Knoedler Gallery: The Value of Forgery

Knoedler Gallery, the second oldest fine art dealer in the country, closed abruptly in late 2011 after 165 years of business in the art world.

The gallery’s website was taken down and replaced with a note.

            “It is with profound regret that the owners of Knoedler Gallery announce its closing, effective November 30, 2011. This was a business decision made after careful consideration over the course of an extended period of time. Gallery staff are assisting with an orderly winding down of Knoedler Gallery.”

No one answered the phone.  The doors were locked.  One of the most prestigious galleries that helped create and cultivate American art was finished, and it took the art world by surprise.

Born in Bavaria, Michael Knoedler immigrated to New York to open a branch for Goupil, Vibert & Company, a Parisian dealer he worked for at the time.  He established Knoedler and Company in 1846 and attracted wealthy clientele from the California gold rush and the discovery of petroleum in Pennsylvania.  By 1859 he was able to buy out Goupil and move his gallery to North Broadway.  Not much is known about Knoedler himself, but he cultivated a reputation for his gallery and for American Art.  Before his death in 1878, he brought his son, Roland, into the business to take lead; his other sons, Edmond and Charles, also joined later.

The rest of Knoedler’s history is extensive and romantic; the gallery is praised as being essential to the American art world and as an institution that represented great artists.  However, as allegations of forgery and corruption taint its glorified history, Knoedler Gallery is also going to be remembered for its downfall.

Eight lawsuits have been filed by customers who claim they were fooled into buying forged artworks purported to be originals from the hand of modern masters like Robert Motherwell, Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Richard Diebenkorn.  As of August, two of these claims have been settled, one involving a Jackson Pollock action-painting purchased for $17 million.

Stories and articles detailing the accusations as they unfolded against Knoedler, and Knoedler’s response to those accusations, have been bouncing around since the gallery shut their doors in November, 2011.  Boiling down all the moving parts and players leaves: Ann Freedman – Knoedler’s former gallery director, president and 31-year employee who resigned in October of 2009; Julian Weissman – a dealer in his own right who worked for Knoedler in the 1980’s; Glafira Rosales – a dealer from Long Island; and Pei-Shen Qian- a 73 year old immigrant from China and struggling artist.

There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle, more than 60 drawings and paintings in question and over $80 million spent on them, but when looking past the trees to see the forest it is all pretty straight forward.  Glafira Rosales found Pei-Shen Qian in Queens and paid him to paint fakes for her (only a few thousand dollars for each piece). She then took those fakes to Ann Freedman at Knoedler Gallery or Julian Weissman and, over a period of 15 years, sold them as newly discovered works.

Rosales claimed she obtained the majority of the paintings from a collector who did not want to be named.  This collector, later referred to as “Mr. X” or “Secret Santa,” supposedly inherited the artwork from his father.  Throughout this ordeal Knoedler gallery, Ann Freedman and Julian Weissman have repeatedly stressed they never doubted the authentication of the artworks provided by Rosales.  Even without documentation of provenance, they always believed the pieces to be authentic.

The civil lawsuits filed by collectors claim Knoedler Gallery, Ann Freedman or Julian Weissman sold them fake Abstract Expressionist artworks that Glafira Rosales provided.  It is now known all the paintings were done by Pei-Shen Qian in the style of well-known Abstract Expressionist masters, and the thing is – they were well done.  There is a high skill level behind Qian’s trained hand.  He was able to study, master, and replicate the techniques and individual nuances associated with each artist he copied.  His fakes, purported to be and marketed as authentic originals, flew under the radar and passed initial sniff tests by experts; for the first few years there was no suspicion, nothing that raised red flags or caused concern.

It wasn’t until 2009, when several Robert Motherwell works were questioned and investigated by the F.B.I., that the bubble burst.  Rosales was arrested and released on a $2.5 million bond as she awaited trial for the criminal charges brought against her, and, so far, she is the only person being criminally charged. Her trial was scheduled for Monday, September 16.  Ann Freedman has brought two defamation of character suits as of this September, claiming several news outlets did not do due diligence in reporting the experts she consulted regarding authenticity on a number of paintings.  Mr. Qian, the man behind the “Secret Santa” and “Mr. X” monikers, has since fled to China.

It was recently reported that Freedman sold 40 counterfeits and Weissman sold 23; clients who purchased the fakes Rosales provided are suing both Freedman and Weissman in civil court.  The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York released a statement stating Rosales earned $33.2 million selling the forgeries to the Manhattan galleries through Freedman and Weissman; the galleries then sold the Rosales fakes and profited over $47 million total.

The dust is settling as much of the media hyped ‘forgery in the art world’ moves from the gallery to the courtroom.

But what of the value of forgery?  Who is to blame, really?

