Art Market Blog - artmarketblog.com » christie’s

November New York Art Auctions Confuse Market – artmarketblog.com

admin — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:51:48 +0000

November New York Art Auctions Confuse Market – artmarketblog.com

The recent round of Contemporary, Modern and Impressionist art auctions produced some interesting results that require some serious analysis to understand. Thanks to Sotheby’s November Contemporary Art Evening Sale, which saw the record sale of four Clyfford still paintings, there has been plenty of confident banter surrounding the current strength of the art market. But is this confidence misplaced? A more widespread and objective analysis of recent art auctions would suggest so. Take the Clyfford Still auction for instance. The entire auction produced a total of $315,837,000, which was well above the $192,000,000 – 270,800,000 pre-sale estimate, and was also the company’s third highest Contemporary Art Evening sale total. However, the four Clyfford Still paintings made up $114 million of the sale total against a $71 million high estimate.

Considering that the four Clyfford Still paintings paintings were a complete and utter anomaly because of the fact that they should never really have gone to auction, and also because they represent a once in a lifetime, never to be repeated opportunity, I think it only fair that they be removed from the equation. After all, if 95% of Still’s oeuvre were not out of bounds it is unlikely that the prices being achieved for his work would be anything close to what they have been, right? What the sale of the Still paintings tells us about the market is that there is still plenty of money available when an opportunity arises to make a highly significant purchase.

Next on the agenda is Gerhard Richter whose Abstraktes Bild (849-3) 1997 set a new auction record for the artists of $20.8 million. A total of eight Richter paintings were sold by Sotheby’s for a total of $74 million against a pre-sale expectation of $27 million, which is a great result but not an unexpected one considering that a major retrospective of Richter’s work has recently opened at the Tate Modern in London. Sotheby’s should be congratulated for the success achieved with the sale of the Richter paintings that do deserve to be recognised in their sale total unlike the Still paintings.

What concerns me most is that when the prices achieved for the eight Richter works and the four Still works are combined the result is a startling total of $188,000,000 which is more than half of the entire total of the Sotheby’s sale. The reason this concerns me is that the numbers could easily be used to justify a bullish view of the art market – and have been numerous times over recent weeks. Although Sotheby’s did achieve an excellent result and deserve to be praised for winning the opportunity to sell the Still paintings, the results need to be approached with caution and a healthy dose of skepticism.

Christie’s didn’t fair as well as Sotheby’s with their Post-War and Contemporary Art Evening Sale managing 90% sold by lot and 87% by value for a total of $247,597,000 against an estimate of $226,450,000-$312,340,000. With commissions removed, Christie’s failed to break the low estimate although they did manage to set 16 new world auction records for artists including Roy Lichtenstein, Paul McCarthy, Charles Ray and Louise Bourgeois.

Phillips de Pury did okay with their Contemporary Art Evening Sale achieving 94% by value and 84% by lot with a sale total of $71,292,500 against an estimate of $66,560,000 – 97,970,000. A new world auction record was set for Richard Serra whose Palms sold for $2,322,500 against an estimate of $2,500,000 – 3,500,000.

The all important Impressionist and Modern Art sales failed to produce any spectacular results. Sotheby’s once again triumped over Christie’s with an evening sale total of $199,804,500 against a pre-sale estimate of $167.6-229.9 million and a sold by lot rate of 84%. Exceeding the May 2011 sale total, Sotheby’s set new auction records for Gustave Caillebotte, Tamara de Lempicka and Maxime Maufra with the top price of the auction going to Klimt’s Litzlberg am Attersee (Litzlberg on the Attersee) which sold for $40,402,500. The unusual “in excess of $25 million” estimate provided for Litzlberg am Attersee (Litzlberg on the Attersee) suggests that Sotheby’s had were unsure about how successful this work would be and thus chose to provide an estimate that ensured the greatest chance of a positively perceived result.

Christie’s Impressionist and Modern Art evening sale was estimated to achieve more than $215,000 but only managed a total of $140,773,500. The highlight of the sale was Max Ernst’s The Stolen Mirror, which sold for $16,322,500 against an estimate of $4,000,000-6,000000, setting a new artist record that more than tripled the artist’s previous record. A new auction record was also set for any single print sold at auction with Pablo Picasso’s La femme qui pleure selling for $5,122,500 against an estimate of $1.5-2.5 million.

Overall, the major November auctions produced relatively consistent results that suggest a market dominated by buyers who have the money to spend, and are interested in purchasing fine art, but only at the safe haven high end of the market. The fact that the market is relying on the work of a small number of highly desirable artists is concerning as it leaves a very small margin for error.

image:

Max Ernst (1891-1976)
The Stolen Mirror
signed ‘max ernst’ (lower right); signed again, dated and inscribed ‘max ernst 1941 product of France’ (on the reverse)
oil on canvas
25 5/8 x 31 7/8 in. (65 x 81 cm.)
Painted in 1941

**Nicholas Forrest is an art market analyst, art critic and journalist based in Sydney, Australia. He is the founder of http://www.artmarketblog.com, writes the art column for the magazine Antiques and Collectibles for Pleasure and Profit and contributes to many other publications.

