Art Market Monitor

Global Coverage ~ Unique Analysis

  • AMMpro
  • AMM Fantasy Collecting Game
  • Podcast
  • Contact Us

Griping About Richter as an Asset

March 4, 2012 by Marion Maneker

The Armory Show is this week. Just in time for another art market screed from Felix Salmon. This time Felix is upset that Jonathan Binstock of Citibank’s art advisory released a report about Gerhard Richter’s Abstraktes Bild and their emergence as an a blue-chip art asset.

There’s nothing wrong with Salmon’s skepticism about investing in art. But there are some serious lapses in logic and intellectual judgment in Salmon’s piece:

Remember that when we’re looking at extremely expensive art, we’re looking, pretty much by definition, at the art which is most coveted by incredibly rich men. (That’s why paintings of women have always sold for much higher sums than paintings of men.) And while your typical incredibly rich man might well have a lot of sophistication when it comes to arbitraging the capital structure of potential takeover targets, his taste in art is most likely to run very much in line with Matisse’s famous quote about how a painting should be like a comfortable armchair.

Salmon has the terrible habit of bigotry toward the wealthy. (It’s also a bit silly to explain the preference for the feminine by citing men as the buyers of art. One could fill a library explaining why. Update: Josh Baer points out that Lily Safra and Sheikha Mayassa al-Thani might feel differently about the default assumption that rich men are the buyers of the world’s most expensive works of art. ) He regularly characterizes anything he doesn’t like as the product of plutocrats and the ignorant rich. Were he referring to the tastes of a particular person or offering any sort of evidence, Salmon would be entitled to his opinion.

Bigotry toward the very rich is hard to get upset about. However, the bias does suggest sloppy thinking and a poor grasp of the art market. Indeed, Salmon’s post easily elides art historical value and market value. (Felix is trying to play “gotcha” with Binstock but cannot trap him.) These two scales are separate and un-related. Valuable art is valuable because it has become a currency, not a commodity. No one suggests that gold is a “better” metal because it is accepted as currency. It simply fills that role.

Should art be used as currency? Should gems? Should shells? Obviously, those are separate questions.

The Commodification of Gerhard Richter (Reuters)

 

More from Art Market Monitor

  • NY Post: Sotheby’s Marketing Building For SaleNY Post: Sotheby’s Marketing Building For Sale
  • Xu Beihong Painting Tops $42mXu Beihong Painting Tops $42m
  • Vernissage TV: Rudolf StingelVernissage TV: Rudolf Stingel
  • Brant Spreads His Loan Portfolio Across Multiple Lenders
  • Christie’s $30m Bacon Portrait for MayChristie’s $30m Bacon Portrait for May
  • Australia's Mordant WitAustralia's Mordant Wit

Filed Under: Economic Trends

About Marion Maneker

Want to get Art Market Monitor‘s posts sent to you in our email? Sign up below by clicking on the Subscribe button.

Top Posts

  • Keith Haring’s 1989 Retrospect Comes to Sotheby’s London Prints Sale
  • Roy Lichtenstein’s Top Ten Auction Prices
  • Tony Podesta's Secret Art Buying
  • Norman Rockwell's Not Gay. But Is He a Great Artist?
  • Four of Picasso's Women Valued at $28m Come to Christie's from Rose-Walters Collection
  • David Hockney's $20m Pacific Coast Highway & Santa Monica
  • How to Chant Like an Auctioneer
  • Christie's Announces $70m Picasso Self Portrait
  • Basquiat's Last Girlfriend
  • Mark Rothko, Tamara de Lempicka, Mickalene Thomas to Star in Phillips London Evening Sale
  • About Us/ Contact
  • Podcast
  • AMMpro
  • Newsletter
  • FAQ

twitterfacebooksoundcloud
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
California Privacy Rights
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Advertise on Art Market Monitor