Many responses to Knoedler Gallery’s involvement in the long-running fraud mock the art world, asserting if experts and collectors can be fooled it’s their own fault.  Likewise, praise is brought to Rosales and Qian for swindling millions of dollars out of the hands of those elite who could afford to buy and invest in such property.  This response, letting the rich endure the consequences of their privileged investments, comes up in the debate of forgeries; especially when the forgeries have passed the tests of experts and allowed the thieves to profit.

Make no mistake – they are thieves.  People like Wolfgang Beltracchi, Ken Perenyi, John Myatt, and Han van Meegere (to name a few) are crooks.  They create a product, create a story surrounding it, or, in some cases, fabricate provenance materials; then, profit off those they are able to fool.  Like the Rosales-Qian team, these forgers were skilled and conniving, able to deceive and trick the eye in order to cash-in.

So why is there a portion of the public who cares not for the losses suffered by collectors and investors?  Why is art fraud considered by the public as different from other forms of fraud, even though real people suffered?  Honestly, it beats me.

I mean, OK, I get it – the average family working to keep debt at bay and a roof over their heads doesn’t have much sympathy for the guy who loses a few million on a forged painting.  But, it makes no sense for the forger to be portrayed as a Robin Hood with a paintbrush.  It is illogical to assert the mindset that, ‘the rich got what they deserved’ by purchasing or investing in artwork that turned out to be fake.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but at least this fraud ring has been found-out.  As of 1:24 p.m. this last Monday, Glafira Rosales pleded guilty to all nine counts brought against her, including wire fraud, filing false tax returns and money laundering, that she faced in connection with the ongoing investigation of the sale of forged works of art by the now-closed Knoedler gallery.  When asked by the judge to explain why she is guilty Rosales admitted to, “falsely represented authenticity and provenance” on works sold to Knoedler Gallery and Julian Weissman Fine Art as being works by abstract expressionists including Mark Rothko and Robert Motherwell.  She confessed the works were “actual fakes created by an individual residing in Queens.”

She faces up to 99 years in prison, though her sentence is likely to be far less, and $81 million in restitution.  She is free on bail and will officially be sentenced in March of 2014.

Greed will make people do crazy things. Rosales will likely spend the rest of her life in prison.  But that cannot undo the damage she has done.  Her actions shut down one of the longest running art galleries in American history, cost many people their jobs, soiled the reputation of several dealers and experts in the art world and cost real people real money and anguish.

So, the value of forgery?

Forgery involves an intention to deceive others about a work's history, and for Glafira Rosales the value of forgery came down to facing a maximum of 99 years in prison and 81 million dollars to make amends for the damages she caused.

That's a stiff consequence but the art world will be sorting out the damage she has done for many years to come.

-M.P. Callender

Recent articles on the case

New York Daily News The New York Times Art Daily Art Market Monitor

Art & The Third Reich: Appraising Art in the Aftermath of World War II

There it was.  Twenty-seven years as an appraiser and the topic had always been looming somewhere in the background.  I always knew at some future time a very large ethical conundrum would rear its ugly head, what to do when I discover Nazi-looted art in the collection of a client.   On the phone that day was a colleague who needed my help with a collection of art owned by an elderly German lady, now living in North Texas, a German lady whose family had been “personal friends of Hitler.”   My colleague’s client wanted to sell the work and I was asked to give my opinion of value.

Ever since the Nazi war machine undertook their hideous plan of complete cultural annihilation of the Jews in the late 1930’s, the ripples of consequences have continued to expand.  The Allies did defeat the Nazis in 1945.  But by that time, millions of lives had been lost and the Nazis had systematically looted the fortunes of Jewish inhabitants of every country through which they had waged war.   In some countries, they swept in and seized the collections and shipped the owners off to concentration camps.  In other areas, like Poland, they carried out a scorched earth policy, seeking to erase the cultural heritage of whole people groups as they swarmed through.

Hitler fancied himself an artist.  As an 18-year-old he had applied to the Art Academy in Vienna and been rejected twice, his drawing skills declared unsatisfactory. He had a very set idea of “good” art vs. “bad” art.  Hitler’s tastes ran to realism.   He adored the old masters and disdained most art created from late 19^th C. Impressionists forward.  Power in Germany during the Nazi-era was dispensed by Hitler.  Climbing the ranks meant adopting Hitler’s interests and his tastes.  Art and politics were always intermingled in the Third Reich. Hitler planned to “Germanize” every country under his control.   Young Nazi officers and political leaders were encouraged to collect art, attend concerts and cultural events, so long as the art fit Hitler’s parameters for “good” art.   The Nazi elite had a bit of a competition amongst themselves for who might amass the best and biggest collection of art. What better opportunity to “collect” than to rape the collections carefully assembled over years by collectors and dealers who were named enemies of the state and disenfranchised?

But early in his rise to power, Hitler started his cultural policies in Germany itself.  He ordered all museum directors within Germany to “cleanse” their collections of what were labeled Degenerate Art, and mounted an art show in Munich in 1937 of these pieces.  Labels accompanying the exhibition derided the work and propagandized against the creators, mostly Jewish artists.  After removal from German museum collections, many were destroyed.  However, the Nazis were conniving enough to offer those that could be sold in the Paris and Swiss markets up for sale.