What Price Art Auction Philanthropy? – artmarketblog.com

admin — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:15:51 +0000

What Price Art Auction Philanthropy? – artmarketblog.com

Christie’s 16^th of February Post War and Contemporary Art Evening Auction saw a staggering new auction record for a living French artist when Martial Raysse’s “L’année dernière à Capri (titre exotique), (Last Year in Capri (Exotic Title))” sold for €4,851,241 against an estimate of €1,000,000 – 1,500,000. The problem is, at least as far as the value of the work is concerned, that the painting was sold to benefit a charitable foundation. Now, before the angry emails start flooding in, I want to state that I think it is great that someone is donating the proceeds of the sale to charity. What does concern me are the effects that this sale could have on the way people perceive the value of this particular work, and the artist’s work in general.

I have no doubt that the price the bidders were willing to pay for this work was significantly influenced by the fact that the proceeds of the sale were going to be donated to charity. Although it may seem that Raysse would have benefited significantly from this sale and from the charitable association, I’m not so sure he has. You see, people are always going to question whether this work would have sold for such a high price if the proceeds of the sale were not going to charity. What makes this question even more relevant is the fact that Raysse is not the most well known or desirable artist and is nowhere near as highly regarded as his American pop artist counterparts. There is, however, significant evidence to suggest that Raysse was beginning to become more highly regarded and more popular, which makes this whole matter even more complicated.

According to artprice.com, the prices being paid for Raysse’s work at auction have been quite solid over the past few years with many works fetching six figures, and a few breaking the one million pound mark. As far as I could see, the previous auction record for Raysse was achieved with a sculpture titled “Snack”, which was sold by Sotheby’s London for 1.26 million pounds in 2008. It is worth noting at this point that a huge majority of the works by Raysse that have been sold at auction were sold in Paris. This doesn’t bode well for Raysse’s reputation as it makes the auction record, which was set in London, seem even more anomalous.

Given the current trend towards works that can be associated with the concepts of arte-povera and primitivism, it would make sense that Raysse’s work would be experiencing a surge in popularity. As an artist who is known for his mixed media collages and sculptures that include “found objects”, both of which are the type of works that are driving the current arte-povera trend, there is every chance that “L’année dernière à Capri (titre exotique), (Last Year in Capri (Exotic Title))” would have still exceeded the estimate and achieved the record had the proceeds not been going to charity. The problem is that we will never know for sure. Instead of this being an excellent chance for Raysee’s work to really excel at auction, this whole situation has generated a big question mark surrounding the true value of Raysse’s work. Given that Raysse’s work rarely appears at auction outside France, there may not be another chance like this for a long time, which is a really big shame. Hopefully Raysse’s work will continue to become more well know and more highly valued as it deserves to be.

image:

Martial Raysse (b. 1936)
L’année dernière à Capri (titre exotique)
(Last Year in Capri (Exotic Title))
signed twice and titled ‘MARTIAL RAYSSE “L’année dernière à Capri” (titre exotique)’ (on the reverse)
oil, paper collage, glycerospray and painted wooden frame on board
72 3/8 x 53in. (184 x 134.6cm.)
Executed in 1962

Avoiding a 2011 Art Market Armageddon – artmarketblog.com

admin — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:14:43 +0000

Avoiding a 2011 Art Market Armageddon – artmarketblog.com

Don’t get me wrong, I am very glad that the art market has rebounded so quickly, but I am also extremely concerned about the way the art market is progressing. As I have mentioned many times before, the long term stability and viability of the art market is dependent upon the existence of a certain level of connection and interaction with the cultural sector, as well as certain level of participation from connoisseurs and collectors (as opposed to trophy hunters). Time and time again we see the art market take a dive when the value of art becomes so disconnected from the cultural and art historical value of the artists and their work that the only justification for the prices being paid is related to social status and egotism. At some point in the progression of an art market boom the purchase of fine art turns into nothing more than a game of one-upmanship – a game where a group of the super wealthy compete with each other to see who is ultimately going to be the biggest fool. As much as the super rich like spending money, there is always going to be a point in time when even they think that the prices are too high and have to pull out leaving one lucky punter with the “biggest fool” award.

Although the internet has had a positive effect on the art market, there is also the potential for the internet to further distance the connection between the cultural/art historical value of a work of art and the price being paid for a work. Think of it this way: the less exposure and interaction one has with the work they are purchasing, the less opportunity there is to analyse, assess and criticise those works. This leads to a very concerning situation where mediocre works by well known artists are being sold for prices that are way too high – a situation that I am all too familiar with. An indicator of the increasing level of disconnection between the buyer and the object is the reported increase in online bidding by Christie’s. According to a recent Christie’s press release:

“In 2010 online bidding via Christie’s LIVE^TM continued to deliver a large number of winning bids and new registrants. Over a quarter (28%) of Christie’s clients now bid online, a 5% increase on 2009 and the total value of lots sold online rose 69% to $114.4 million including premium.”

