Gold Rush Auctions Automatic translate

It seems that the era when great paintings appeared on the market only once in the lifetime of a generation has irrevocably disappeared into oblivion. And so, too, has a bevy of fanatical dealers who preferred to place great works in the hands of a fairly narrow circle of collectors, connoisseurs and connoisseurs. Twenty years ago, lobbying groups uniting museum experts, critics, collectors, influenced public taste only in some centers of art trade - Paris, Milan, now they make the weather all over the world. It is these shadowy managers who play a decisive role in promoting paintings on the market, in creating excitement around them, and in the rapid development of success.

The tactic is simple: a sharp increase in the price of one of the paintings of any artist almost automatically increases the value of his entire collection. It is only necessary that the works selected for such a stock exchange operation master regularly, with a certain periodicity appeared on the market. In order not to disperse the forces and attention of solid clients (firms or individuals), the turnover involves a small number of artists - usually 5-10 for each country. It is no coincidence that in the last two or three years “personal records” have been recorded for paintings by Kandinsky, Monet, Chagall. “There are no collectors anymore,” lamented Leo Castelli, one of the most famous old-school art dealers, ”there are only depositors, investors looking to make money.

It is in this atmosphere of the transformation of art galleries from temples to barterers’ shops that international fine art auctions, be it “Sotheby’s” or “Christie’s”, have come to the artistic forefront in the last twelve years, since only such institutions are able to establish the correct quotation of works of art for today, exciting the crowd of depositors and collectors.

The situation of hippodrome auctions has opened up to life another important source of inflating the prices of prestigious paintings to absolute outrage: loud self-promotion. After all, the deals are now concluded not on the plenary or in quiet offices, as before, and in the crowd. The figures of sales hypnotize the crowd, the winners of the bidding become the heroes of hundreds and hundreds of publications in the most prestigious publications in all corners of the world.

Moreover, such advertising is practically free and goes as if as a prize to a solid collector. For example, the Japanese insurance company, which decided in 1987 to celebrate its own centennial by buying “Sunflowers” Van Gogh, laid on the altar of the auction 267 million 300 thousand francs. But if its bosses had had the salutary idea to glorify their own activities with the same number of articles as their sensational acquisition, they would have had to shell out hardly more than 40 million dollars to buy advertising space in newspapers.

It is true that by the time of the record-breaking deal, the hall would have to be full of writers and filmmakers ready to capture the epochal event. But this is already the task “of lobby groups”: the excitement and expectation of unprecedented spending attracts the press to the auctions, and the presence of dozens of people with cameras and dictaphones awakens the competitive spirit of the bigwigs.

Today, perhaps, it is much more profitable for a firm that counts on benevolent publicity to buy a world masterpiece for a fabulous sum of money and display it for a while for public viewing and admiration than to engage in direct charity work.

There is another important nuance of the different kinds of auction transactions of the century. It has long been known that such purchases of paintings, “painted gold on platinum”, have always served “to launder” dubious money. However, auction victories also serve to “launder” reputations. Traditionally, patronage of patronage and collecting opened the way for the nouveau riche to the high society of titles and reputations. At a time when masterpieces are becoming more and more expensive, the key that opens the door to “the best houses in Philadelphia” becomes truly golden and therefore even more coveted.

Incidentally, one of the main reasons for the transformation of canvases and sculptures into “havens of money” must be sought in the psychology of the stockbrokers and financial adventurers who have entered the art market. “It is no accident that painting has deprived gold of its reputation as the most stable form of storing money,” says French art historian Henri Keko, author of “Arena of Art”, ”for gold is a stable investment. Painting, on the other hand, offers the hope of significant growth over time of the capital advanced”. Buying paintings of famous masters really remains for many businessmen a kind of game, a continuation of stock exchange operations: dead or gone. And the game on paintings by Van Gogh or Renoir is not as simple as it may seem at first glance: lay out the money and wait until hanging on the wall “a bundle of banknotes” doubled by itself.

First, the cost of acquisition will increase significantly due to taxes, insurance premiums, and deductibles to protect the masterpiece from greedy burglars. In addition, unlike, say, stocks or securities “, passive capital” invested in Van Goghs does not yield at least minimal dividends. Consequently, in order for the subsequent resale “, the investor” in Van Gogh not only did not lose the money spent at the time (taking into account inflation, of course), but earned, he must be sure that his painting will increase significantly in value. At this point just converge the interests of the owners of paintings, firms conducting auctions, and shadowy lobbying groups, ready to jointly play on the increase. As the same Henri Keko notes: “Within the logic of the system, the state is considered either as a privilege of caste, or as a consequence of a successful venture. Accordingly, the sharp rise in the value of paintings is also the providence of the connoisseur or the luck of the player.”