As the war progressed, a large corps of Nazi bureaucrats whose job it was to expropriate all items of value closely followed the war machine into each new area of conquest.   In such cultural hubs as Paris, the Nazis and their Vichy collaborators’ goal was to have business and commerce continue as the Nazis took over power.   Galleries not owned by Jews remained open, some selling pieces stolen from their former Jewish colleagues.  Auction houses in Paris and neutral Switzerland continued with their business.  Questions about the origins of the artwork being offered for sale were not being asked.   Whether owners were selling under duress or whether the pieces offered were stolen goods, the sales went on unabated.   At the same time, large collections of stolen art were being gathered at the Jeu de Paume in Paris and specially commandeered trains were hauling loads of art back to Germany on a regular basis.  Hitler had made his plans for a large art museum in Linz, Austria be known early in the war and his loyalists began assembling a massive collection of art for that project.

At the end of the war, the American and British forces set up what came to be known as the Monuments Men, corps of specially trained military officers whose job it was to quickly locate art looted by the Nazis, gather the pieces into several safe storage areas, attempt to catalogue the art and begin the process of returning works to their rightful owners.   This proved to be a huge task that raised many ethical and legal questions.  What sort of proofs were those seeking return of their property required to offer? These people had been driven out of their homes.  The idea that they would have sales receipts or other proofs of ownership was unreasonable.  What was to be done with unclaimed pieces?  After all, the Nazi regime killed six million Jews.  Some of those whose artwork was stolen were murdered and would never return for their art.  What about pieces that had been sold by Jewish families during the war years?  Were those sales to be considered irrelevant because the owners likely were under duress or were those to be considered legitimate sales?

On some matters, an international consensus of legal opinion regarding ownership and reparations was developed.  On other matters, various countries implemented laws which conflict radically with one another.  For instance, America and Great Britain have laws in place that make it illegal to have title to stolen goods, whether one was knowledgeable about the theft or not.  A thief cannot pass title to stolen goods, whether the buyer is knowledgeable of the theft or not.  It these countries, if a property is offered for sale and there is a legitimate claim of ownership from a former owner, that owner has the legal standing to seek their property.  Under Swiss law, however, if a purchaser is a “good faith” purchaser of an item, they may acquire a title to that property superior to the original owner.   In other words, if the purchaser had no reason to believe they were buying stolen goods, they can claim title to the purchased item.   An original owner must legally prove the current owner knew he was buying tainted goods in order the reclaim the property.

In the almost 70 years since the end of World War II, much has changed in the art market.  There are whole bookshelves of historical books detailing the atrocities carried out be the Nazis.   Dedicated art historians and sleuths have picked through the records and reported to the world about the Nazi regime’s methodology and many of the individual victims of their schemes. Databases of stolen art are now much easier to access.  Art historians, museum curators, auctioneers and appraisers have been trained regarding what to do with items presented with provenances that get murky or sketchy in the period surrounding WWII.  As one generation succeeds the next and artwork is offered for sale publically for the first time since the 1940’s, some rancorous lawsuits have occurred between Jewish heirs and those who had no idea that their collections contained pieces with ownership questions.

I have always wondered about the competing ethical issues that would come into play if I was ever asked to appraise a piece that research revealed might have been stolen during WWII.  An appraiser has an ethical responsibility to her client to maintain the privacy of that client.  We are not allowed to reveal the names of our clients, their reasons for seeking an appraisal or any of the salient facts about their collections, unless given permission by our clients or compelled by law.    My only connection thus far to WWII-related art was an appraisal for the heirs of a Jewish family that had been able to escape Germany in 1939, through Holland and eventually to Alabama and had miraculously been able to bring some of their art with them.   But, I had never personally had to deal with the sticky issue of stolen art.  I had always presumed it would raise its ugly head in the form of an owner with a nice collection that had come down through inheritance, where the intervening generations had lost the story of how and where grandpa had bought a particular painting.  I worried about how a client might take such news about their beloved painting and what I might do if they chose to bury the information. Would I have an ethical obligation to maintain my client’s privacy or were there laws in place to compel that the information go public?  Gratefully, I have never been faced with the issue in that manner.

But, on that afternoon a few weeks ago, the issue came up in the most unexpected way….an owner who had been a young girl in a prominent family, who watched the rise of Nazism and had met Hitler personally.   Was I about to inspect a large cache of previously Jewish-owned art?  How did this woman come to be living in our neighborhood for so many years?   How had she gotten out of Germany in the post-war years and brought artwork with her?   I wondered all of this when I took my friend’s call.  But, we did not discuss much of it on the phone that afternoon.   After so many years as an appraiser, one lesson well learned is that family stories are always intriguing and sometimes conflict with what can be proven from personal inspection of the artwork.  As it turned out, the paintings that came for inspection left me with no questions of ownership.  They were all portrait miniatures of various family members.  The lady had been a member of an Austrian family that had included minor royalty and several decorated soldiers in the 18^th C.; no hidden Vermeer; no tough conundrums, just portrait miniatures.   So, I did the research necessary and gave the values to my colleague.

