Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 | 12 Comments
Don’t Cry for the Galleries
This Dealer Doesn’t See the Tragedy in the Art World’s Contraction
The number of articles currently circulating about the demise of New York’s Contemporary market amazes me. Art market writers are shocked by the number of ‘Cutting Edge’ Contemporary galleries that are closing and Charlie Finch, in his recent piece on ArtNet titled Will Collector’s Step Forward?, came up with an idea that made me say: What!?
Mr. Finch proposed the following in order to save the New York market:
There are many collectors who still have cash and who are not dependent on selling their collections to keep the wolf from the door. What is needed is for these fortunate folks to step forward publicly in a new kind of alliance which will target struggling galleries and artists for rescue. High-profile collector-curated shows of work that they already own, in which these collectors would publicly sell desirable work at a loss, subsidizing dealers and even giving a resale percentage to the artists who created the work, would be an excellent start.
WOW … an art dealer/artist bailout package supported by people who bought into the crazy hype in the first place — how nice! Look, the Contemporary art world does not need private individuals to save it, what it does need is a cleansing … and right now this particular segment is getting a much needed high colonic.
During every art market boom cycle we see numerous people jump on the ‘art dealer band wagon’. They think it is easy money: rent a space, paint the walls white, hire some staff and get some art. And when the money is flowing, and the hype is going, most of them can make a go of it. The real problem is that many of these people had no business being in the art world — and most had no idea what makes a work of art good or bad. Not to mention that some of the artists they represented had no business being in the market.
Now people should cry for them? Sorry, but I am not one of those people.
The cleansing of the Contemporary art market is here and was long overdue. I do feel bad for some of the good galleries that will be swept away, along with most of the artists since they were just pawns in an art world chess game … many being used by these so-called ‘art dealers’ to make a quick buck. Those artists who have the talent will be picked up by more established galleries … the others will have to wait until the next boom arrives; and we all know that will happen. It is time that buyers stop listening to the hype and start using their eyes and brains. So many people bought works by artists with little ‘real’ talent because they were told it was the thing to do; those people are now feeling the pain — at least from a financial perspective. However, those buyers who bought because they loved the piece (not strictly for financial gain) will continue to cherish their art even if, for the time being, its value has decreased.
-Howard L. Rehs
Also of Interest:
- NY Art World Saved by Dentists
Charlie Finch has a radical proposal to save the art world in his Artnet column. It starts with all of... - 30 Galleries in NY Upgrade
Katya Kazakina keeps us abreast of the gallery world in New York and London on Bloomberg as the strong are... - Frieze Warm-Up: Smaller Galleries
The Independent talks to Sarah Thornton and some gallerists about what’s likely to happen at Frieze this year. They’re bet... - Grassroots Galleries “Even Livelier”
Katya Kazakina adds some fuel to the art market revival theme of the week by focusing on low end of... - Salz’s Best New Galleries in NYC
This week New York Magazine is running a package called Art After Money. Here’s a mashup of two different Jerry...
just as booms don't bring quality, busts don't clean house; Peres Projects with plenty of family bucks will surely survive any nuclear winter but if there were an art god it would be the first to go.
Anyone who wants the crap swept away needs to call out the bad artists and dealers rather than blithely letting them pass out of fear and insecurity.
This includes, perhaps foremost, "critics" who's writing tend more towards descriptive press release than actual, you know, criticism.
Name names, fire bullets, but don't expect to sit back and let the market to determine quality.
While a bust may not clean 100% of the mess, it will remove most of it. We all know there are always some stubborn stains; however I am not a Contemporary dealer and cannot comment on the good or bad players. What I do know is that the landscape in this part of the art market is changing and that will be for the best.
Those galleries with deep pockets will weather almost any storm … but then again it is those deep pockets (or galleries who position themselves correctly to ride out these storms) that are usually a sign of smart business people.
As for critics, I really do not how many real ones still exist – but there are some. However, much of what I read appears to be rewording of gallery press releases … just more hype and fluff.
And finally there is quality … a very subjective word in the Cutting-Edge Contemporary field. Primary market makers always believe that what they are offering is the finest. It is only when those works reappear in the secondary market, without the financial support of the primary market maker, that we begin to see what the ‘market’ really believes are the quality works.
Andrew – Don't you think you're being a bit condescending when you say "don't expect to sit back and let the market to determine quality?" You're obviously not a "markets" kind of guy huh? The term markets I think should include dealers, auction houses museums, art critics and yes – collectors with cash.
Mr. Rehs – I think it will be interesting to see which artists are picked up by the surviving galleris. Especially by the likes of Zwirner, Gagosian, Victoria Miro etc.
