art and antiques fair.

Come to think of it, what is the Chinese word for market share?

Categories: Art, News – Posted on

A Crisis of Confidence?

By MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH          March 14, 2013

The Economics of Authenticating Art

In April of last year, I attended a gathering where Michael Straus of the Andy Warhol Foundation spoke about the foundation’s then recent decision to stop authenticating works by Andy Warhol. It was interesting to hear him say that part of the reason for the decision was the foundation’s confidence that the market for Warhol’s works “can take care of itself.” What this means in practical terms is that galleries, auctioneers and collectors can make their own determinations about the authenticity of a Warhol work when they decide to sell or purchase. Having worked in the art market for a decade and a half now, I’m sure the art market can take care of itself but the problem is that it really doesn’t want to.

Galleries and auctioneers rely on art experts’ opinions because it gives them cover to offer guarantees of authenticity to buyers. Only the criminally insane- though there are some out there buying- would spend millions of dollars on an artwork without some form of an authenticity guarantee. Therefore, if I own an artwork and want to sell it, I must have “the” expert on the artist bless the work; if they don’t then my artwork is practically worthless. To make this more complicated, sometimes the expert doesn’t say “no,” but determines that there is not enough information to form an opinion, which amounts to a vote of no confidence. And if I want to dispute the expert’s “no” or “no confidence” determination then I have to find not one, but two recognized experts who are willing to state that the work is authentic. The net result is that it’s difficult- if not impossible- to contest “the” expert’s authenticity determination. Moreover, sometimes it is the case that there is only one recognized expert for a certain artist’s works. The response of lately by collectors has been to bring lawsuits against “the” experts under various legal notions such as negligence, fraud, antitrust violations, and any other theory their lawyers can conceive. In consequence of this, many of the authentication boards for major artists will no longer authenticate works because too many of them have been sued by unhappy collectors.

What do we say when we want to cast doubt on a long-standing tradition that has ceased to produce useful results? We begin by saying tentatively, “Well, it’s not exactly written in stone.” Authenticity opinions were never meant to be written in stone in the first place, so it was quite predictable that the art market would be faced with this problem. Prices for highly coveted artworks have increased exponentially while the ability of collectors to authenticate those works has remained stagnant. What has changed is that collectors are no longer satisfied with their options.

Several years ago, I saw a cartoon of two art experts looking at a painting by the artist Peter Doig. One expert said to the other, “I’m certain it’s a Doig.” The other expert responds, “I think it might be a cat.” While a great deal of experience and thought might go into an expert’s decision about authenticity, in the end it’s only an opinion along the lines of “Doig” or “cat” at that particular moment in time. That is to say, the experts are offering galleries and auctioneers the ability to avow authenticity subject to future reconsideration while the economic demands placed upon collectors call for assurances on a longer continuum.

As a general tenet of life, people are created equal but opinions are not. When you receive an opinion from a doctor about your health you expect you can rely on it; we know that not every aspect of human body is if fully understood, but we at least expect to be given the variables and a prognosis of the disease. On the other hand, when a stockbroker tells you that a certain stock is a “must buy,” then you should run for the hills because you know something else is coming your way. Experience in life teaches us whom we should trust.

It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that art experts’ opinions are rarely meant to be final decisions. Scholarship, they will tell you, changes based upon new information discovered from time to time about artists’ techniques and materials, and new works are found that add to their knowledge of the artist’s oeuvre. An opinion about an artwork is more akin to who will win the World Series this year- it will be a choice of one of two, but no more can be said for certain at this time.

Unavoidably, this is exactly how the courts have treated art experts’ opinions; without exception, all of the lawsuits against art experts over the past several years have failed miserably. Judges and juries are in no position to gauge the authenticity of artwork, so they rely on the trusted experts. The Warhol Foundation was sued twice in the last few years and won both cases, though that smile on the courthouse steps probably cost them several million dollars. This means, practically speaking, that the authenticity quandary is more of an economic problem than a crisis of confidence. A much better reading of the situation would gather that art experts are not being compensated at an appropriate level. Think about other trades where people offer their opinions as a paid service: the credit rating agencies in the financial industry have been subject to vicious lawsuits- and probably justifiably- over the past few years and we don’t see any of those companies getting out of the credit rating business. Why? Because credit rating agencies make barge-loads of money every day- paid for by the very financial institutions that rely on their opinions to sell their wares. Does this sound familiar? If art experts were compensated in the same manner as credit rating agencies then the art market would not be having this debate. The Warhol Foundation should charge five percent of the fair market value of a work in order to authenticate it, and I suspect they would willingly withstand the judicial activism directed at them by any disgruntled patrons.

Just today, I came across another cartoon of two art experts standing in a gallery looking at a taxidermy wolf covered in a sheepskin pelt and enclosed in a glass case. One expert said to the other, “I’m afraid it’s a fake.” How very appropriate.

Categories: Art, Culture – Posted on

Writing a Wrong

New York Changes its Laws to Protect Artists

By MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH          February 7, 2013

In an interview in 1976 with Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel , the great dealer Leo Castelli said, “[t]he function of an art dealer, well, can be various; certainly, a good art dealer, an art dealer who really cares for art and not about making money, should be to find new artists, make them known to the public.” When asked the insightful question about his role in the business of selling art, he responded, “I am more than somebody who wants to sell paintings. The selling of paintings seems to be a secondary thing. I have to, of course, sell them to finance my activity, but the activity really is the important game, my gallery. And I am very happy to just tag along in the midst of tremendous financial difficulties as long as I can keep the gallery going.”