This is an issue that I expect will continue to haunt the art world for many years to come.  One might think there would not be many competing ownership claims sixty-eight years after the war has ended.  But, they do arise.  Some of the artwork left the market during the war years and has not publically been seen since.  As older generations pass art to their heirs, as museums begin to investigate more thoroughly the provenances of their collections, items will come to light.  The process of making a claim for art has never been easy and while the intervening years have changed the approach to research, an heir has to be tenacious if she or he expects to receive reparation for their family’s artwork.  Professionals in all fields related to art are expected to be aware of items which might be questionable.  Most American and European museums have standardized their policies regarding such materials and most do seek to return items to heirs when such objects are discovered.  Auction houses are on guard for items that might be caught up in contentious litigation.  But at the private level, appraisers do have competing ethical obligations.  I believe we are responsible for good research and for reporting results to the owners who are our clients.  What is done with any discoveries after that point may be out of our control.

Brenda Simonson-Mohle, ISA CAPP Art Advisor, Appraiser

Post Script:

This is a fascinating, albeit morbid, area of research.   For those who would like to delve into some of the history of the period, here is a list of resources and, where not evident by the titles, a brief synopsis of what each covers.

The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History by Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter

The Monuments Men – new movie –for release late fall, 2013.  Preview below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CreneTs7sGs

Be sure to catch The Monuments Men, a George Clooney directed movie going into wide release later this fall.  This is a Hollywood version of events.  But, I hope it tells the story of this fascinating group of individuals who did much to rescue precious art and preserve our cultural patrimony from the grasp of the Nazis.

The Rape of Europa: the Fate of Europe’s Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War by Lynn H. Nicholas Traces Hitler’s path of destruction and acquisition in various countries over the course of the war. There is also a documentary film by the same title and based on the book.  It is stupendous and adds visuals to the weight of Nicholas’ words.

Art and Politics in the Third Reich by Jonathan Petropoulos The first part of this book describes the importance of art to Hitler and how it figured into Nazi life and the Nazi definition of German culture.  The second half covers several individual highly placed Nazis, how and what they gathered.

The Lost Museum: The Nazi Conspiracy to Steal the World’s Greatest Works of Art by Hector Feliciano. This book discusses why art was important to Hitler and the Third Reich.  It also traces the systematic pillaging of several major collections targeted by the Nazis. It also discusses the role of the art market during the war years in disposing of and paying the Nazis for stolen are and the turmoil certain heirs have undergone in trying to recover their art.

The Spoils of War; World War II and its Aftermath:  the Loss, Reappearance and Recovery of Cultural Property edited by Elizabeth Simpson This is a collection of 50 essays presented at an international symposium on Nazi art looting that was hosted by Bard Graduate Center (New York, NY)  in 1996.   Each of the speakers takes on the loss of art in a given country and thorny issues they have encountered.  The appendix of the book also lists treaties from various countries that relate to the protection and return of cultural property.

Interesting Articles and Sources:

The Monuments Men Foundation http://www.monumentsmenfoundation.org/index.php

“The Lady in Gold: The Extraordinary Tale of Gustav Klimt's Masterpiece, Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer”

Great Article by Patricia Cohen

Patricia Cohen with the New York Times published a great article yesterday."Valuable as Art, but Priceless as a Tool to Launder Money" tells how criminals have turned to  high value artwork to launder money, hide illicit profits and illegally transfer assets around the globe as other money-laundering strategies have grown more and more difficult over time. Very interesting read and look into the current art market, check it out!

"Valuable as Art, but Priceless as a Tool to Launder Money" by Patricia Cohen

According to the air bill slapped on the crate that arrived at Kennedy International Airport from London, an unnamed painting worth $100 was inside. Only later did federal investigators discover that it was by the American artist Jean-Michel Basquiat and worth $8 million.

This painting, known as “Hannibal” after a word scribbled on its surface, was brought into the United States in 2007 as part of a Brazilian embezzler’s elaborate effort to launder money, the authorities say. It was later seized at a Manhattan warehouse by federal investigators who are now preparing to return it to Brazil at the behest of law enforcement officials there.

The painting’s seizure was a victory in the economy-rattling, billion-dollar fraud and money laundering case ofEdemar Cid Ferreira, a former Brazilian banker who converted some of his loot into a 12,000-piece art collection.

Law enforcement officials in the United States and abroad say “Hannibal” is just one of thousands of valuable artworks being used by criminals to hide illicit profits and illegally transfer assets around the globe. As other traditional money-laundering techniques have come under closer scrutiny, smugglers, drug traffickers, arms dealers and the like have increasingly turned to the famously opaque art market, officials say.