Add to this the recent launch of the first major online only art fair, the VIP art fair, and the new record for a work of art sold at any online art auction set by Saffronart in December 2010 with Arpita Singh’s ‘Wish Dream’ which fetched an extraordinary $2.24 million, and one can begin to see the impact that the internet is having on the art market. 2010 was a big year for the online art market that saw investors and collectors make progress into unchartered territory where they had previously feared to tread. That final leap of faith that had previously prevented the purchase of big ticket items online has finally been taken, and has really opened the flood gates. But at what cost?

Even more of a concern is the recent launch by a Chinese organisation of an online exchange for trading shares in works of art. Although many have talked about starting such a venture, no-one has been able to come up with a successful model – up until now. The market, operated by the government-backed Tianjin Cultural Artwork Exchange, is considered a financial innovation by the Tianjin municipal government. According to a Chinese government website:

“As we are told, the greatest highlight of TCAE is “trading of artwork shares”, namely public market trading based on the shares of the property right owned after the subject matter is evenly divided into certain shares. The cultural artwork can be traded through the e-platform of the exchange after being divided into shares. Investors can extend investment channels through investment in artwork shares.”

Also getting on the fine art share stock exchange bandwagon is a French company called A&F Markets who launched their exchange in January of this year. According to a press release:

“As of today, our clients will be able to see the first selection of artworks on the market, the price and volume of the shares available, discover how the marketplace works and what it offers and finally open an Art Exchange account in order to be the first to buy shares,” confirmed Pierre Naquin, founder of A&F Markets.”

Continuing on the subject of art investment, another sign that the art market is regaining its boom time momentum is the emergence of a new art investment fund. Emirates NBD, the UAE’s largest bank, announced at the beginning of February that they would be starting a new art investment fund as a means of tapping into the $10 billion Middle East art market. Clients will also be offered art investment advice from London based The Fine Art Find Group who have partnered with Emirates NBD.

Another worrying trend that has emerged during the first round of 2011 major art auctions is a noticeable resurgence in the interest of the work of artists who are boom time trophy hunter favourites such as Francis Bacon, Bridget Riley, Damien Hirst, Chris Ofili and Lucien Freud and others. Although it appears that buyers are remaining relatively conservative when it comes to purchasing works by these less “secure” artists, it is likely that it will not be too long before those irrational and indiscriminate demons rear their ugly heads. I also start to get worried when Surrealism takes centre stage because of the way the market approaches surrealist art. You see, Surrealism has become a sort of novelty movement that people like because it is unusual and intriguing. Unfortunately, few people understand Surrealist art and even fewer people want to understand it. Although the Surrealist art movement is a very intellectual movement, the complexity of the philosophies behind it tend to put most people off trying to understand the meaning behind Surrealist works of art.

When demand for Surrealist works increases dramatically I tend to think that the market is once again seeking trophy works of art that provide that instant visual gratification as opposed to an approach to the purchase of works of art that focuses more on scholarly and connoisseurial factors. Both Christie’s and Sotheby’s held sales during February that included a strong contingent of Surrealist works with Christie’s going as far as to hold a separate “Art of the Surreal” sale alongside their February 9 Impressionist and Modern Art sale. Christie’s held their big sale the night before Sotheby’s and got the ball rolling with a new auction record set for a work by Pierre Bonnard and a new auction record for a work by Dali. Although Christie’s set the Surrealist bar very high, Sotheby’s replied with a new auction record for Dali with ‘Portrait de Paul Eluard’ thus beating the Dali record set by Christie’s the night before. The price paid for the ‘Portrait de Paul Eluard’ was also a new auction record for any Surrealist work of art which gives Sotheby’s Surrealism bragging rights over Christie’s.

I wish I could say that I have confidence in the direction that the art market is heading, but recent events just can’t be ignored. As long as buyers continue to buy discriminately, there shouldn’t be a problem. I somehow, however, doubt this will be the case.

How to Avoid Dirty Art Auction Tricks – artmarketblog.com

artforprofits — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:14:39 +0000

How to Avoid Dirty Art Auction Tricks – artmarketblog.com

Having focused my last few posts on the issues surrounding the questionable practices of some art auction houses, I thought it important to let people know how they can avoid becoming a victim of dirty art auction tricks and tactics. The only real way to avoid becoming a victim of the art auction houses is to ask questions and to know which questions to ask. Below is a list of questions, and the reasoning behind each question, that will ensure that you know exactly where you stand.

Seven questions every buyer should ask before bidding on a work of art:

1. Does the auction house or anyone associated with the auction house have an ownership interest in the work of art I am thinking of purchasing?

(The reason you should ask this question is that if an auction house has an ownership interest in a work of art you should question whether this would have an effect on the way the auction house markets and presents the work of art in question – as well as the final price. Auction houses are required to indicate in auction catalogues when they have an ownership interest in a work of art.)