That, in my opinion, is the way that the art market is supposed to work. Not to say that there is anything wrong with art dealers making money- the economics of operating a gallery have changed dramatically since Castelli’s time- but the basic principal should still stand: at no point in the calculation should the dealer’s interest in the artwork be greater than the sum total of the artist’s. The good dealer understands that the primary objective of a gallery is to promote the artist and the artwork, and there is plenty of money to be made along the way. But, there are people pretending to be art dealers in order to have fun, to throw big parties and to make buckets of money, even as the artists’ interests are abandoned as secondary concerns. And when it all goes horribly wrong with these ventures, as it always does, the death knell sounds when the dealer makes the insalubrious choice to pay the gallery’s debts before paying the artist.

Take the case of Sae Hyun Lee, a talented painter from South Korea, who, like most other artist, painted for years before receiving critical acclaim for his work. After several successful solo exhibitions in Europe, Mr. Lee received an invitation in 2011 from Nicholas Robinson Gallery for a solo show in New York. Ten paintings were consigned immediately. Two of the paintings sold before the show was over and Mr. Lee received his commissions, but things went very silent even before the gallery stopped returning phone calls about the return of the unsold artworks. It wasn’t long before the arrival of a terse letter from Nicholas Robinson’s attorneys about how the gallery was out of money and contemplating bankruptcy. Sadly, as it goes, neither the artwork nor the money could be accounted for properly, which means not at all.

This might have been the end of the story, save for the fact that Mr. Lee is represented in Seoul by Chan-kyu Woo of Hakgoje Gallery, a dealer cast from the Castelli mold. Mr. Woo engaged a New York lawyer, Henry Jung to press for the return of the artwork. Mr. Jung is a former Assistant District Attorney and a very good lawyer who had the very unpleasant experience of being my roommate in law school. Only after Mr. Jung filed a lawsuit in federal court last March, the judge issued a temporary restraining order against the gallery, and Nicholas Robinson himself appeared at a court hearing, did it become clear that Mr. Robinson had sold the paintings and spent the $370,000. Unfortunately for Mr. Lee, Mr. Robinson’s pockets were a bit light; in fact, they were empty. “How could this happen in New York, of all places?” asked Mr. Jung.

It’s not supposed to. In the 1960’s, the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law was passed in New York state to give artists certain protections: artworks consigned by an artist were deemed trust property and the proceeds of their sale were considered trust funds. This was done to dissuade irresponsible people from getting into the gallery business. The problem with the law was that it did not include any measures for enforcement and penalties, which, in a perverse way, enabled a dealer to use an artist’s sales proceeds to pay the gallery’s own operating expenses. If the gallery failed financially, the artist lost the money. In essence, a gallery that absconded with artwork or funds was subject to the same penalties as the drycleaner who failed to return your suit, although the dry cleaner would likely be decent enough to speak with you in person instead of through a lawyer, and might even apologize for the inconvenience.

The District Attorney’s offices might seem like the next port d’escale for Mr. Lee, as selling somebody else’s property and taking the money sounds like it should be a crime. Like most other things in life, it’s more complicated than it seems. That is to say, the failure of a dealer to pay the artist becomes a crime only if the dealer’s inability to pay is itself the result of an underlying criminal act. You may recall Larry Salander went to jail because, among other things, he used the proceeds of art sales to pay off prior debts in a Ponzi scheme. It would also be a criminal act for a dealer to use an artist’s money to enrich him or herself personally. In either example, the crime would be grand larceny which in New York State is pedigreed, like most other things, based upon the dollar amount involved. Law enforcement officials are often interested in art fraud cases, as they represent a welcomed break from drug dealers and purse snatchers; nevertheless the criminal nature of the event needs to be fairly certain for them to get involved. At first blush, the failure of a dealer to pay an artist is not necessarily indicative of any crime, perhaps just an unfortunate business decision. As a result, many of these cases are not investigated and artists, like Mr. Lee, are forced to bring civil lawsuits against galleries and gallery owners in order to protect their rights.

Remarkably, the balance of power shifted in October to favor the artists; a new law was enacted in New York giving teeth to the trust property and trust fund provisions in the existing law. Now, the artwork and the sales proceeds are considered property held “in statutory trust” and cannot become the property of the gallery or be subject to any claims by gallery’s creditors. Perhaps more important, the law adds clear penalties for its violation: a dealer who absconds with artwork or an artist’s money commits a misdemeanor criminal offense and is subject to criminal prosecution and fines. I’ll concede that it’s rare for a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor charge to serve jail time for a first offense, but the new law is ripe for judicial firmness in the most outrageous cases and always a peril for the previously tarnished.

Of course, all of this comes too late for Mr. Lee, as American jurisprudence abhors the ex post facto imposition of new criminal punishment for prior acts. Nonetheless, our government in Albany has finally acted to protect one of New York’s greatest assets, its artists, who are no longer subject to the caprice of businessmen who treat the loss of a painting like a bad investment in a barrel of oil or a bushel of corn. Everybody- well, almost everybody- knows that New York City’s vivacity emanates from the young people who come here to share their creativity with the world. How much longer could New York be called “the art market capital of the world” if the law couldn’t protect vulnerable artists?