David Galenson is an economics professor at the University of Chicago with a side hobby writing about the art market. It would appear that Dr. Galenson feels under-appreciated. In a disjointed and non-sensical post, he complains that no one takes his theories of artists’ ages seriously. Perhaps that’s because he offers analysis like this:
Several weeks ago, I explained in this space why an Andy Warhol portrait of Elizabeth Taylor, to be auctioned in May, was given an estimate significantly lower than the price realized by a Warhol painting of Taylor that was auctioned last November. The key fact was that Liz #5, to be sold in May, was executed in 1963, whereas Men in Her Life, sold in November, was made in 1962. The difference for art history is very great, for 1962 was Warhol’s annus mirabilis, the year in which he introduced the innovations that transformed contemporary art.
Could it also be that estimates are marketing strategies and not predictions?