2. Is the auction house employee who is advising me on my purchases also representing the seller of the works they are advising me on?

(The reason you should ask this question is that it is not unknown for a specialist assigned to a particular client as an advisor to be representing the seller of the works they are advising the buyer to purchase. If you are assigned an expert advisor by an auction house make sure they are not representing the seller of the particular works you are interested in.)

3. Is there any doubt regarding the authenticity or provenance of the works of art I am interested in purchasing?

(The reason you need to ask this question is that auction houses are not always forthcoming with information regarding authenticity. It is worth while making sure that you are getting what you are paying for.)

4. Who has authenticated the works of art I am interested in purchasing, what qualifications do they have and what evidence was the authentication based on?

(The reason you need to ask this question is that auction houses have been known to justify the attribution they make using less than reliable information.)

5. When were the works of art I am interested in purchasing last consigned to an auction and what was the result?

(The reason that you should ask this question is that auction houses are not always forthcoming with information regarding the consignment history of a work of art. Auction houses have been known to sell the same work of art a number of times within a short period of time and not disclose this information to buyers. It is important to know this information as it is likely there is reason that this has occurred. It is also important to know this information because a work of art being passed in at auction can gain a stigma that can reduce the value.)

6. Does the auction house allow the auctioneer to bid in his own sale?

(It should be obvious why one needs to ask this question, and yes, some auction houses to allow the auctioneer to bid on their own sale.)

7. What is the condition of the works of art I am interested in purchasing and has a condition report been completed on each work?

(Auction houses are not always forthcoming with information regarding the condition of a work of art. It is generally expected that buyers will inspect a work of art themselves and will be aware of the condition of the work of art. If you are not able to assess the condition of a work of art then hire an expert.)

Halsey Minor Battles Sotheby’s Again – artmarketblog.com

artforprofits — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:10:31 +0000

Halsey Minor Battles Sotheby’s Again – artmarketblog.com

In my previous post I made reference to a court case involving CNet founder Halsey Minor who sued Sotheby’s in 2008 for allegedly failing to fully declare when they had an ownership stake in works that they sold him. Sotheby’s won the case and were awarded $6.64 million in outstanding debts. I mentioned that I was not aware of whether Minor had appealed the decision – well, just after publishing this post, I received an email from Halsey Minor to inform me that he had in fact made an appeal on the 24^th of November 2010. Minor will be hoping for another positive outcome like the one he received when he sued Christie’s in December 2008 for waiting too long to return some of his art after failing to sell the works on his behalf, and not returning the works when they said they would. Minor won the case against Christie’s and was awarded $8.5 million which was the calculated drop in value that the works in question experienced while in Christie’s possession. According to Minor in an email sent to myself: “in 8 hours a jury found Christie’s guilty of Fraud, Theft and Failure to Honor a Contract and awarded me $8.5 million”.

As the appeal against Sotheby’s is still being processed I cannot comment on the case, but I would like to revisit the case Minor won against Christie’s. The reasoning behind Christie’s holding the paintings by Richard Prince that Minor had consigned to Christie’s, but had failed to sell, was that Minor owed Christie’s $12 million at the time for works that he had purchased through the auction house. Christie’s essentially held the Prince paintings to ransom in the hope that they would be able to recoup some of the money that Minor owed them. Unfortunately for Christie’s, this was not an ethical means of encouraging Minor to pay them what he owed, and was what essentially won the case for Minor. Christie’s also had a $1.5 million breach of contract counterclaim for when Minor declined to pay for work that he had purchased at auction which Christie’s won. Mind you, the win for Christie’s was no-where near as significant as Minor’s win.

At the end of the day one expects a reputable and highly respected business like a major auction house to act ethically, morally and legally at all times regardless of how their clients act. Although I would never condone illegal or immoral action by a client of an auction house, considering the number of clients that the large auction houses deal with it is almost inevitable that some of them will not play by the rules. A major auction house, on the other hand, should never be seen to conduct their business in a way that breaches ethical, moral or legal boundaries – yet there is plenty of evidence that they have. What is even more disturbing is that the auction houses are so powerful that even the most discrediting mud seems not to stick.

To be continued……..

The Art Auction House Sin Files – artmarketblog.com

artforprofits — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 05:47:09 +0000

The Art Auction House Sin Files – artmarketblog.com

Where does it all end? When will people realise that although the questionable practices exhibited by some auction houses are legal, they should not be tolerated? How far will art auction houses be able to go before someone steps in and says ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !! Let’s take a look at the history of sins committed, and those allegedly committed, by the big three art auction houses.

The most famous art auction house scandal took place in 2000 when Christie’s and Sotheby’s were dragged through the mud because of allegations that they had formed a “cartel” and were agreeing in advance to fix commission rates. The price-fixing scheme violated federal antitrust law by eliminating competitive choice and cost customers millions of dollars. Christie’s dobbed on Sotheby’s and were given immunity from prosecution for their information. Sotheby’s ended up taking most of the flak with several senior members getting the boot and two senior managers, A. Alfred Taubman and Dede Brooks, both getting jail sentences. Sotheby’s, Christie’s and their owners also paid a civil lawsuit settlement of $512 million.

