Priceless

One change we’ve seen creeping into the dealer system in NZ is price lists without prices. In big city galleries in the US and the UK it would not only be most unusual to find the prices displayed but you'd be bloody lucky to get one of the assistants (assuming you could get them to talk to you at all) to tell you any prices at all unless you were ‘known to the gallery.’

This is one of the reasons of course why art fairs have become so popular internationally. Collectors and particularly the art interested public (who previously had no chance of knowing what cost what) can now see the price of almost anything thanks to the unashamed competitive commercialism of the art fair culture.

In New Zealand transparency of pricing, in the primary dealer market anyway, has been the rule rather than the exception. Those sheets on the wall or in plastic folders almost always included the prices although of course deals have always been commonplace and serious collectors, like major buyers anywhere in the world, expect to be able to negotiate a bit of a haircut on the sticker price. But international practice may be taking hold here. Increasingly the prices don't seem to be easily available. From what we can see the Commerce Commission allows that “businesses are not obliged to display prices” but does encourage “businesses to price goods clearly.” Go figure...if you can find them.

Not fair

“What we are dealing with now is destination shopping. We bring the art to the collector rather than bringing the collector to the art. Fairs are beneath the dignity of art. To stand there in a booth and hawk your wares — it is just not how you sell art.”
New York art dealer Arne Glimcher, of the Pace Gallery berating art fairs in the NYT.

Department of LOL

“There is a difference between the ‘dealer’ and the ‘gallerist.’ A dealer matches an autonomous work of art with an individual or institution. A gallerist is in the business of discovering, developing, and introducing art that would not be known otherwise.”
Elizabeth Dee in a Art Basel panel discussion

Be nice

"If you're critical you're already out of the game."
Jeff Koons quoted by one of his dealers David Zwirner in New York magazine

SWOT

The closing of Sue Crockford’s gallery after 28 years didn’t exactly make the front page of the NZ Herald (or any other page for that matter) but it is significant. Apart from some remarkable exhibitions in a number of venues Crockford was also one of a new kind of dealer with ambition and international connections. She confidently included artists from beyond NZ on her roster so that Pae White, Daniel Buren, Boyd Webb, Bill Culbert and memorably once Sol LeWitt got to show in Auckland.

This focused style has repercussions for her artists. Along with other dealers many of her artists were solely represented in NZ by the gallery with most of them not showing South of the Bombay Hills. This leaves some big names without NZ representation. Most affected must be Bill Culbert who is representing NZ at Venice this year. Fortunately he does have Roslyn Oxley in Sydney to play pick up and that will matter this year, dealers play a much more important role in the public arena than they are often given credit for. They are the record holders and context setters and, as institutional curators and directors rarely visit artists’ studios, the gatekeepers who help shape our public collections. Sole dealer relationships tends to make their contribution and cooperation all the more critical.

So apart from Culbert who else is up for grabs? There are at least half a dozen younger artist who only have the Sue Crockford Gallery representing them in NZ along with some artists with serious reputations like Peter Robinson (who also shows at McLeavey), Gretchen Albrecht (who now has no dealer representation in NZ), John Reynolds (who will no doubt settle with Starkwhite) and Laurence Aberhart. There’s also a couple of estates. Gordon Walters and Julian Dashper were both key artists and both need commercial fizz to keep their lights from dimming while the public institutions inch toward survey exhibitions (Walters’ last survey was 30 years ago and Dashper has never had one in New Zealand).  The overseas artists probably won’t have Auckland at the top of their wish list but lets hope someone steps up for Culbert. But whichever way you look at it there is a lot to assimilate. The music has stopped, watch those chairs.

What’s the deal here?

Looks like we'll see some changes in the art gallery business this year. Sue Crockford has been doing a Diva like leaving-staying-leaving her space down by the water and has now put her gallery storage space there up for sale. This plus word of artists leaving surely heralds some downsizing at the very least. Also shedding skin is Hamish McKay who is talking about closing his gallery space in a couple of months. Fittingly that will fall close to the gallery’s 20th anniversary and follows long-time artist Michael Harrison taking a walk (part of Ivan Anthony’s you-will-be-mine-oh-yes-you-will-be-minepolicy?). Meanwhile a new space (well a new old space previously known as the Blue House) is opening in Mt Victoria to be called 'The Young' with its first show including the (forever young?) Peter Peryer. The mixing of projects and exhibitions (Lett showing Crockford’s artist Albrecht is a good example) and representation is further blurring the who-shows-where-and-who-owes-what-to-who stakes. In Wellington 30 Upstairs claims not to be a dealer because it “will not turn a profit on the sale of artworks.” Say what? Currently it has have Michael Lett (who presumably does want to make a profit) selling his own artists off the floor. Meanwhile off -shore a major auction house has closed itsgallery space while still holding onto the more lucrative private treaty sales that came with it, and there is more talk of the agent/ manager model taking over from the standard white cube display space one. A version of this could well be what McKay has in mind. One thing we can guarantee for the year ahead though - while there might be some closures, there will definitely be openings.

