New Art markets and the crisis

New markets and the crisis [Feb 09]

(Source ArtPrice ©)
The most speculative and volatile markets over the last four years, emerging art markets have propelled a number of Chinese, Indian, Russian and Middle-Eastern contemporary artists into the global limelight with extraordinary speed. But with so many young artists fetching such big figures at auctions, some kind of meltdown was inevitable.
The first consequences of the global financial crisis on the art market were felt in Hong Kong in 2008 at the Christie’s and Sotheby’s October sales. Indeed, China's art market has proved to be particularly sensitive and thousands of art market professionals are keenly watching developments in that country where the price index of contemporary art rose 583% between January 2004 and January 2009.

In 2007, driven by the financial strength of Hong Kong and the dynamism of Shanghai, China took third place on the global art market podium behind the United States and the United Kingdom. The rocketing price indices of Fanzhi ZENG, Xiaogang ZHANG, Lijun FANG, Minjun YUE, Guoqiang CAI and Guangyi WANG fuelled an unprecedented optimism, inspiring thousands of would-be artists across the country, prompting hundreds of new gallery openings and giving a very substantial boost to the Chinese art auction market. Just when our figures showed that one third of the world's top 100 contemporary artists (ranked by auction revenue) were from China, Bonhams decided to set up shop in Hong Kong (26 November 2007) alongside Christie’s and Sotheby’s who were already well established on the island. After Bonhams, Artcurial decided to head East with a first sale in Shanghai in January 2008. The following month in London, Sotheby’s was unable to sell Overwhelm by Minjun YUE, despite his leading position on the contemporary Chinese art scene. At the time, this was a rare event: only 9 paintings by the artist were bought in over 10 years (between 1997 and 2007). In 2008, the number was 12 …

After the record bought-in rates posted in October at Sotheby’s and Christie’s Hong Kong, the November and December sales confirmed the contraction of demand and the choosiness of buyers. Sales have not been frozen, but we are definitely seeing a sharp correction of the Chinese art market. Collectors are now being extremely selective both in terms of quality and price. Numerous works by the stars whose prices had risen too high (e.g. Lijun FANG, Minjun YUE, Xiaogang ZHANG and Fanzhi ZENG) sold below their low estimates or were bought in. The recent failure of an attempted quick sale of a painting by Xiaogang ZHANG at Est-Ouest Auctions Co. Hongkong drew a definitive veil over the speculative mood. The work in question is a portrait from the Big Family Series. Initially selling for CNY 8.5 million (USD 1.15 million) in November 2007, it failed to sell in December 2008 even after a substantial trim of its estimate (roughly USD 554,000).

The stars of contemporary Indian art are in more or less the same boat. Despite a 957% increase in the price index between January 2004 and January 2009, more than half of Subodh GUPTA's works offered from October to December 2008 were bought in. His important work Vehicle for Seven Seas III was bought in on 13 November, 2008 in New York despite carrying a reasonable price estimate (300,000 to 400,000) compared to the USD 625,000 that a work from the same series fetched in April 2008 (Artcurial, Paris, EUR 425,000). We find the same scenario in the field of Iranian art where nearly half the works offered for public sale by Farhad MOSHIRI (1963) have remained unsold. Back in March 2008, collectors at the Dubaï sales were a lot more extravagant, pushing up the price of Eshgh (Love) to USD 900,000, which was six times the estimated price (Bonhams).

The February Contemporary Art sales in London timidly propose 2 to 5 Chinese and Indian star attractions at Sotheby’s (5 February) and Christie’s (11 February), including the unavoidable Fanzhi ZENG and Anish KAPOOR. However, the real test will be in March and April 2009 with sales dedicated to Asian art.
On 12 February, Phillips de Pury & Company will be offering works by six Chinese artists, one Korean (Kim Whanki), two Indians (Hema UPADHYAY and Jiten & Sumir THUKRAL & TAGRA) and one Pakistani (Rashid RANA). Phillip’s is also participating in the emergence of the African artist El ANATSUI whose 2006 work entitled Congress of Elders is expected to fetch around GBP 200,000. Almost a complete stranger to the secondary art market, a work by this artist entitled Healer fetched USD 500,000 at Sotheby's London in October 2008… not the most favourable period for generating a new record…
Still buoyant throughout the first half of 2008, demand on these highly dynamic new markets has substantially contracted since the autumn. In a global crisis context, many works have become too expensive and speculative temptations are no longer on the agenda.
Nevertheless, among the major buyers of contemporary Russian, Chinese, Korean, Indian or Iranian art, profit is often not the primary motive. In recent years, many Russian and Chinese collectors have invested in the works of their compatriots in order to build coherent collections for foundations or museums.