It is hard to imagine a business more custom-made for money laundering, with million-dollar sales conducted in secrecy and with virtually no oversight. What this means in practical terms is that “you can have a transaction where the seller is listed as ‘private collection’ and the buyer is listed as ‘private collection,’ ” said Sharon Cohen Levin, chief of the asset forfeiture unit of the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan. “In any other business, no one would be able to get away with this.”

Though there are no hard statistics on the amount of laundered money invested in art, law enforcements officials and scholars agree they are seeing more of it. The Basel Institute on Governance, a nonprofit research organization in Switzerland — the site of the world’s premiercontemporary and Modern art show — warned last year of the high volume of illegal and suspicious transactions involving art. But regulation has been scattershot and difficult to coordinate internationally.

In the United States federal money laundering statutes apply to nearly every major transaction through which illegal profits are disguised to look legal. Typically, dirty money is laundered through the purchase of, say, a penthouse apartment, or mixed in with the earnings of a legitimate business like a restaurant. When gambling winnings or drug proceeds come out the other end, they appear as a real estate asset or business profit. They look clean.

Most of these industries have checks. Real estate titles and deeds at least require a name. Mortgage brokers, stockbrokers, casinos, banks and Western Union must report suspicious financial activity to the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Banks must report all transactions of $10,000 or more. Altogether, the network logs more than 15 million currency transactions each year that can be used to track dirty money, said Steve Hudak, a spokesman for the agency. The art market lacks these safeguards. Roll up a canvas and it is easy to stash or move between countries; prices can be raised or lowered by millions of dollars in a heartbeat; and the names of buyers and sellers tend to be guarded zealously, leaving law enforcement to guess who was involved, where the money came from and whether the price was suspicious.

(Although federal prosecutors last month charged the New York art dealer Helly Nahmad with conspiring to launder $100 million in gambling money, the indictment says that bank accounts, not art, were used for laundering.)

Governments around the world have taken steps to bring illegal activity to light. In February, for instance, the European Commission passed rules requiring galleries to report anyone who pays for a work with more than 7,500 euros in cash (about $9,825), and to file suspicious-transaction reports.

The United States similarly requires all cash transactions of $10,000 or more to be reported. Still, laundering involving art tends to be handled case by case. Federal prosecutors, who usually discover art-related laundering through suspicious banking activity or illegal transport across borders, have worked closely with other countries and aggressively used their powers under civil law to confiscate art that they can establish is linked to a crime, even in the absence of a criminal conviction.

In a forthcoming book, “Money Laundering Through Art,” the Brazilian judge who presided over the Ferreira case, Fausto Martin De Sanctis, argues for more concerted international regulation, saying that if businesses like casinos and gem dealers must report suspicious financial activity to regulators, so should art dealers and auction houses.

But to dealers and their clients, secrecy is a crucial element of the art market’s mystique and practice. The Art Dealers Association of America dismissed the idea that using art to launder money was even a problem. “The issue is not an industrywide problem and really does not pertain to us,” said Lily Mitchem Pearsall, the association’s spokeswoman.

Law enforcement officials complain that dealers are playing down art’s role in a criminal underworld.

In Newark, federal prosecutors in a civil case recently announced the seizure of nearly $16 million in fine art photographs as part of a fraud and money laundering scheme that prosecutors say was engineered by Philip Rivkin, a Texas businessman.

The 2,200 photographs by masters like Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston and Edward Steichen — more than could fit into an 18-wheeler — were paid for, court papers say, with some of the $78 million that the authorities say Mr. Rivkin got from defrauding oil companies like Shell, Exxon, and Mobil. Mr. Rivkin, who has not been charged with any crimes, was last thought to be in Spain and had arranged to have the photos shipped there.

In New York, victims of the fraud and money laundering scams of the disbarred lawyer Marc Dreier are still in court fighting over art he bought with some of the $700 million stolen from hedge funds and investors. At the moment 28 works by artists like Matisse, Warhol, Rothko and Damien Hirst are being stored by the federal government.

“Hannibal” also sits in storage. That 1982 Basquiat work was part of a spectacular collection that Mr. Ferreira assembled while he controlled Banco Santos in Brazil. Some of these works had been exhibited at museums like the Guggenheim in New York.

Like most laundering cases involving art in the United States, this one was uncovered when the work was illegally transported into the country. In 2004 Mr. Ferreira’s financial empire, built partly on embezzled funds, collapsed, leaving $1 billion in debts. A court in São Paulo sentenced him in 2006 to 21 years in prison for bank fraud, tax evasion and money laundering, a conviction he is appealing. Before his arrest, however, more than $30 million of art owned by Mr. Ferreira and his wife, Márcia, was smuggled out of Brazil, Judge De Sanctis said.

According to court papers, “Hannibal” was bought for $1 million in 2004 by a Panamanian company called Broadening-Info Enterprises, which later tried to sell the painting for $5 million. It was sent to New York in 2007, passing through the hands of four shipping agents in two countries before landing at Kennedy.

