It is not often that we find ourselves agreeing with the International Herald Tribune‘s erudite but elitist connoisseur. But his recent round of exceptional sales does point to a significant saving grace for the art market these last few very troubled months in the world economy:
That art would follow a separate course in the current global crisis was bound to happen because a fundamental characteristic singles it out among all the goods that are traded. Each work is unique. One landscape by Monet does not equal another landscape by Monet and one Louis XV commode is not the same as any other Louis XV commode. The style, the condition, the aura derived from the weight of history or the lack thereof combine to give each one its specific set of characteristics that determine how desirable it is. And here is the factor that makes buying art fundamentally different from ordinary commercial transactions – desire, the combustible that fuels the art market engine.
These days, it is made more vivid by a sense of urgency as art supplies dramatically shrink. If you pine for a Lanvin suit, you will still be able to buy another one a few days later. If you are dead keen on a landscape by Monet, instant action is advisable because the opportunity of getting it may never recur.
The last-chance syndrome accounts for the otherwise inexplicable performance of some works of art observed on the auction scene from New York to Paris as the economic outlook kept darkening last fall.
Just when we thought we might have to backtrack on some of our previous ribbing of the great scholar, he reminds us that he still hasn’t been able to master basic logic. No sooner does he make a solid case for the pricing power of extraordinary works, when he reverts to inventing motives for market action:
the double reality of the new market. It is bullish where the occasion warrants, but stalls wherever speculative intentions are suspected.
Over the last two years, inflation had effectively been whipped up by auction houses because dwindling supplies made finding merchandise a priority and led them to accept speculation-driven consignors’ demands for ever higher estimates and reserves. This worked as long as the market was invaded by newcomers loaded with quickly made money who played with art at auction as others enjoy a game of poker. They took at face value anything printed in saleroom catalogues, including estimates, and were naïve enough to ask the specialists who had negotiated the estimates how far they should go when bidding. They would applaud at auction when prices went through the roof.
With most of the happy-clappy amateurs driven away from the auction arena by the financial panic, the game is back in the hands of those who buy art in full knowledge. Prices have dropped by 20 or 30 percent in categories where speculation was manifest, and will go further down, but outstanding objects are holding up at every level.
Connoisseurs Take Back Control of the Art Market (International Herald Tribune)
Also of Interest:
- Souren Melikian Reads Persian, Do You?
The International Herald Tribune’s Take on the October Auctions You might know that Souren Melikian is a scholar of Iranian... - Souren Melikian Changes His Tune
The International Herald Tribune’s art market reporter began the week a skeptic of the YSL sale boldly pointing out that... - Souren Melikian Cannot Contain His Glee
The International Herald Tribune’s Art Market Reporter Covers Asia Week Art market reporters have been predicting a crash for years... - Souren Melikian Can Scarcely Believe It
The International Herald Tribune’s Souren Melikian is covering the YSL sale. Here he tries to explain its extraordinary success: Otherwise,... - Souren Melikian Wants it Both Ways
The International Herald Tribune‘s art market writer, and a scholar in his own right, wants to interpret last night’s sale...
It’s pretty illogical accusing someone writing about the top-end of the market of being elitist. What else would you like him to be?
As for Melkian’s purported difficulty of mastering logic, you are rather unclear in your reasoning yourself. Where’s the illogical part? To me Melkian’s comment makes total sense and sums up recent reality in a minimum of words. Anyone actually present in the major sales venues over the time mentioned can attest to this reality. The auction scene was exactly as described.
Maybe you should do some editing before publishing
Sadly, this is the edited version.
Let me say this: Souren Melikian is very learned man with exquisite taste. But he has a habit of describing high prices for lots he likes as connoisseurship; and low prices for works he admires as smart buys. Then, when works he doesn’t like sell well, it is evidence of speculation.
(How exactly does one know that a work is being bought for speculative reasons–or being sold for speculative reasons? You might speculate that the buyer or seller is motivated by rapid gain but one cannot know that.)
Finally, when works that he admires fail to sell, he says its because the market is dominated by speculators who are ignorant. (Again, that may be true but not really knowable.)
So the logical issue here is that Melikian wants the market to validate his taste and erudition. It’s not. It is a distribution machine. All it measures is the desire of buyers–aesthetes and vulgarians alike. When tastes, scholarship and art history shifts, there will always be sales that seem like foolish speculation but later turn out to be foresighted. (Not that most high-flying buys out to be foresighted.)
Dr. Melikian’s journalism is a treasure when he sticks to the art history. It’s a travesty when he makes wild assertions based on his biases.
Finally, you’re right about using the term elitist. It was a bad choice of words; but I was trying to avoid another term that I thought was too harsh.
Thanks Marion for the courtesy of your reply.
It’s evident that you are a long time reader of this critic’s column and that your post was summing up some long-felt grief about Melikian, in itself as personal or biased as that of the incriminated behaviour. Both of you are in your own right because what is article posting if not expressing ones opinion?
I’m not that familiar with Melikian but the referred to article, by itself, is just excellent. And speaking of logic- what I withhold as the subject of your post -, I still don’t see any illogic behaviour here, not even after your precisions. On the contrary, Melikian seems totally logic in stubbornly perpetuating his personal convictions and if he has a frustration, in the sense of your analysis, it would be because of the irrationality of the art market, containing no sensible logic, sometimes confirming his opinions, sometimes thwarting them.
This behaviour is so natural and so human, regardless of the point of view adapted. Wouldn’t you like yourself to be able to predict the action at least to some degree, instead of just passively running after opaque and dictating market forces? Passing judgement on past happenings and conjecturing about the future is finally what commentary is all about.
Take care and keep up the good work