For Keko himself, a longtime professor at the Paris School of Fine Arts, the reasons for the price hikes lie more in the realm of ideology, in liberal society’s attempt to blur the boundaries between the material and the spiritual. “By paying dearly for a painting, capital itself seemed to be the creator, the co-author of the masterpiece along with the master, and the transaction becomes an independent creation!”

The service of the Muses, as we know, does not tolerate vanity. Serving is another matter. Filling the pockets of the muse-art-business will tolerate fuss, and pokes, and tripping. Naturally, two super heavyweights “Sotheby’s” and “Christie’s” clashed on the foreground, trying to get a bigger piece of the market cream cake. Paradoxically, it is the world of culture and art that has proven less susceptible to the rules of “fair play”.

Sotheby’s “Sotheby’s” was the first successful hook-up. Masterpieces with price tags with many zeros went on loan. Buyers-vestors were able to defer payment of 50-60 percent of the sums inflated at the auction. Henceforth, collectors could avoid the third blow of the auctioneer’s hammer for longer than usual, operating with entire budgets of some developing countries, and then, having repaid the debt, leisurely consider options for a new resale.

The Sotheby’s “vultures” decided to tame the sellers as well, who were guaranteed reimbursement of predetermined amounts regardless of the outcome of the auction. Soon, however, cases of direct collusion of the firm’s employees with solid clients came to light, and the competitors from “Christie’s” realized that they were being tricked. And having realized this, and having complained for the sake of order, the trading house “Christie’s” officially adopted the method of playing on the promotion of its rival partner.

In the meantime, after each auction, the opposing intermediary firms are busy printing colorful brochures that look more like sports news compilations. All records, if not absolute, then certainly for individual artists or, at least, for total sales. The main thing is to show that not just works of art are expensive, but from auction to auction they become more and more expensive. Play, take risks - invite clients “Sotheby’s” and “Christie’s”.

There is, however, a category of art people for whom the speculative rise in the prices of paintings by non-old masters only “multiplies sorrows”. The banging of hammers at international auctions sounds like a funeral march for the staff of the world’s largest and most famous museums. “A museum that does not buy works of art is a dead museum”, - experts and curators of art galleries on both sides of the Atlantic repeat, but the Assembly of Museums of France with an annual budget of 85 million francs could afford to buy only one sixth of a canvas “Dr. Gachet” : shall we cut?

Moreover, the rise in the price of paintings is an increase in the cost of insuring and protecting priceless canvases, which means that the cost of organizing exhibitions has skyrocketed. Last year it cost the Center Georges Pompidou 20 million francs to hold an exhibition of Cubist founders Picasso and Braque. The usual for exhibitions of this class estimates were exceeded by two and a half times. And on the increase in insurance rates auctions responded by adding new zeros to the already five-six-figure sums of sales. Has the circle closed?

The easiest way out of this situation would be, at first glance, the refusal of museums with a worldwide reputation from temporary art retrospectives: after all, their halls are already a treasure trove of masterpieces. However, only exhibitions really attract the attention of the press and the public, creating the atmosphere of general attention and excitement necessary for art galleries. In such a situation American museums prefer, for example, to sell something from their collections in order to have funds to update the expositions. And on March 17 last year, the Guggenheim Museum presented at the Sotheby’s auction “” paintings by Kandinsky, Chagall, Modigliani, intended for slaughter for the sake of buying 200 works by conceptualists of 1960-1980. Incidentally, Guggenheim Foundation director Krenz proposed to the art world the simple, mooch-like idea of transforming routine exhibitions into permanent traveling exhibitions that generate local excitement.

For this purpose, the foundation is creating its own branches in Venice, Salzburg and Japan, between which the paintings will constantly migrate, preventing the citizens from getting used to the masterpieces gathering dust on the walls. There are also much more brutal methods of saving money on sensational exhibitions. Modern masters are ready to make several copies of the same creation and exhibit them simultaneously in different cultural centers of the planet. Thus one of the most fashionable contemporary sculptors, the Australian Jeff Kuhne, managed to organize three completely identical exhibitions in New York, Chicago and Cologne.

In general, however, many museums and art galleries prefer to switch to renting. Of course, it is not about the lease of museum expositions by labor collectives, but about obtaining the right to exhibit paintings from private collections in their halls for a certain fee. Not unknown collector Baron Thyssen for about five million dollars agreed to part for five years with part of his collection, which will please connoisseurs in Madrid. In France, companies and individuals acquiring works of art enjoy tax benefits provided they do not intend to resell their “auction fortunes” for 10 years.

Where’s the guarantee, though, that tomorrow the rental value won’t exceed the current price of the originals. “Caress the circle and it will become vicious”, - repeats E. Yonescu. The stakes are rising. The game continues. What is the current price of Van Gogh’s paintings?