Art Market Monitor

Global Coverage ~ Unique Analysis

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

Billionaires Turn Down Met Bid to Revive Contemporary Wing

July 5, 2017 by Marion Maneker

The New York Times continues its coverage of the Metropolitan Museum’s leadership transition and struggle to shore up its position as New York’s pre-eminent cultural institution—as it tries to attract donors among the world’s wealthiest persons who have turned toward Modern and Contemporary art away from other collecting categories—by framing an interesting news story in the oddest way.

The news in the story is that the Met approached—and was turned down by—David Koch and Steven Schwarzmann to donate $300m to kickstart the languishing plans to rebuild the museum’s Contemporary art wing.

Oddly, though, the Times makes the story a question of whether Leonard Lauder will go through with his gift of Cubist art if the museum cannot build a new home for the collection:

Is Mr. Lauder’s gift, valued at more than $1 billion four years ago, now at risk? If the Met takes too long to resurrect the project or ultimately scales it back, might Mr. Lauder take his collection elsewhere?

Worry not, the story tells us. Lauder will indeed give the art to the Met. Did anyone ever doubt it? Although the story tries to raise the idea that Lauder could give the art to other institutions, the collection was assembled for the purpose of enhancing Lauder’s reputation as a gift to the Met. It is silly of the Times to pretend otherwise.

It’s also silly of the Times to value the collection at $1bn. That’s simply not true. Lauder did not spend $1bn assembling the collection. It is being donated to a museum where it will not be sold. So the collection has no market value any longer. Lauder’s accountants may be working with $1bn to offset his taxes in other areas.

The Times’s long-standing skepticism about the art market isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It does act as a tonic to the market fixation on these notional values. Why the Times abandons that market skepticism precisely when it is most appropriate—Lauder’s gift is meant to be a measure of his art historical acumen and cultural beneficence, what’s a $1bn to the cosmetics magnate, after all?—is one mystery of the story.

The mystery is what’s happening at the Met. The story doesn’t tell us whether the approach to Koch and Schwarzmann was a thought out strategy or a desperate move to reclaim lost momentum. The Times doesn’t say whether the approach was made by the museum’s new president, Daniel Weiss, or the board. Either way, the story suggests the museum is still far from setting itself back on track.

More from Art Market Monitor

  • Moonlighting for Lauder Is a Full-Time JobMoonlighting for Lauder Is a Full-Time Job
  • The Met's Money and The ActorThe Met's Money and The Actor
  • Why An Early Picasso Is DifferentWhy An Early Picasso Is Different
  • Rose Period Picasso Damaged by Museum GoerRose Period Picasso Damaged by Museum Goer
  • The Changing Market Mix for Impressionist and Modern Art, 2007-2017The Changing Market Mix for Impressionist and Modern Art, 2007-2017
  • Christie’s Has a $25m Picasso Marie-Thérèse for NovemberChristie’s Has a $25m Picasso Marie-Thérèse for November

Filed Under: Collectors, General, Museums Tagged With: Cubism, Leonard Lauder, Met, Picasso

About Marion Maneker

LiveArt

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

  • 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
 

Loading Comments...