if he had a hammer

Most every post I've ever seen around the art sites about Jerry Saltz's writing has been positive - and that includes my own.  So how about a little criticism?  Take his latest, for instance, an account of his visits to recent auctions.  Saltz's skill as a writer comes through in his analysis of the highly charged joining of money and desire at these events:

Auctions are like stripteases: They rely on people being enticed by what's just out of reach. The auctioneer announces the lot number, the crowd stirs, and a turntable revolves to reveal the forlorn-looking work that is frequently guarded by one of the only black people in the room.  Echoing this antebellum nightmare, petite blondes in little dresses sit close by. They're there to spot bids but rarely actually do anything. Occasionally, a handsome swain, assumedly another employee, approaches one of them from behind and whispers something into an ear.

The later detail regarding the restaurateur and the blonde marks another high - or rather, low - point in the article.

Few can fail to admire the dedication to art that underlies this and other articles Saltz has written.  But there's a broken record quality to it.  Consider the below, from the conclusion:

Auctions have always and only been commercial. By now, they're so craven they make you see that art fairs might be ways that artists and gallerists can take back at least some of the control. When this moneyed phase ends, a lot of people are going to be making a lot of excuses or maintaining that they were never part of this.

I believe one could dip, and not that far, into the archives and pull out handfuls of other articles in which the same point is made, in much the same way.  The market is inflated; people are acting badly; someday a real rain will come.  Important truths are worth stating again, of course.  Jeremiah wouldn't have been Jeremiah if he only complained once.  But is Saltz actually right?  It seems like he's saying that, once the art market sinks, the trivial and grotesque of the current time will fall away, leaving those who Truly Care alone to carry on.  Consider this passage, from an earlier article:

Someday the money will dwindle, the buyers will scatter, and the rush will go elsewhere. We'll be left the way we always are when money leaves: on our own with art to pick up the pieces.

A bearish outlook always has a certain appeal.  But let's think about this.  I'm sure that, when the market changes, the fallout will cause a reaction against the status quo ante.  But I rather doubt that it'll mean less folly, just a different kind.  Fewer opportunities for dry humping in the auction room, at least for a while, but probably lots more fake sincerity.  Not necessarily an improvement, especially when one considers that any potential art market downturn would likely be a corollary to a broader economic one.  For a variety of reasons the art market has continued to perform very well in an economy that has been mixed through the same period.  I don't want to think about what general market event it would take to bring the auction houses and all the rest down to size.  Saltz at times seems like one of those people one sometimes hears complaining how the country needs a new Depression to toughen everyone up.  One can see the point without exactly embracing it; the shakeout he longs for sounds like it would cost me my job.  Let the eagle soar, I say.  Or at the least, let's hope it makes a soft landing.

Comments

[Todd W.]

I agree. A lot of the grousing by the "real" art crowd about the hedge fund managers and other Johnny-come-lately high rollers has a tone of envy mixed with the irritation that comes from seeing your favoriate local band hit it big and suddenly your special love isn't so special anymore.

If auctions have always been about money then how can one complain that, well, they're just about money.

[George]

Well could be. Signs of speculation abound but this in itself isn't enough to foster a breakdown. Initially I thought, the art market looked like a bubble due to burst. However as long as we do not experience a significant downturn in the world economies a serious breakdown in the art markets is not a foregone conclusion.
It may be in the cards but there is no clear evidence that it is occurring at the moment. Moreover, I am inclined to think we might see a more inflationary environment over the next fi v e to ten years. If this is the case and the inflation is modest than art prices should hold their levels. Any market can become temporarily overvalued and prices will react as the players reevaluate their risk perceptions. Although prices may fall it is n ot necessarily the start of a collapse.i

[JL]

Thanks for your comment, George. I should have prefaced my remarks with the usual INAEB disclaimer - "I'm not an economist, but. . . ". I don't myself have much of an opinion on where any market is going, at least not one I can claim to justify. I simply get a little alarmed by Saltz's repeated implication that some sort of economic change will reveal the decadence of our present moment. I'm disturbed by the implication that this is something to look forward to. Especially since I agree with you that one way the art market could deflate would be through a real global downturn. I'd rather not experience that, even if it made Jerry Saltz feel better about the artworld.

[George]

I'm an artist, not an economist but I had a few more thoughts on this subject.

Since 1982 the world has seen an increase number of billionaires unparalleled since the 1890's [see: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Econ_Articles/billionaires.html]

In raw numbers
1982 there were 13 billionaires in the US [source http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=188]
1996 there were 112 in the US and 423 worldwide
2005 there were 278 in the US and 691 worldwide [source Forbes.com]

I seriously doubt many observers of the artworld understand the implications of these simple statistics.
Several things seem to be occurring in the art market as a result of the rapid creation of wealth in the last decades of the 20th century.

As a result of this concentrated wealth, the demand for artworks has increased, pushing prices higher.
This increase in prices is partly a result of inflationary pressures, partly a shift away from speculation in paper assets and because there are just more rich folks with an inclination to collect art.
Unfortunately, collectors who are not fabulously wealthy may find themselves potentially priced out of part of the market.
This may account for the increasing popularity of multiples, especially "unique" photograph editions and for the sudden rush of speculation in "baby artists" still in their MFA diapers.

Saltz complains about speculation at the auctions, but participates in promoting the speculation at the entry levels.

[JL]

While I didn't have these figures at hand, it was phenomena along those lines that I had in mind when I noted that the art market had done well in the midst of what is for many a middling economy (if not worse.) Simply put, it's been a fine time at the top and existing policies are geared toward ensuring it stays that way, or gets even better. Billionaires aside, I don't think there's any doubt that, whatever appeal working in multiples may have as an artistic choice, it serves a market function. Runs of different sizes and number, with differing characteristics, along a scale of price points for collectors with varying income levels. For me, that means being able to buy the book of reproductions offered, as opposed to the 46" x 46" chromogenic print. Something for everyone, you see.

[MMcM]

This month's ARTnews has an article on the use of appreciated artworks as collateral. I don't think that it oversimplifies Galbraith too much to say that he sees leverage as a common thread in financial disasters of the past. The dependencies can't withstand a small downward correction. If lenders start adding margins, using the artist's latest auction results, say, thereby automating those dependencies, then we can really start worrying.

[JL]

I haven't seen that article, I'll look for it. I take your point regarding leverage; very scary stuff.