The Boom Is Over. Long Live the Art!

Damien Hirst’s “Golden Calf” sold for $18.6 million last year, but the art climate has changed.

Arts / Art & Design
The Boom Is Over. Long Live the Art! (New York Times Permalink)
By HOLLAND COTTER Published: February 15, 2009
Memories of recessions past suggest that a financial scouring can be good for American art.

The High - End Art Market - A Second Tulip Mania

A Second Tulip Mania

The prices of contemporary art works have risen to astonishing levels in recent years. Insiders say it’s because we have been living through a golden age of art. Nonsense, argue Ben Lewis and Jonathan Ford, it is a classic investment bubble
Ben Lewis - Jonathan Ford
(Source Forbes.com, Prospect Magazine)
The bubble in contemporary art is about to pop. It has exhibited all the classic features of the South Sea bubble of 1720 or the tulip madness of the 1630s. It has been the bubble of bubbles—balancing precariously on top of other now-burst bubbles in credit, housing and commodities—and inflating more dramatically than all of them. While British house prices took six years to double at the start of this century, contemporary art managed it in just one, 2006-07. (Over the same period, old masters went up by just 7.6 per cent and British 17th to 19th century watercolours actually lost value.) Contemporary art in the emerging economies did even better. The value of its sales in China increased by 983 per cent in one year (2005-06). In Russia they rose 2,365 per cent in five years (2000-05), while its stock market increased by "only" about 300 per cent.

Even these numbers understate the incredible tulip-like increases in the value of the hottest artists. The Chinese painter Zhang Xiaogang saw his work appreciate 6,000 times, from $1,000 to $6m (1999-2008); work by the American artist Richard Prince went up 60 to 80 times (2003-2008). The German painter Anselm Reyle was unknown in 2003; you could have picked up one of his stripe paintings for €14,000. Now he has a studio with 60 assistants turning them out for about €200,000 each. Any figures for the whole contemporary art market are guesswork, though Christie's chief executive, Ed Dolman, recently estimated that it had grown in value from $4bn a year to somewhere between $20-30bn in the past eight years.

But this bubble is now deflating. Sotheby's share price has lost three quarters of its value over the past year, sinking from its peak of $57 in October 2007 to $9 in early November—close to its 1980s low of $8. The latest round of contemporary art auctions in London has gone badly. In October, the Phillips de Pury sale made only £5m—a quarter of the minimum estimate; at Christie's almost half the lots didn't sell; and an air of denial hung over the Frieze art fair like a fog. Upmarket dealers Matthew Marks and Iwan Wirth claimed to have clinched many big deals, but the reality was surely different. A leading New York gallerist was said to have sold very little and a well-known German dealer not a single work.

Some dealers have blamed the poor quality of the works in the London sales. "Just wait for New York in mid-November," one said, "and you'll see the art market is still doing well." But New York has been no better. This should have come as no real surprise. If you consider the market as a purely financial enterprise, rather than one in which aesthetic quality has any bearing, then the boom in contemporary art has the hallmarks of a classic investment bubble.

In his book, Manias, Panics, and Crashes, Charles Kindleberger observed that manias typically start with a "displacement" that excites speculative interest. It may come from a new object of investment or from the increased profitability of existing investments. It is followed by positive feedback as rising prices encourage less experienced investors to enter the market. Then, as the mania gets a grip, speculation becomes more diffuse and spreads to other types of asset. Fresh assets are created at an ever faster rate to take advantage of the euphoria and investors try to increase their gains by borrowing to buy assets or using derivatives. Credit ultimately becomes overextended, swindling and fraud proliferate, and the mania ends in panic as investors seek to liquidate their positions.

The art market has adhered spookily to Kindleberger's model. By 2004 it was clear that a boom in contemporary art was well underway ("The price of art," Ben Lewis, Prospect, October 2004.) At the Armory show, New York's trendsetting contemporary art fair, dealers sold $43m worth of art in four days, nearly twice as much as the previous year. There were huge price rises at auction, too. A 1996 sculpture of a stuffed horse hanging from a ceiling, Ballad of Trotsky, by the fashionable and witty Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan, sold for $2m at auction in May 2002. It had increased in value tenfold in two years. Gerhard Richter's paintings quadrupled in value between 2000 and 2004. Even then, buyers were paying $1m to $3m for a work by Hirst, Warhol, Basquiat or Koons. Those sums now seem quaint—last year a Koons went for $23m, a Hirst for $20m and a Basquiat for $15m.