urban ku # 193 ~ a sign of the times
Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 08:09AM 
Going out of business • click to embiggenThis past weekend, NYC seemed like the same old NYC. For the most part, it felt like life was going on as it always had. Except, of course, it is not.
The most visible sign that things are not quite the way they used to be is the surfeit of empty for-rent retail space. Spaces large and small all over the city sit empty and idle - from New York’s most elegant shopping corridor, the Gold Coast of Madison Avenue (where rents had reached up to $2,000 sq/ft) to much more modest Brooklyn neighborhoods. Nevertheless, that said, for the most part, the city still looks like a going concern.
One area of interest that is not looking good is the Art Market, Photography Division. One sign of the times is found in this horrific account (from the Bloomberg Press) of a struggling artist's dilema:
Gagosian’s $360,000 Photos Linger as Empty N.Y. Galleries Shut
... At the Gagosian Gallery on West 21st Street, Japanese photographer Hiroshi Sugimoto’s exhibition, which opened on Nov. 6, 2008, has been extended through March 7. The prices of some of his meditative seascapes have been reduced from $450,000 to $360,000, with plenty still available, the gallery said ...
Oh, no. Say it ain't so. First the poor devil cuts his prices from nearly half a mil to a third of a mil and then the prints don't roll right out the door. What's a starving Artist to do?
FYI, Sugimoto’s meditative seascapes are B&W prints that are in the 47 × 58 3/4 inches size range.
Now, I could easily write an entry about the relative absurdity of a market-gone-mad but, in fact, here's what really kinda gets to me about this situation - consider this little item from DLK COLLECTION ~ One Collector"s View of the Current Photography Market:
... Some of these gallery owners are resorting to the self inflicted wounds of deep discounting, after spending years establishing baseline prices for their artists. On one hand this makes sense, given a new pricing reality and the knowledge that the sale won't happen unless the price is meaningfully lower. On the other hand, offering a collector a print for half of what you have spent the past five years telling him it is worth is a recipe for permanently broken trust. This is "a rock and a hard place" choice ...
Stating that the idea that gallery owners - who are trying survive during a drastic market downturn by offering discounts - are engaged in "a recipe for permanently broken trust" (AKA, "self-inflicted wounds") is an act of hubris that ranks right up there with that of the financial market malefactors who, while on the public dole, want their paychecks, perks, and bonuses to continue unbated as some form of "right" of which they are so justly deserving.
Give me a f**king (sorry Mary) break. What is it about the wealthy (and their sense of entitlement) that they think it is OK for the little guy to fail in order to protect their interests while at the same time they proclaim that they are "too big" to fail? Or, to be much more accurate in this case, too big / too precious / to important to take even a modest hit on their precious wealth/investment.
The little guy gets a helping hand and it's an evil, government-is-the-problem, liberal, tax-and-spend, intellectual elite, pinko-commie-socialist "entitlement" (you can also throw in the "godless" and "faggot" descriptors if that suits your fancy). The big guys get one and it's just a "bailout" - tinkle-down economics at its finest.
IMO, in this case, an investment in the Art market is just like an investment in any market. There's not a bit of difference whether your investment is in slimy credit default swaps or the noble cause of Art - you puts your money down and you takes your chances. If you don't like taking chance, invest in Treasury Bonds and hang them on your walls.
Who the hell ever told these bastards that buying Art came with an ironclad guarantee against loss on investment. That returns on investment would only inflate and never deflate? And, even in my wildest imaginings, I can't conceive of a gallery owner swearing on a stack of whatever they might hold sacred that they would ever voluntarily self-destruct or fall on their sword for the betterment and protection of their lord-and-master benefactors.
At the very least, collectors of photography still have Art to hang on their walls to look at and enjoy. One could even suppose that it is Art that they purchased because they took some kind of pleasure from it other than its worth as an investment. The rest of us only have periodic financial statements - IRAs, etc. - to look at and I don't know anyone who's hanging them on their walls and getting much pleasure from looking at them.
Now I must admit to having more than a few reservations about standing up for a group (gallery owners) who fed, fueled, and gained from the Art Market Bubble, Photography Division, of the last decade or so. The cynic in me says that they were not so much concerned with building trust by telling collectors what stuff was worth than they were with lining their own pockets by telling collectors that stuff was worth fanciful amounts of money.
That is not to say or even imply that they were dishonest or distrustful, but, hey, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Right?
In any event, it appears that yet another market is due for a "correction". A correction that it so handsomely deserves.
Reader Comments (3)
Changing the subject, after viewing yesterday and todays images, I was wondering if you have ever been stopped and questioned by the police?
I have read so many stories since 9/11 about photographers being detained and even arrested.
I read yesterday that a guy was detained for taking pictures of an Amtrak train and then arrested for tresspassing.
Any thoughts on this?
in case others missed it, it was funny the way Colbert covered it...
http://amysteinphoto.blogspot.com/2009/02/colbert-nails-amtrak-photographer.html
sorry for goin' off topic...again.
The discussion reminded me of this joke:
A potential buyer at an art exhibition was inquiring about the cost of a series of photos he liked. He asked the gallery owner if he thought they would go up in value and the owner said, “they usually do, especially when the artist dies”. The buyer thought about it and bought the photos for the marked price.
The gallery owner calls the photographer and says, “I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is you just sold all your pictures and I’ve got a check here for you for $265,000.” Elated the newly rich photographer asks, “well how could there possibly be bad news?”
The gallery owner replies, “The buyer is your doctor.”
I enjoy your work and discussions.
Thanks,
Richard