moneybox
columns
- Coming Soon, the Samsung Washington Monument!
How "naming rights" have become a huge American export.
Daniel Gross
posted May 10, 2008 - Game Google, Help the World
Why search-engine optimization makes the Web a better place.
Chris Wilson
posted May 9, 2008 - Corn Dogs
Fuel prices are at record highs, so why are ethanol producers struggling?
Daniel Gross
posted May 7, 2008 - Obama-nomics
Barack and Michelle are very cautious with their newfound wealth.
Sam Grobart
posted May 7, 2008 - Yahoo-bris!
A company with a history of overpaying lost a great deal when it couldn't force Microsoft to overpay. Now what?
James Ledbetter
posted May 5, 2008 - Search for more moneybox articles
- Subscribe to the moneybox RSS feed
- View our complete moneybox archive
Going, Going, Not GoneWhy does the press seem to be rooting for an art-auction crash?
By Marion ManekerPosted Monday, April 28, 2008, at 12:28 PM ET

How can you tell that it's nearly auction season in the art market? When the press begins predicting an imminent crash. Right on schedule, the Wall Street Journal ran theirs three weeks before the marquee May sales in New York City. Robert Frank, one of the Journal's best writers, quickly went from dollars and cents to scene-setting. "As a new wave of wealthy collectors poured into the market to fill their mansion walls," Frank wrote, "auctions have become competitions of conspicuous consumption, filled with celebrities, hedge-fund managers and mystery billionaire bidders from Russia and China."
It's a great image: the last days of Rome with greedy developers spending our mortgage dollars on frivolous Jeff Koons sculptures, decadent hedgies spending hot money on cool Rothkos and de Koonings, and shady former-Communist billionaires trying to buy respectability with Renoirs. But conspicuous consumption is hardly news in the art market.
Just before the last round of auctions held in New York in November, Carol Vogel summed up the mood in the New York Times: "Beneath all the bling—the glossy catalogs brimming with lavish illustrations, the extravagant parties to lure rich collectors, the impressive exhibitions of the art and the optimistically high estimates—lurks an ominous question. After three years of speculation about a bust, will this be the moment when the art market finally crumbles?"
But it hasn't yet. And that has left some on the art beat looking for other ways to scold buyers. Bloomberg's Linda Sandler recently pointed to the decorum of selling pricey art while the economy tanks. "The same day that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the U.S. economy is on the verge of its first recession in six years," she reported the evening of the Red charity auction of contemporary art, organized by Bono and Damien Hirst, "the seven pieces Hirst gave to the charity brought in about $19 million."
You don't usually see writers who cover, say, the price of wheat rooting for its decline. Are these writers trying to will the art market into failure? Probably not: They're more concerned with competitive pressures. Everyone wants to be the first to identify the next crash. The art world is haunted by the asset-mauling price swoon of 1990, a double-whammy delayed reaction to the 1987 stock market crash and the 1990 recession. According to the MeiMoses index of art prices, the art market didn't reach parity against its 1989 highs until 2003. That's a bear market lesson that no one should forget, and with the market well into the 10th year of expansion, it's not unreasonable to expect a crash.
Unfortunately, having a foregone conclusion that there will be a crash leaves you seeing signs of it everywhere. Frank built his Journal story around the idea that the credit crunch had caused art buyers to fall behind on their auction bills. He noticed in Sotheby's annual report that accounts receivable had doubled at the auction house in 2007, totaling $835 million. Not a bad tell.
But because Frank was looking for cracks, he discounted the most obvious—and more pedestrian—explanation for the rise: Clients owed Sotheby's more because they had bought more. Sales had shot up 44 percent in 2007. Maybe not enough to explain the $835 million figure, but, still, no smoking gun.
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- [audio] Christian Slater Dropped From List Of Names To Drop
Sun, 11 May 2008 01:00:13 -0400 - Michel Gondry Entertained For Days By New Cardboard Box
Sat, 10 May 2008 01:00:52 -0400 - [audio] India's Top Physicists Develop Plan To Get The Hell Out Of India
Sat, 10 May 2008 01:00:39 -0400 - » More from the Onion
- Today's Opinions
- New Allies In Asia?
Sun, 11 May 2008 00:00:00 EDT - The Price of Delay
Sun, 11 May 2008 00:00:00 EDT - Keeping New Mothers Alive
Sun, 11 May 2008 00:00:00 EDT - » More from washingtonpost.com
- Today's Headlines
- Sit Back, Relax, Get Ready to Rumble
Sat, 10 May 2008 19:51:32 GMT - Shimon Peres: ‘Practically All of Us Were Hawks’
Sat, 10 May 2008 19:57:28 GMT - Dear Senator Obama …
Sat, 10 May 2008 17:58:20 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- The Last Hug
Fri, 9 May 2008 20:03:50 GMT - Grounded: Conversations on The Root
Wed, 7 May 2008 18:55:35 GMT - Viva Vogue Italia!
Thu, 8 May 2008 18:17:41 GMT - » More from The Root

moneybox