Since merchandise valued at less than $200 may enter the United States without customs documentation, duty or tax, “Hannibal,” labeled worth $100, was cleared for entry even before the plane landed.

Philip Byler, Broadening’s lawyer in New York, said that the inaccurate invoices were merely a shortsighted attempt by the art dealer that Broadening hired to save importation fees. “It was not done with the intention of smuggling,” he said. He also challenged the Brazilian authorities’ claim, saying that “Hannibal” was legally purchased from a company owned by Mr. Ferreira’s wife.

Mr. Byler said that Broadening intends to appeal the forfeiture.

You can find Patricia Cohen's original article here: Valuable as Art, but Priceless as a Tool to Launder Money

Auction Houses: The Changing Market

In recent months the powerhouses of the auction world, Sotheby’s and Christie’s, have raised their buyer’s premium rates – the amount of commission buyers pay above the hammer price of works sold at auction – for the first time in over five years.  Christie’s announced the change to their clients on February 15th via a mass e-mail, and, as auction houses have historically followed one another, Sotheby’s announced their increase on February 28^th. The rates break down like this:

As shown in the graphs above, both auction houses have kept the same percentage increments – 25%, 20% and 12%.  However, as shown in the tables, both have increased the sales range for each percentage; raising the limits within each bracket anywhere from $25,000 up to $1,000,000.

Both companies reported a drop in auction commission revenue in 2012 and claim the increase in buyer’s premium was a necessary move due to the rising costs within the industry.  The business model of Sotheby’s and Christie’s no longer lends itself to work with artworks expected to receive below $30,000 - $40,000 once on the auction block, and now the lower market is pushing against the larger houses.  They simply cannot compete against the premiums (anywhere from 4-15%) charged by smaller houses and, more specifically, by online auctions.

Sotheby’s and Christie’s are now focusing the majority of their attention on attracting high-priced sales while avoiding the lower market altogether.  By raising their buyer’s premium rates, both houses are aiming to attract high-end consumers in the market and deter those within the lower sectors.  Both houses have stated raising profits as the reason for their increases, but if the change was to solely raise profits they would have increased the premium rates charged to buyers and not the amounts at which those premiums are calculated.  If, instead of raising the amounts within the percentage tiers, they raised the percentages for the tiers they previously had in place, the profit per sale would increase.  Rather, the decision by Christie’s and Sotheby’s to increase their premiums was not only to increase the profit made from each sale, but to adjust their selling approach within the changing art auction market.

There was speculation whether or not the auction houses Bonham’s or Phillips (previously Phillips de Pury until January of this year) would follow the decision by Sotheby’s and Christie’s to raise their rates.  Bonham’s released a statement announcing they will not be raising their rates.  Matthew Girling, chief executive at Bonham’s for the UK and Europe, said,

“With the USA just now coming out of a recession and Europe still struggling, we do not feel this is the right time to be adding to our buyer’s costs by increasing the buyer’s premium thresholds.”

No one seems to be mentioning that Bonham’s raised their rates in late 2011 (25% for the first $50,000, 20% for $50,001 to $1,000,000 and 12% for anything above $1,000,001) to match and stay competitive with the rates at Sotheby’s and Christie’s at that time.

As of April 25^th, Phillips has adjusted its buyer’s premium schedule: 25% for the first $100,000, 20% for $100,001 to $2,000,000 and 12% for anything above $2,000,001.  This adjustment widens the price thresholds at which fees are applied but represents no change in the fee percentages themselves, as is the trend.

So, the big guys have raised their rates – what about the lower market?

What is the “lower market” the huge houses are staying away from in their updated business plans?

The lower market consists of local auction houses, regional auction houses and online auctions.  These are the houses within the secondary market that have a much lower minimum per-lot value than the powerhouses.

The regional houses in the DFW area are Heritage Auctions and Dallas Auction Galleries, both located in the design district of Dallas.  Both of these houses have buyer’s premium rates for fine art auctions at 25% on the first $50,000, 20% of any amount between $50,000 and $1,000,000 and 12% of any amount over $1,000,000 (these are recent increases and are the previous levels both Sotheby’s and Christie’s had their rates set before the decision to increase).  Auction houses such as Heritage and D.A.G are why the powerhouses are embracing their new strategies.  The huge distinction historically separating local auctions, where you brought that painting you found in Aunt Mindy’s attic, from the mammoth auction houses, where collectors went to purchase and sell fine antiques and blue-chip works, is beginning to fade away – the gap is closing.

With the aid of technology and internet auctions like www.LiveAuctioneers.com, the seller’s connection to the market is instantaneous and accessible from anywhere there is an internet connection.  LiveAuctioneers brings an international audience directly to the bidding action at auctions worldwide.

