Paul allen christies auction results ,,

[rjackson44]

Well i guess the art market has no issues omg ,,look at the results .I just bought 5 k in vintage hockey cards ..im very happy like looking at them .oh well ….

[raulus]

Plenty of incredibly rich people willing to trade gigantic mountains of cash for one of a kind original art.

There are some people who expect our world will become more like that world. But I have my doubts. And I will be personally quite content if we don’t become like the fine art market.

[Snapolit1]

This article paints a somewhat more complicated picture of the high end art market and Christie's in particular.

https://news.artnet.com/market/chris...08029/amp-page

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

This article paints a somewhat more complicated picture of the high end art market and Christie's in particular.

https://news.artnet.com/market/chris...08029/amp-page

That story sort of parallels differences between modern versus pre-war/vintage card markets. That Basquiat painting of Robinson is hideous, and reminds me of a lot of the crazy modern crap out there today in cards. And just like with modern cards, the modern art market is seeing similar dramatic drops in value from just in the last couple of years. Ughhhh, now I can't get the image of that Sugar Ray Robinson painting out of my head.

[rjackson44]

Bob and steve here you go ..bob Basquiat is the hottest investment in art . Like it or not never compare cards to art foolish

[brianp-beme]

After checking over some of his artwork, it looks like he took a Basquiat over the canvas.

Brian

[JustinD]

Octavio is 100% correct. Nothing in the art world is currently appreciating at the level of Basquiat and Warhol. The classical masters are in demand by museums and the foreign market but the American collectors and investment portfolios like Masterworks are fully in on Pop. The creation of those investment groups like Masterworks is a major part of this growth as the collector market for true pieces is now in such echelons that a capital in the hundreds of millions may as well stay home. Group shares are the only option for investment in many artists.

As just as much of an art collector as a card collector, the vision in Basquiat has made him my favorite painter for years. It is also at a current level that the only bidding is reserved for billionaires and I expect a consistent back and forth between Basquiat and Warhol to continue to set pop art sale price records for years to come. If a serious icon Basquiat work like "Untitled" or The Skull as some call it was to come up now, I would guess 200 or 250 Million would be light.

While I appreciate that taste is subjective and interpretation (I have no flavor for Impressionism or Cubism), I can honor the style and respect others give it.

I am also very lucky to have started young and have purchased several original works at auction in the 90's when the market was slower that would be well out of my range today. I also scour the market for talent that is up and coming. This worked very well when I bought several screenprints in the mid-90s from a young Shepard Fairey who was literally placing ads in classified sections. Those were 50 bucks apiece and as some of his earliest works were just shy of 20k each not long ago. I have not seen any sell in years as they were limited to 50.

The art market is one of the few that is so insulated, that a full on depression could not slow it due to the extreme wealth of it's major players worldwide.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

This article paints a somewhat more complicated picture of the high end art market and Christie's in particular.

https://news.artnet.com/market/chris...08029/amp-page

I found this paragraph interesting:

A week later, the house seemed to be the victim of its own success. One of its top two lots Thursday night, Willem de Kooning’s abstract Untitled III from the late 1970s, guaranteed by the house and with an asking price in excess of $35 million, failed to draw a single bid. (In the post-sale conference, Christie’s executives acknowledged that the auction house now owns the De Kooning.)

[drcy]

Also, companies are often the winners.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I found this paragraph interesting:

A week later, the house seemed to be the victim of its own success. One of its top two lots Thursday night, Willem de Kooning’s abstract Untitled III from the late 1970s, guaranteed by the house and with an asking price in excess of $35 million, failed to draw a single bid. (In the post-sale conference, Christie’s executives acknowledged that the auction house now owns the De Kooning.)

I think one needs to understand the transitions of the market and it's up's and down's. While much seems to be made of pieces not making estimates, it is creatively ignored that each sold for multimillions more than the previous purchase. Seems to be a case of selective facts presented. The Robinson, which is not a well known piece to the public increased 4 million in 6 years...not exactly nothing.

As for DeKooning...well not to be rude, it is not a private collector item as it is dated to a 70's-80's collector aesthetic. Much as to me Cubism was a focus of 60s-70s aesthetic. As these rotations take place, the market slows to a museum focus. It would have made a lower estimate, but Christies seems to have made a terrible decision by letting the consigner set a minimum bid that they would meet if not met. That market was museum at this time and now that judgement will force them to sit on it to wait for a change.

Yes, their sale was not a bonanza of value growth, but it was not loss. This is much like a corporation stating they have lost 40 million in a year when in actuality their projected profit growth was 70 million, and they profited 30 million. I dislike that creative math as they still profited 30 million and then use it as an excuse to descale employees or whatnot. Growth is growth and not a single lot is said to have lost money. They just did not meet Christies explosive promised profit margins.

[Snapolit1]

To quote the old Wall Street adage, trees don't grow to the sky . . . .

Originally Posted by JustinD

I think one needs to understand the transitions of the market and it's up's and down's. While much seems to be made of pieces not making estimates, it is creatively ignored that each sold for multimillions more than the previous purchase. Seems to be a case of selective facts presented. The Robinson, which is not a well known piece to the public increased 4 million in 6 years...not exactly nothing.

As for DeKooning...well not to be rude, it is not a private collector item as it is dated to a 70's-80's collector aesthetic. Much as to me Cubism was a focus of 60s-70s aesthetic. As these rotations take place, the market slows to a museum focus. It would have made a lower estimate, but Christies seems to have made a terrible decision by letting the consigner set a minimum bid that they would meet if not met. That market was museum at this time and now that judgement will force them to sit on it to wait for a change.

Yes, their sale was not a bonanza of value growth, but it was not loss. This is much like a corporation stating they have lost 40 million in a year when in actuality their projected profit growth was 70 million, and they profited 30 million. I dislike that creative math as they still profited 30 million and then use it as an excuse to descale employees or whatnot. Growth is growth and not a single lot is said to have lost money. They just did not meet Christies explosive promised profit margins.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

To quote the old Wall Street adage, trees don't grow to the sky . . . .

Toward it, but the market is often prone to trends in aesthetics as well as the same financial pressures of the overextended. I think the story more shows that Christies has made some massive mistakes in estimating growth that will cost them dearly.

If I was a seller of a period that I would know is not in vogue at the time, you can bet I would be taking advantage of such poor estimation. Christies would be at the top of my list. I think this will be a time of realization in the market as moneyed Boomers liquidate collections built in the 80's and 90's focused on MCM looks that could swamp the market. I would not be surprised to see not just the equalization of returns to purchased price, but possibly losses in those areas.

As for the high growth modern and pop, still waiting to see what the dip in crypto holdings do to logically slow even liquid capital entering the modern market. Will those losing money hold, or will it be a sell off? I think the exotic car market (6-7 figure cars) is showing signs of this impact, will art?

It's hard to say, as the wise money makes serious cash in a recession. As the cash strapped sell luxury items low to gain liquidity. The insular investor with large capital is the buyer, a cycle we see over and over in these times when wise millionaires turn to billionaires in the future. They snatch up Blue chip investments at the bottom, stocks, real estate, collectables, etc. and wait for the inevitable return for the profits.

As I personally believe that the peak recessionary period will come next spring/summer, it will be an interesting dynamic to watch. This could be waylaid by the election results however as my financial prognostications always love a split government as gridlock tends to pause wasteful spending and poor policy choices in any administration. Things could possibly not be as bad as it seems, but like all predictions or honestly guesses...that could be horribly wrong just as easily, lol.

[steve B]

Art is weird. If I love it or hate it I can't afford it.

Basquiat would be well into the "I hate it" category.