Image:  a sweet mix

Vanishing point

A recent panel discussion at the Auckland Art Gallery apparently prompted just one question from the audience. The panel of three art dealers was asked something along the lines of whether people were prepared to buy online without seeing the work. Dealer Michael Lett said yes, they were, but added that such sales are usually based on the buyer having a pre-existing knowledge of the artist. Dealer Gary Langsford even put some numbers around it. According to him local online art shopping cuts off at around $20,000 an item and internationally it hovers around $100,000.

Of course as Lett suggested sight-unseen purchasing has always been part of the art market. For example auction phone bids often rely on catalogue photographs and discussions with the auction house.  Still, when you add developments online with the suggestion that at least one prominent NZ gallery is thinking of closing shop, you have to wonder just how long bricks and mortar will remain the primary channel for art purchases. And if the worst were to happen, you also have to wonder what the hell we’ll all do with our Saturday mornings.

CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR COMMENTS: "Gary Langsford is not paying attention, or misinformed. In the New Zealand alone Ocula Black has sold many artworks online, entirely through the online auction system, one being for well over $200,000, a number of others for over $20,000. And international online sales have long left $100,000.

Light headed

“If I want drama, I’ll go to Broadway.”

Art dealer Richard Feigen commenting on a New York consumer affairs commissioner’s view that auctioneers taking bids from the chandelier added a bit of theatre for the clients

By the numbers

One of the most notable changes in the art museum and dealer gallery business over the last decade or so has been the growing importance of women as they take on increasingly influential positions. 

But what about the supply side? How do women make out at the coalface exhibiting their own work as artists? In a sample of 20 well known dealers taken from around NZ (the full list is here) the number of women artists represented compared to men is only around three for every seven men on dealer gallery rosters. (The average number of artists in the NZ dealer galleries represented by this sample is around 22 with the range being from a low of six to a high of 47 artists) 

So is the male/female ratio any different when women are the dealers? A bit, but not as much as you might expect. On average, male artists make up 58 percent of the representation by galleries operated by women. Of course there are outliers. Two of the six women running galleries in this sample have more than 50 percent of the artists they represent as women with the highest hitting 58 percent.

Slice of heaven

As expected New Zealand dealer galleries are starting to up their commission on sales to 50 percent. At least one major Auckland dealer has already done the deed so the others won't be far behind.

Of course that's not to say that top-selling artists won't be able to negotiate down, even below the 40 percent currently changed by most dealers.

Meanwhile down South there's the Dunedin School of Arts. Not content with simply hauling in government funding, private sector grants and student fees, this educational institution has informed fine arts students that it intends to raise its commission (yes, they charge commission on student sales) to 25 percent on their end of year exhibitions. The unconvincing argument for the increase is that the art school “subsidised the exhibition” and that “they made a loss.”

Then, in auction land, a new way of structuring commission based on performance is starting to appear internationally. Sotheby’s now have the following clause inserted in their contracts with sellers: “Sotheby’s performance related commission will be equal to the lower of (i) 2.00% of the hammer price achieved for that lot and (ii) the difference between the hammer price achieved for the lot and its final high presale estimate”.

In NZ where vendors of top-line items are managing to push auction sales commissions down or remove them completely, there is unlikely to be any shift in the short term, but the incentives for Sotheby’s are clear. They conclude almost 40 percent of their sales above the high estimate. Now that's not something that happens in NZ very often. 

Art of the deal

“Sometimes you will show somebody something. It’s not like you’re actually offering it for sale. You’re trying to see if somebody might be interested in something. This is a very common practice for art dealers.” (Page30 lines 4-10)

“There are times when I or other dealers will show somebody something to see if they might be interested in making a bid on it, and then contacting the owner of that painting to see if we can make a deal.” (Page 30 lines 16-21)

Q: “The question is, do you ever represent the buyer and seller on the same sales transaction on consignment without actually telling the buyer and seller that you are representing both sides of the deal?