In September of 2004, Forbes magazine reported that Christie’s were allegedly withholding information regarding the authenticity of objects from clients. These allegations were made by Canadian newspaper heiress Taylor Lynne Thomson who went on to sue Christie’s. According to Forbes magazine: “Thomson sued and British courts ruled in May that Christie’s had been too lax in its catalog description, leaving out qualifications to its classification of the urns as being “Louis XV.” The judge highlighted the auction specialists’ decision to remove the qualifying words “possibly Italian,” which would’ve raised the possibility of the urns being far less valuable 19th-century copies.”

Christie’s controversial purchase of the highly regarded gallery Haunch of Venison in 2007 caused a flurry of opinions, many of called the sale a conflict of interest and accused Christie’s of blurring the lines between what galleries and auction houses offer. Christie’s wasn’t the first auction house to purchase a gallery though as Sothebys also made a foray into the gallery world by purchasing Noortman Master Paintings in 2006.

In 2008, CNet founder Halsey Minor sued Sotheby’s for allegedly failing to fully declare when they had an ownership stake in works that they were selling. Sotheby’s won the case and were awarded $6.64 million in outstanding debts. Minor can appeal but, as far as I know, has yet to do so.

In February of this year Christie’s allegedly settled with a brother and sister who sued Christie’s for allegedly failing to identify a painting that they consigned to the auction house as being by Titian. The painting was sold for £8,000 by Christie’s in 1993 as a painting ‘from the school of Titian’. It was determined after the painting had been sold by Christie’s that it was in fact a genuine Titian which was worth in the region of 4 million pounds. The siblings claimed that Christie’s failed to competently research and advise on the painting’s value when it was sold in 1993.

In May of this year (2010), Jeanne Marchig, a Swiss animal philanthropist, launched a law suit against Christie’s for failing to identify a painting owned by Marchig, which was sold by Christie’s for $19,500 in 1998, as a painting by Leonardo worth upwards of 100 million pounds. Christie’s sold the painting as a mere ‘19th century German’ work for which Marchig is suing Christie’s for ‘wilful refusal and failure to investigate the plaintiff’s believed attribution, to comply with its fiduciary obligations, negligence, breach of warrant to attribute the drawing correctly, and making false statements in connection with the auction and sale’. Christie’s disagrees with the claims that the painting is a Leonardo. Reaching an outcome with this case is likely to take quite a while.

The most recent art auction scandal involves auction house Phillips de Pury and their ‘Carte Blanche’ sale which took place on November the 8th (2010). So many issues have been raised in relation to this auction that it would take a series of posts to explain them all so I will only mention the most serious allegations. To begin with, the so called “curator” of the auction, Philippe Ségalot, not only was directly responsible for negotiating and organising the consignment of works for the sale, but he also advised some of the buyers – a situation that could be seen as a serious conflict of interest. If this wasn’t enough of a conflict of interest, Segalot is reported to have bid on works himself presumably on behalf of his clients. There have also been several reports that the auctioneer on the night, Simon de Pury, failed to make it clear to the audience when works failed to sell, which auctioneers are legally required to do. By failing to announce the failure of a work to sell the auctioneer could be seen to be attempting to deceive the audience by inducing a false sense of success and excitement.

These are only a few of the more serious scandals that have arisen as a result of some questionable tactics and practices adopted by the world’s top art auction houses. Are these the sort of businesses that you want to business with? Would you trust such a company to treat you fairly and honestly? I have made it my mission to make art collectors and investors more aware of what is happening in the art auction world and hopefully at the same time encourage the art auction houses to be more honest, ethical and transparent. Stay tuned, there is more to come………

The Rise of Victorian Paintings Pt. 3 – artmarketblog.com

artforprofits — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:41:55 +0000

The Rise of Victorian Paintings Pt. 3 – artmarketblog.com

Henry Herbert La Thangue's Leaving Home

Following the sale of the Koch collection in 1993, the next major sale of a collection of Victorian paintings came in 2003 when the Forbes collection was auctioned by Christie’s over a two day period. The Forbes collection, considered one of the 20th century’s most important collections of Victorian art, was put together by Malcolm and Christopher Forbes of the Forbes Magazine family. Malcolm and his son Christopher began the collection after Christopher made the comment to his father that, for the price of a minor Monet hanging on the wall of his office, he could assemble one of the world’s great collections of Victorian art. Malcolm, a lover of bargains and challenges, liked the sound of this idea and so, with his son Christopher, began collecting. Malcolm Forbes died in 1990 leaving his son with the collection that they had both had put together with passion over a thirty year period.