The introduction of LiveAuctioneers into the regional auction house means the buying audience for those houses is no longer limited to those able to attend the auction.  Collectors can track their favorite artists worldwide and can virtually attend and bid at any auction supported by LiveAuctioneers.  This has radically changed the business prospects of regional auction houses and has forced the ‘big guys’ to redefine their target audience.

So- How do these new realities affect sellers?

In the art market, though the gap between upper market and lower market auction houses has been and is consistently shrinking, finding the best place to sell a work of art requires auction strategy.  When consigning an item for auction there are several factors to consider.  When brokering pieces for our clients much analysis goes into selecting the right auction house.

The bigger houses have a perceived advantage in selling certain types of high-end items.  They have a longer history of offering such work and have likely developed a larger clientele list at the upper end of the market.

However, when approaching one of the big houses, one must be aware of the fees.

Oh…the fees.

A seller at one of the bigger auction houses has to consider shipping costs, catalogue illustration fees, insurance fees  (usually 1.5% of the hammer price charged retroactively and taken from sale proceeds, but somehow stated to cover the client while items were under the auction house’s care) and higher buyer’s and seller’s premiums when figuring out the best sale venue.

Auction houses operate as the secondary market within the art world.  They are a great resource to take advantage of when selling or buying artwork.  They aren’t out to swindle or scam people, however they are a business and are out to make a profit and one needs to be informed and aware of the auction world before deciding to approach it.

So, the take away: Do your research.

Research the art: You need to know about the artwork(s) you are looking to sell or buy in order to find the proper auction setting to place them in / buy them from.  Having values in mind beforehand on what you are comfortable selling / buying for is a must.  Take your items to a well-trained appraiser and have them place a value on the piece and advise you on how to approach the market.  Schedule and consultation and ask the questions you need answered: Is this an original or reproduction?  Does it need to be cleaned before taken to auction?  Will this do better if taken to an auction or consigned to a gallery?  What is a reasonable price range to be expecting for resale?  These are questions you need answered before considering auction houses to consign with.  Hiring an art consultant to show you the ropes and advise you as you enter the auction market is a smart first step.

Research the record: Be aware of a house’s history with a certain artist or period or style.  Know what they have done well with in the past.  Know what they have been unsuccessful with in the past.

Research the terms of service:  Know their rates (both buyer’s and seller’s) for the sale at auction; know their rates for private sales – which are usually 10%-15% higher.  Learn the fees.  You will sign a contract when consigning to sell with a house, so be aware of the fine print before you sign the line at the bottom.

Research or hire:  Hiring an experienced professional to broker your work and handle the sale / purchase for you is a solution for clients who don’t have the time necessary to get to know the market, or for those who don’t want to get in the market and would rather hand the reigns over to a professional.  These experts are happy to work for their clients in finding the best place for their purchases or sales to be made, and utilize an insider’s seasoned perspective within the market.

Research and be hands on:  Don’t be afraid to approach the auction world if it is something you are interested in and something you are able to devote time to.  It can be loads of fun.  Just do not dive into it without knowing what you are getting into.  Go preview and watch an auction.  Dallas Auction Galleries and Heritage Auctions are great places to start here in the DFW area – make a fun evening of it.  Watch live auctions going on all over the world through LiveAuctioneers to get some exposure before you register for a bidding paddle with your number on it.

The auction market might be the perfect place to start your collection of art or to sell those paintings you inherited from Aunt Mindy.  However, it can be a bit daunting for a novice.  If we can be of service to help you, either to buy or sell, don’t hesitate to give us a call.  Sensible, objective advice on the purchase or sale of artwork is what sets Signet Art apart!

M.P. Callender

Cindy Sherman retrospective at the Dallas Museum of Art

The Dallas Museum of Art first exhibited Cindy Sherman's work in 1988, and she is back at the DMA after 25 years.  The comprehensive survey of Sherman’s work draws widely from public and private collections with nearly 160 photographic works on display. "Cindy Sherman is widely recognized as one of the most important contemporary artists of the last forty years, and she is arguably the most influential artist working exclusively with photography." - Dallas Museum of Art

Born in 1954, Sherman is a photographer who incorporates aspects of identity, feminism, cultural criticism, body and politics into her work.  While studying painting at the State University of New York at Buffalo, Sherman traded her paintbrush for a camera and, after graduating in 1976, moved to New York to pursue a career in photography.

Her series of seventy works "Untitled Film Stills" (1977-1980), in which the artist took photographs of herself dressed as invented personages and characters meant to emulate stereotypical female clichés inspired by 1950's and 1960's Hollywood noir and B-movies, garnered much attention and acclaim for the aspiring artist.  The images intended to resemble and call to mind the happy house wife, innocent college girl, candid celebrity or  femme fatale brought a fresh approach to popular culture that allowed Sherman to enter the art world with success.

The pieces within the DMA exhibition are the result of one photographer, one model, one make-up artist, one hairdresser, one costume designer, one director... what the audience sees is Cindy Sherman herself.  She is posing for her own camera and works without assistance as she prepares and shoots; it is a solo act, and has been for over thirty years.