A: I don’t necessarily tell them explicitly. I think it is implied in many transactions.

Q: Is the answer to my question that yes, you’ve done that, without explicitly telling both sides you’re representing both sides?

A: To be honest with you, the question hardly ever gets asked. I never get asked the question are you representing both sides. The question doesn’t come up.

Q: Whether or not it’s asked have you done that, represented both sides of the deal on a consignment transaction without telling the buyer and seller respectively that you’re representing both sides?

A: Yes, I have

Q: Have you done it frequently for a number of years?

A: Yes” (Page 151-52 lines 10-25, 2-16)

In the State of New York’s Supreme County court in Manhattan art dealer Larry Gagosian reveals all as he gives his videotaped deposition during a lawsuit involving the sale of a disputed Roy Lichtenstein enamel Girl in mirror. You can read the entire deposition here.

Mark it

Where would we be without the art market? As regular readers will know it's worth about two posts a week (bless it) for OTN. But in the UK art writer Sarah Thornton (Seven days in the art world) is as mad as hell and won’t take any more of it. She's stomped off leaving these ten reasons for not writing about the art market behind her.

1. It gives too much exposure to artists who attain high prices.

2. It enables manipulators to publicize the artists whose prices they spike at auction.

3. It never seems to lead to regulation.

4. The most interesting stories are libelous.

5. Oligarchs and dictators are not cool.

6. Writing about the art market is painfully repetitive.

7. People send you unbelievably stupid press releases.

8. It implies that money is the most important thing about art.

9. It amplifies the influence of the art market.

10. The pay is appalling.

OK, fair enough. Now here's our ten reasons why OTN still finds the art market totally entertaining:

1. You usually get it wrong (which is good medicine for show-offs).

2. In NZ at least the art market is one of the few areas where people are happy to express strong opinions about art

3. It gives a big group of university funded artists something to not participate in

4. It is run by dealers and auction people who have opinions, know a lot, and are better dressed than your average reporter.

5. It brings to the world of one of its most mysterious processes: the pricing of art.

6. Drama and excitement.

7. It’s a world free of wall texts, computer graphics and labels.

8. It is going into a time of fundamental change with bets off as auction houses compete directly with dealers and both try to work online

9. The “what’s it worth” conversation.

10. The chance to bet on how long it will be before Sarah Thornton writes on the market again.

You can get Sarah Thornton’s list with her annotations here

Death of a thousand cuts

Now it’s hard to remember the spasm of shock that ran through the art world when art dealers raised their commission from the traditional 331/3 to 40%. That rise of 6 2/3 percent has of course long been assimilated. But now, if Australia is anything to go by, and it generally is, we are on the verge of swinging over to 50 percent an increase of 10 percent on most current commission. 

 That really is a bit more serious and highlights the dealer artist relationship as never before. Even 60/40 gave the impression that the people delivering the goods were leading the business rather than the distributors, fifty-fifty, not so much. 

Dealers will tell you that even at 50 percent there is not that much to be made across the board given the costs of the freight, insurance, the art fairs, the documentation and the publications. For the few of them that offer those services at the highest level there is no doubt an argument to be made. 

But how do you make a living as a practicing artist on 50% percent? Say you have an exhibition of 10 paintings at $10,000 each and sell 70 percent of them, a champagne inducing event for many artists. That’s $70,000 across the counter (we’ll ignore GST) well more like $65,000 as the dealer has almost certainly given a 10 percent reduction to the bigger collector clients. The dealer will now take their half leaving 32,500. Time to deduct the cost of stretchers (you wont sell at $10,000 unless they are a reasonably good quality), paint, canvas, studio costs – rent, insurance etc and travel to the opening say $6,000 leaving $26,000 which will be taxed at say 25 percent to $19,500. To get the after tax salary of a lecturer at an art school you’d have to do that three times a year. That’s 21 sales at $10,000. Oh, and don’t forget to deduct $40 for the champagne.

Having a cow

“It’s ridiculous—they have a great product, and they’re pushing it out into the market like cattle.”

Alberto Mugrabi, a New York dealer and owner of the largest collection of Warhol's work commenting on the Warhol Foundation putting the remainder of its holdings of  20,000 Warhol paintings, prints and photographs to auction.

Image: Warhol Cow wallpaper (detail)