Unfortunately for Christopher, a family squabble is rumoured to have meant that the collection needed to be sold, even though Christopher was quoted as saying at the time that he would not attend the sale because “it would be too sad.” Among the numerous outstanding works that were included in the sale were John Martin’s Pandemonium; Sir Edwin Henry Landseer’s ‘Scene in Chillingham Park: Portrait of Lord Ossulston’ or ‘Death of the Wild Bull’; John Phillip’s Early Career of Murillo; Dicksee’s Chivalry; and W.H. Deverell’s masterpiece, Twelfth Night. The sale was a huge success, especially considering the poor market sentiment at the time, with 75% of the works finding new homes for a sale total of 16.9 million pounds. Most exciting of all was the 63 artist auction records set during the sale for artists such as Henry Herbert La Thangue, Sir Edward Landseer and John Martin.

There is no doubt that the success of the sale was bolstered significantly by the association with a famous family – an association that Christie’s took full advantage of. A large contingent of buyers from the Continent, who would usually not be interested in the work of Victorian British paintings, indicated that the Forbes name was a big draw-card. Regardless of the fact that many of the buyers were motivated to a large degree by the provenance of the paintings, the success of the sale and the associated publicity gave the market for Victorian art a major boost. The Forbes sale was a huge milestone for Victorian paintings and paved the way for what was to be a slow but steady revival for Victorian art.

To be continued…………

Part 1:

http://artmarketblog.com/2010/02/25/the-rise-of-victorian-paintings-part-1-artmarketblog-com/

Part 2:

http://artmarketblog.com/2010/03/04/the-rise-of-victorian-paintings-pt-2-artmarketblog-com/

Chinese Artefacts Attract Massive Prices – artmarketblog.com

artforprofits — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:08:03 +0000

Chinese Artefacts Attract Massive Prices – artmarketblog.com

Chinese famille rose bowl - Sold for $115,000 against a $300 estimate at Brunk Auctions

I don’t think that many people, except maybe the Chinese, realise how much wealth exists in China as well as other areas of Asia. The last few weeks have produced many examples of the unjustifiably massive amounts of money that are being paid for objects of Chinese decorative art by wealthy Chinese collectors. Take, for instance, the AU$32,000 paid for a Chinese carved wooden panel by a Chinese collector at an Australian auction which had an original estimate of AU$600. How about the US$58,400 achieved at an iGavel.com online auction for a large modern Chinese carved celadon jade phoenix form vase against an estimate of only US$1200 -$1800 – a huge amount for what was identified by iGavel as a modern piece with no real historical or provenencial value.

Christie’s Asian Art Week produced even more astonishing results that really do make one question the motivation of the buyers, as well as their sanity. How much disposable wealth would one have to have to pay US$1,426,500 for a Chinese Zitan stand and cover that was originally estimated to sell for between US$20,000 and $30,000. Yes, it is a very rare object, but paying almost one and a half million dollars for it when it was valued at around one sixtieth of that amount seems ridiculous. Almost as crazy was the US$362,000 paid for a Chinese bronze ritual food vessel that also had a US$20,000-$30,000 estimate.

Over at North Carolina USA based Brunk Auctions (http://www.brunkauctions.com/), two Chinese items fetched well over (actually massively over!!) their estimate. The first, a small Chinese porcelain bowl (see image), went for an amazing US$115,000 against an estimate of US$300, and a Chinese vase soared to US$105,800 against a US$4000 estimate.

A VERY RARE IMPERIALLY INSCRIBED ZITAN STAND AND COVER sold by Christies for $1,426,500 against an estimate of $20,000 - 30,000

A sale price for an item at auction that massively exceeds the estimate is usually put down to an incorrect appraisal by the auction house - as long as it is an isolated incident. The sheer number of Chinese items of decorative art that are selling for prices well above their appraised value could not be all the result of incorrect valuation or assessment. So what is driving the market for these objects to such dizzying heights?. I suspect that pride and status have a significant role to play. No disrespect to Asian men, but they do tend to be very proud and do not like to be beaten. There is also the bragging rights that paying ridiculous amounts of money for an object can bring. Yes, some of the objects being purchased are rare but not rare enough to justify the prices being paid. I can’t help but think back to the art market boom of the late 80′s, early 90′s, when wealthy Japanese business men drove the market for Impressionist works of art into the stratosphere. Quality was not of great concern to these Japanese buyers who were more interested in art as a status symbol than anything else. I suspect that we are seeing a similar situation at the moment with wealthy Chinese buyers and Chinese artefacts.

China is undoubtedly a source of great wealth and appears to not have been as severely affected by the global financial crisis as the USA or England. There appears to be a large number of wealthy Chinese buyers who have enough disposable income to make completely unjustifiable and quite frankly absurd purchases. One cannot help but predict that China will continue to become an even strong force on the global market for art and fine objects in the near future. Be wary though, such wealth and careless spending is a recipe for super inflated prices.