The show is organized by series:

"Untitled Film Stills"(1977-1980) - the black and white photographs that set the artist's career in motion. "Society Portraits" (2008) - Huge color images show the struggle of status-obsessed culture, women with mounds of makeup and cosmetic alteration clinging to youth.  In these Sherman makes her characters vulnerable behind all the costuming and make-up, commenting on society's perception and intense focus on beauty. "History Portraits" (1988–90) - A modern representation in Art History, highlighting the relationship between the painters and their model, with allusions to Ingres, Caravaggio, Raphael and other Old Masters; all who were men, all whose models were women.  Sherman borrows from several periods of art, renaissance, the baroque and neoclassical. The artist uses heavy makeup and obvious prosthetics to transform into the characters of the era. "Fashion" (1983–84, 1993–94, 2007–08) - This is a series of works that challenge and comment on ideas of beauty and grace within the fashion industry.  Over the years, fashion has been an inspiration for Sherman and she has been commissioned by many well known fashion designers and magazines. "Centerfolds" (1981)-  A series of twelve images that refer to the printed page and the cinema in two by four foot horizontal photographs where the female subjects are placed on differing emotional stages; scared, lonely, melancholic, bored, heartbroken.  Here Sherman is exploring the alienation of women.  A great work in this section, "Untitled #96, 1981", in which Sherman lies on a linoleum floor in a sweater and skirt looking absently away from the viewer, a thirty-something single clutching a personals ad torn from a newspaper, sold at a Christie's New York auction for $3.89 million in 2011, the most expensive photograph ever sold at the time (a record which has since been beaten). "Clowns" (2002–04)-  All of the subjects in this series are dressed in bright colors and carnivalesque makeup, a jovial and even comical surface layer for the characters.  Sherman is using the clowns because, underneath the vibrant bursts of color and wide tooth smiles, is an underlying sadness.  As the artist said in an interview last year, "clowns are sad, but they’re also psychotically, hysterically happy."  Sherman is using the persona of the clown to have a conversation - people can paint themselves to look happy, even if they are sad underneath.  She goes to the extreme to show the vast emotional possibilities behind a painted smile. "Sex Pictures" (1992)- After the popular success of her "History Portraits" show, Sherman felt she had to challenge herself to do something difficult, something that would make it "...hard for the audience to just, you know, applaud and throw their hands up in the air..." she said in a 2010 interview when asked about her jarring new series.  Reenacting pornographic scenes with prosthetics and mannequin parts purchased from medical-supply catalogues, this section of the exhibition should have a warning sign to caution parents from bringing their children in.  The images are graphic, sexual, and though there is no actual nudity since everything is fake, the photographs are disturbing.  In this same section are images from the 1980s and 90s when Sherman was interested in grotesque and macabre narratives, investigating ideas of censorship and, as intended, making it hard for the audience to simply applaud.

*Sorry, no example of these, the content is too graphic for this blog

"Headshots" (2000)- In her headshots, Sherman invented characters who have fallen victim to the cycle of desire, ambition and failure of Hollywood.  These images depict would-be stars, failed actors and has-been performers posing for headshots for agents and agencies.  With a little tongue-in-cheek, Sherman first exhibited this series in Beverly Hills, California. "Fairy Tales & Mythology" (1985)-  “In horror stories or fairy tales, the fascination with the morbid is also, at least for me, a way to prepare for the unthinkable…That’s why it’s very important for me to show the artificiality of it all, because the horrors of the world are unwatchable and they’re too profound. It’s much easier to absorb – to be entertained by it, but also to let it affect you psychologically – if it’s done in a fake, humorous, artificial way.” -Cindy Sherman As a working artist, Sherman continues to use her own disguised body as the subject in her works.  Her photographs are not self-portraits and have nothing to do with the artist herself.  All of her works are untitled and simply given a number, i.e. "Untitled #109" or "Untitled #434", which further distances Sherman from the images; she wants the viewer to draw their own conclusions and has refused to title any of her works.  Throughout her career, from the film stills to the society portraits, her work has been an investigation of identity - what it is, how we use it, how it changes - and how photography is the means in which identity is manufactured in popular culture and, now, social media.

Cindy Sherman is the recipient of the MacArthur Award and Hasselblad Award for Photography.  She currently lives and works in New York City.  Her newer works are embracing the possibilities available through digital photography and photo manipulation software.

While you are at the DMA, be sure to catch the other two special exhibitions currently showing, "Loren Mozley: Structural Integrity," runs from February 17–June 30, 2013 and "Chagall: Beyond Color," runs from February 17–May 26, 2013.  A purchase of one $16 dollar ticket will get you access to all three special exhibitions.  If you are a member, the shows are free.

-M.P. Callender Signet Art

All images used for purpose of this article and are not intended for reproduction, copyright is reserved for the artist