Singapore Lost the Battle to Become Asia’s Art Market Capital, Can It Recast Itself as Regional Center? Left out of last week’s announcement that Art Basel’s parent company, MCH, would develop a new art fair in Singapore opening October 31 and running through early November was any mention of the history of Singapore’s role in the global and Asian art market. For many years, the question in Asia was whether Singapore or Hong Kong would win out as the art capital of Asia. Singapore’s advantage was its role as the region’s city state where the rule of law and geographical neutrality suggested a natural advantage. For a time, several auction houses set up shop and the city sponsored a local arts scene to create an ecosystem that might build momentum. Then there’s the freeport.

Ultimately, Singapore lost out to Hong Kong which countered with the M+ museum complex on Kowloon but really won because of the Chinese government and the tax advantages to Mainland buyers. The global auction giants also landed here, not Singapore. Sotheby’s, Christie’s and Phillips were followed by outposts of Korean and Japanese dealers and auctioneers. Eventually, Art HK won the battle to be the region’s art fair over ArtStage Singapore when ArtBasel bought the fair and re-christened it ArtBasel HK.

Earlier this year, ArtStage Singapore’s founder Lorenzo Rudolf expressed his exasperation when he said at a press conference, “Strong economic growth has led to many new galleries and private museums opening in the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand. Everywhere, everywhere, the art scene booms. The only place we have stagnation is Singapore,” he said at the January fair preview, according to Enid Tsui in the South China Morning Post. “If the market doesn’t grow, then I will have to reflect on what I do. I sure won’t be sitting here until the end.”

Rudolf may not stick it out to the end but new fair announced for Singapore is being launched by Tim Etchells, the man behind Art HK. Frank Lasry, Managing Director of MCH Design and Regional Art Fairs, gave this rationale for establishing a fair where one has been dying. “Singapore is an important and very dynamic art location,” he said, “and requires a fair serving the Southeast Asian region at an international standard.” …

Why Did London’s National Gallery Pay £3.6m for a Gentileschi Painting It Could Have Bought for €2.3m: Ever since the news broke broadly in the mainstream press that the UK’s National Gallery had added an Artemesia Gentileschi self portrait to its meager holdings of female Old Master paintings, Bendor Grosvenor began to ask why the work had been purchased for such a steep mark up. The sale in France at Druout was for €2.3m in fees. Shortly after, the National Gallery bought it from dealers for £3.6m. The usual reasons for dealers making such a strong profit—the work needed to be cleaned, there were concerns about an export license, or the museum can’t act quickly enough—don’t seem to apply here, according to Grosvenor, but the museum gave this reponse:

•  “The National Gallery was not given notice of the painting’s appearance at auction in Paris, so we were only able to consider its acquisition once it had been purchased there by dealers. Though the price paid by the Gallery is considerably higher than that for which it sold in Paris, we sought independent views on what a fair market price would be prior to making its purchase (as is normal practice).” …

What’s Going On at Sotheby’s AAP? Sotheby’s AAP advisory service had a small setback a few weeks ago when Christy MacLear seemed to force out the news that she was no longer leading the consultancy’s effort to sign up artist’s estates. The usual strategy following a corporate hiccup like that is to keep out of the press and let the issue resolve itself. So it was as surprise to see the week open with a 2,000-word essay on Arnet’s news service about Allan Schwartzmann’s efforts to land two galleries as clients. The tl;dr on it is: AAP was asked to pitch two galleries. Neither signed.

The mystery of the story isn’t whether AAP has a conflict of interest in advising galleries because Sotheby’s is an auction house. On the face of it, that isn’t a conflict. The question is why any gallery would seek to hire Schwartzmann. What advice does a talented buy-side advisor—known for identifying overlooked historical artists—have for the sell side? Did the galleries inquiring for AAP’s services hope Schwartzmann would help with presentation of a similar historical artist? Just to be clear, for there to be a true conflict of interest, the gallery would have had to hope Schwartzmann would take payment from them on one side and bring his clients to their artists on the other side. No one is suggesting that is what was going on. But one does have to wonder why Schwartzmann would go out of his way to encourage this long piece when a flat denial of the rumor, we’re not consulting with any galleries, would have kept the issue to a minimum. …

Eric Shiner Joins White Cube: The conspiracy theorists are already trying to spin Eric Shiner’s appointment at White Cube as some harbinger of Sotheby’s strategy. That could be the case. There is a more likely explanation, though. Museum folks don’t always take too well to auction house or gallery life, cf, the Hauser, Wirth + Schimmel interlude. Even successful private dealers don’t always graft well into the auction house ecosystem, cf, John Good. For those looking for an even deeper meaning might skip over Shiner’s most recent employer and look back toward whence he came. We hope to have a bit more to day on the Warhol market for AMMpro subscribers later this Summer.

In the meantime, let’s give Mr. Shiner his due. White Cube announced this morning that Eric Shiner will join the gallery in the Fall as Artistic Director, New York:

• “Eric will be responsible for steering White Cube’s artistic strategy in the US, focusing on enhancing the gallery’s global network through outreach with institutions and artists. He will start the new role in autumn 2018, based at White Cube’s New York office.” …

Kodak’s Bitcoin Experiment Implodes: Kodak announced an ambitious blockchain strategy at the beginning of this year following Bitcoin’s stunning rise in late 2017. As the BTC price has fallen, the Kodak effort to sell branded mining equipment has cratered. Forbes also tells us that Kodak’s other initiative to create a digital rights coin has also foundered:

• “Kodak announced in January plans for an initial coin offering (ICO) on the KodakOne platform, allowing people to register their work, license photographs, and search the internet for unauthorized usage. However, just a day before was set to start, Kodak delayed the launch its cryptocurrency, citing the need to evaluate the status of potential investors.”