No Related Posts

Kees Van Dongen Revived and Revalued – artmarketblog.com

artforprofits — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:00:32 +0000

Kees Van Dongen Revived and Revalued – artmarketblog.com

KEES VAN DONGEN (1877-1968) Le narrateur et Albert Bloch à la maison close avec le cachet de l'atelier 'Van Dongen' (en bas à droite) aquarelle, gouache et traces de mine de plomb sur papier 24.5 x 21.2 cm. (9 5/8 x 8 3/8 in.) Exécuté vers 1946-47

The first major retrospective held in North America of work by Dutch born French artist Kees Van Dongen (1877-1968) was held at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts from the January 22 to April 19. This event is sure to have played a part in the exceptional results achieved by Christie’s for a collection of works by Van Dongen sold on the 20th of May as part of the Art Impressionniste Et Modern sale held in Paris. A total of ten watercolour paintings by Van Dongen were included in the sale the most interesting of which were eight works originally from the Proust collection which depict various different street and scenes of high society. Each of these scenes were painted by Van Dongen as illustrations for a famous book by French author Marcel Proust titled ‘A la recherche du Temps perdu’ (In Search of Lost Time). A total of 77 watercolours were painted by Van Dongen for the book which is a memoir/autobiographical novel that consists of seven volumes and a total of around 3200 pages. Making these paintings even more desirable is the fact that, according to Christie’s, they will be all included in the forthcoming Kees Van Dongen catalogue raisonne being prepared by Jacques Chalom Des Cordes under the sponsorship of the Wildenstein Institute. It is noted in the catalogue that an attestion of inclusion will be given to the buyer of each work.

Each of the eight illustrations by Van Dongen for the book by Proust had estimates of either €25,000 – 35,000 or €20,000-30,000. The least successful of the paintings still managed to exceed the estimate of €25,000 – €35,000 selling for €49,000 and the most successful of the paintings sold for more than five times the €30,000 high estimate reaching an amazing €163,000. According to Christie’s the main buyers were American and European collectors. The results for all eight works were as follows:

Lot 41, Sale 5563, Paris
KEES VAN DONGEN (1877-1968)Le narrateur et Albert Bloch à la maison close
estimate: €25,000 – €35,000
price realized €121,000 ($165,029)

Lot 42, Sale 5563, Paris
KEES VAN DONGEN (1877-1968)Gilberte Swann et des amies au Bois de Boulogne
estimate: €25,000 – €35,000
price realized: €139,000 ($189,579)

Lot 43, Sale 5563, Paris
KEES VAN DONGEN (1877-1968)Les Permissionnaires
estimate: €20,000 – €30,000
price realized: €163,000 ($222,312)

Lot 44, Sale 5563, Paris
KEES VAN DONGEN (1877-1968)La nouvelle Gilberte
estimate: €25,000 – €35,000
price realized: €151,000 ($205,945)

Lot 45, Sale 5563, Paris
KEES VAN DONGEN (1877-1968)Le Mariage de Robert de Saint-Loup et de Gilberte Swann
estimate: €25,000 – €35,000
price realized: €49,000 ($66,830)

Lot 46, Sale 5563, Paris
KEES VAN DONGEN (1877-1968)Le Baron Charlus à la gare de Doncières
estimate: €20,000 – €30,000
price realized: €109,000 ($148,663)

Lot 47, Sale 5563, Paris
KEES VAN DONGEN (1877-1968)Le narrateur avec deux servantes
estimate: €20,000 – €30,000
price realized €61,000 ($83,196)

Lot 48, Sale 5563, Paris
KEES VAN DONGEN (1877-1968)Robert de Saint-Loup et le Prince de Borodino chez le barbier de Doncières
estimate: €20,000 – €30,000
price realized: €85,000 ($115,930)

The major retrospective just held in Canada and the catalogue raisonne of his work that is in the process of being completed are all major milestones for the Van Dongen and his work. As one would expect, the market has reacted positively to these major milestones as well as the highly desirable provenance and also the connection with author Marcel Proust and his book ‘A la recherche du Temps perdu’. Kees Van Dongen was a highly regarded artist during his career but has been somewhat overlooked since his death. Consequently, Van Dongen is an underrated and undervalued artist whose work is only just starting to receive the recognition that it deserves.

Dissecting Christie’s Feb 09 Art Auction Pt. 2 – artmarketblog.com

artforprofits — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:37:23 +0000

Dissecting Christie’s Feb 09 Art Auction Pt. 2 – artmarketblog.com

A few weeks ago I posted the first half of the results from the Christie’s February 2009 Impressionist and Modern Art auction along with information relating to whether each lot had been sold at auction previously and if it had, when it was sold and how much it sold for. My purpose for doing this is to show that there is always far more to art auction results than the statistics provided by the auction houses will tell you. Just because an auction results in a high hammer total, high percentage of lots sold by value and a high percentage of lost sold by number doesn’t mean that the auction was a complete success. The statistics that the auction houses provides could be masking the fact that a majority of the works sold in the auction had been sold at auction before for a higher amount meaning that the people selling these works were selling at a loss. Although the purpose of the auction house is to sell works of art and not to ensure people make a profit on the works they are selling; the factors that may be beyond the control of the auction house, such as whether a person makes a profit or not, should still be used as a measure of the success of an auction. In the next post in this series I will look at the data I have provided in this and the previous post and provide an analysis of the data.

