Christie's: 'We are not an auction house any more'
January 20 2015
Picture: TAN
The Art Newspaper has the latest annual sales figures from Sotheby's and Christie's. The latter edges Sotheby's by some $800m, with total sales of $6.8bn vs $6bn.
Given Christie's... shall we say 'looser' manner of reporting the sale totals of high-profile guarantor lots, I guess we can't be absolutely sure that their total figure really is $6.8bn.* But it won't be far off.
Christie's new Global President, Jussi Pylkkänen, says that such are Christie's sales in every market and in every corner of the globe that they're "not an auction house anymore". Hmm.
* On this point, I was interested to read a remark from the eminent art market lawyer Pierre Valentin of Constantine Cannon, who told the Art Media Agency:
“we could see certain auction practices drawing the attention of regulatory authorities in the US or the UK. This could result in a public investigation which may derail the current trend of high auction prices in the contemporary art market, and renewed calls for greater regulation of the art market.”
Whatever can he be referring to?
Update - there's an interesting article in the invaluable Antiques Trade Gazette by the editor Ivan Macquisten on the guarantee business:
[...] the third-party guarantee, also known as the irrevocable bid, could prove to be one of the biggest threats to a market attempting to stave off direct regulation.
The chief motivation for introducing it - to offset risk onto a third party - is clear enough and understandable. However, this esoteric arrangement raises too many questions and much suspicion among outsiders. The agreed purchase level must at least meet the reserve and, one assumes, cannot rise above the low estimate if bidders are not to be misled. But, this all has to be taken on trust as the auction houses guard the details jealously.
It's one thing asking wealthy top-tier collectors to take a punt on works they may or may not want in return for a share of the profits should the guarantee level be met by another buyer.
However, as far back as 2011 The Economist reported a list of leading dealers as guaranteeing works at auction. It remains unclear whether the trade are guaranteeing works by artists they represent directly or have a clear financial interest in propping up, but if so, then this is surely a step too far along the road of market manipulation.
It might be clever; it might even be legal, but as far as I (and I suspect the man in the street) am concerned, one thing is certain: it isn't right.
My guess is that it won't be long before other people of influence outside the art market take the same view and if this is the sort of thing going on when that happens then there will be trouble.
The public spotlight will turn its full glare on the way the whole industry does business. Are we ready for that?
Nope.