Leonard … what will be even more interesting is so see which artists are not picked up by any of the surviving galleries. Those who rode the market's big wave and then wiped-out.! That is going to be a hard lesson for both the artists and the people who bought into their hyped-up market.
I agree with you completely and I can see how it could be interpreted as condescending but to attempt to rectify that let me clarify that I am emphasizing that the "market" is not some disembodied entity; it is based on the decisions of buyers/collectors who are usually acting based on a dialogue that is informed only in part on previous sales ("the market") and more importantly based on their understanding of consensus of what other people say about the work.
Typically people avoid going on the record with critical comments; “critics” (writers?) overwhelmingly reduce their comments to the merely descriptive, focus on the positive or in the case of indefensibly bad work reduce their comments to the merely descriptive. This is an abdication of the need to discriminate and gives dealers of questionable material a free pass.
The growth in demand that the art world has seen in the last 10 years has not been matched by a commensurate growth in quality nor has it been a response to important new developments in art. There is ample room for more harsh assessments of new material than in previous "eras" and yet the opposite has been the case in practice; the cheerleading mentality that fostered the bubble remains. Critical dialogue about historical importance of "bubble era" artists has been lacking.
Marketing terminology and tactics have always been an important part of framing the art dialogue but I believe that the pendulum has swung too much in its favor and has yet to correct. The pervasive mentality that I have seen thus far in this “correction” cycle has been to hunker down in ones bunker and reemerge unscathed once the economy has recovered. If the economy were the only problem then fine, but I propose that an equal part of the problem is confidence; there is no intrinsic value to art, it is based on consensus and discussion and truly critical discussion has been lacking which has left collectors insecure. This crisis should not go wasted; let’s sideline the cheerleaders and press-release writers and take a harshly critical eye to all bubble galleries and artists and see who can withstand the grilling. Is there really enough “idea” value backing up the “market” value on bubble artists or are they over leveraged?
Andrew,
What this all comes down to is that most art reviews appear to be written by writers and not ART CRITICS! Here are a few questions that need to be answered. How many people, those who make their living in the art market (dealers, auctioneers, etc.), really know what makes a work of art good or bad? How many writers/critics know? How many buyers know? My feeling is that the answers to these questions are the same … very few; and in certain instances they just do not care! Therein lies the problem.
Howard
PS – as for “the grilling”, I like my steak medium.
Very nice article and indeed a time for cleaning up the market of both con-artists that should have never been allowed to enter the art market in first place and bad galleries including all those vanity galleries that have been flooding the market lately. Only time will tell what will happen.
What I find very interesting and disturbing at the same time is the comment made by Mr. Finch. Is obvious his gallery is sincking or at least is the perception I get and he sure shows an alarming sense of desperatation in those lines. Why on earth would collectors do something like that in first place is beyond the logics of the art market and business.
MValenti
"…cleaning up the market of both con-artists that should have never been allowed to enter the art market in first place and bad galleries including all those vanity galleries that have been flooding the market lately…"
"Why on earth would collectors do something like that in first place is beyond the logics of the art market and business."
Exactly my points.
I agree with your position that Charlie Finch's position is ridiculous, however, most galleries with deep pockets exist not because *the owners* are good business people, but because they have access to their spouse/family funds. So while the top line looks good, the bottom line is actually not great in the case of many galleries but it doesn't matter.
I love your last line: "…those buyers who bought because they loved the piece (not strictly for financial gain) will continue to cherish their art even if, for the time being, its value has decreased." AMEN!
Amrita,
I am pleased that you said ‘most’ and not ‘all’ galleries with deep pockets… Some of us did create our deeper pockets by building successful galleries — knowing the good from the bad, putting the quality of the works offered first and running lean ships even in the best of times (leaving enough money on the side to ride out these storms).
I do agree there are some galleries whose family money will carry them through almost anything, but I also believe that most of that wealth was built by smart business people and there is only so long those ‘deep pockets’ will continue to fund a losing venture; otherwise they may no longer be deep pockets!
As a collector my primary purchasing motivation is, "I like it!!"….I use the market records and resources to determine where the "tag price" fits historically and to arrive at some price that I am willing to offer. Depending on how large my goosebumps get when I'm looking at it, I may pay more than historical data would indicate. Those that purchase strictly on expected appreciation because some gallery owner, critic or other tout convinces him that this/that artist is the next "better mousetrap" is not a collector of art…but an art market speculator and speculation in any commodity brings with it significant risk.
rls,
My sentiments exactly!