See part 1 of Dissecting Christie’s Feb 09 Art Auction here:

http://artmarketblog.com/2009/02/17/dissecting-christies-feb-09-art-auction-pt-1-artmarketblogcom/

Continuation of data relating to lots sold at the Christie’s February 09 Impressionist and Modern Art auction:

-Otto Mueller (1874-1930) Sitzender Akt in Landschaft, c.1927: Sold for £769,250 ($1,106,182) against an estimate of £650,000 – £850,000 ($926,250 – $1,211,250). No previous auction sale history

-Gustav Klimt (1862-1918) Dame en face mit plisiertem Kleid (Damenbildnis en face) , c. 1898: Sold for £1,385,250 ($1,991,990) against an estimate of £600,000 – £800,000 ($855,000 – $1,140,000). Previously sold by Christie’s on the 9th of November 2004 for USD$1,000,000 (GBP 524,700) against an estimate of USD$750,000 – 950,000 which represents an increase in price of $991,990

-Marino Marini (1901-1980) Gentiluomo a cavallo, c. 1937: Sold for £769,250 ($1,106,182) against an estimate of £700,000 – £1,000,000 ($997,500 – $1,425,000). No previous auction sale history

-Ossip Zadkine (1890-1967) Torse de femme, c. 1925: Sold for £421,250 ($605,758) against an estimate of £300,000 – £500,000 ($427,500 – $712,500). No previous auction sale history

-Marc Chagall (1887-1985) Les mariés aux deux bouquets, c. 1980: Sold for £541,250 ($778,318) against an estimate of £400,000 – £600,000 ($570,000 – $855,000). No previous auction sale history

-Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) Buste d’homme, 1971: Sold for £1,497,250 ($2,153,046) against an estimate of £1,200,000 – £1,800,000 ($1,710,000 – $2,565,000). No previous auction sale history

-Max Ernst (1891-1976) Temptation of St. Anthony, 1945: Sold for £97,250 ($139,846) against an estimate of £100,000 – £150,000 ($142,500 – $213,750). No previous auction sale history

-Julio González (1876-1942) Le rêve (Le baiser) 4/6, c. 1934: Sold for £577,250 ($830,086) against an estimate of £400,000 – £600,000 ($570,000 – $855,000). Number 5 of the edition of 6 was sold by Christie’s in 2002 for GBP 220,000 against an estimate of GBP 250,000 – 350,000 which represents a theoretical increase in value of GBP 377,000.

-André Masson (1896-1987) Le météore, 1939: Sold for £169,250 ($243,382) against an estimate of £120,000 – £180,000 ($171,000 – $256,500). No previous auction sale history.

-Joan Miró (1893-1983) Femme entendant chanter le coq aux éclats violets, 1972: Sold for £892,450 ($1,283,343) against an estimate of £500,000 – £700,000 ($712,500 – $997,500). No previous auction sale history.

-Paul Delvaux (1897-1994) Faubourg, 1956: Sold for £277,250 ($398,686) against an estimate of £200,000 – £300,000 ($285,000 – $427,500). Previously sold by Sotheby’s in 1975 – price unknown

-Francis Picabia (1879-1953) Geminis, 1936: Sold for £385,250 ($553,990) against an estimate of £120,000 – £180,000 ($171,000 – $256,500). Previously offered for sale at Christie’s Paris in May 2008 but failed to on an estimate of EUR 250,000 – 350,000. Previously sold by Sotheby’s in 1975 – price unknown.

-Joan Miró (1893-1983) Personnage, 1976: Sold for £481,250 ($692,038) against an estimate of £280,000 – £380,000 ($399,000 – $541,500). Previously sold by Sotheby’s in February 2004 for GBP 172,000 against an estimate of GBP 150,000 – 200,000 which represents an increase in price of GBP 309,000.

To be continued…..

Art Market Blog - artmarketblog.com » christie’s

November New York Art Auctions Confuse Market – artmarketblog.com

Related Posts:

What Price Art Auction Philanthropy? – artmarketblog.com

Related Posts:

Avoiding a 2011 Art Market Armageddon – artmarketblog.com

Related Posts:

How to Avoid Dirty Art Auction Tricks – artmarketblog.com

Related Posts:

Halsey Minor Battles Sotheby’s Again – artmarketblog.com

Related Posts:

The Art Auction House Sin Files – artmarketblog.com

Related Posts:

The Rise of Victorian Paintings Pt. 3 – artmarketblog.com

Related Posts:

Chinese Artefacts Attract Massive Prices – artmarketblog.com

Related Posts:

Kees Van Dongen Revived and Revalued – artmarketblog.com

Related Posts:

Dissecting Christie’s Feb 09 Art Auction Pt. 2 – artmarketblog.com

Related Posts: