Thoughts on 2017 for the Art Business, pt. 3

[Please find Part 1 here, and Part 2 here]

“Lord. You can imagine where it goes from here.” — Maude Lebowski

“He fixes the cable?” — The Dude

As I’ve mentioned, “Transparency and access” are the bogey men of the art world. They are not the real problem. Nor is the internet the problem or the solution, per se. Galleries and art fairs — as troubled and imperfect vessels and systems as they are for experiencing art — are not the problem. Scale is. This should not be so hard to see — this is Econ 101 stuff here, folks. The art world’s core problem is that the art market is built like an obelisk rather than a pyramid. Rather than obsessing over the high end of the market, all efforts need to be on broadening and strengthening the base — from the low to mid-range of the market.

With a precariously high high-end, the art market for years has been desperate (whether it acknowledges it or not) to feed its own beast — to bring in new collectors to shore up the base and feed the mid-range market, which is critical to supporting the high-end. Unfortunately, most attempts to do so have fallen into two broad, failed categories. The first is disruption, which we’ve seen has not only been largely unsuccessful, but is also misguided.

Second is a myopic conqueror model. To use but one example, for years the art world has been desperate to break into the world (and seemingly endless money) of silicon valley. So how have we done that? Mostly with art fairs and pop-up galleries plopped into their midst. The art world has been attempting to attract much needed new entrants to the art market without bothering to learn the language of the target audience, and instead just continuing to speak in the art world’s own lingua franca. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Successful models, new and old, are out there. We just need to pay attention, and be creative and open minded about what we pursue.

Museums: Leading History

Art museums are not normally thought of as being particularly cutting edge and agile institutions — this is, of course, largely appropriate. Rather, what they are adept at is taking the long view of art and the market. Museums caught on early to the need to “feed the beast,” founding young patrons groups decades ago, in order to develop future patrons. Additionally, museums have been bold in programming, mixing in pop-culture, mass-popularity shows to draw in a broader audience. This should be encouraged and developed, rather than met with the universal scorn for these initiatives that we usually hear from the finer quadrants of the art world. Fashion, literature, television, and the movie industry have all made aggressive pushes into both high art and mass-market, and met mostly with tremendous success. I love Museum Hack, and am encouraged by museums that have embraced them. The New Museum’s New Inc. is also an important initiative, and a prime example of how museums and commerce can coexist. The rest of the art world, specifically the art market, needs to catch up to museums.

Galleries: Everybody into the Pool

When did galleries fall behind every other art world entity from artists to museums in bringing innovation and creativity to their business model? Rather than being so defensive in the face of Simco, out-innovate him! Fortunately, there are a few bright stars out there worth studying and perhaps emulating. Immediate opportunities include Gallery Week style models and the new CONDO (Joel Mesler’s old Rental Gallery writ large) initiative — scaling will be a challenge, but these are brilliant, and reasonably successful models.

The signal challenge for galleries will be to reposition themselves to encourage clients to slow down and consider art more carefully. I look forward to seeing more of what Alan Feuer in the New York Times described as a movement similar to the Slow Food movement — a movement, it should be noted, that has been incredibly successful in driving healthier, more sustainable dining habits across the economic spectrum.

Models ranging from the ambitious Minnesota Street Project, to joint representation models between midsize and larger galleries, are worth studying and emulating. If Maccarone and Zwirner can figure out a way to share representation of Carol Bove, why can’t this happen more often, rather than a zero-sum game where an artist leaves a smaller gallery for a larger gallery? Larger galleries need to take greater responsibility for acknowledging, supporting, and collaborating with the smaller galleries that make up their ‘farm leagues.’ It is precisely this current lack of accountability at the top-end that has opened the door to the rise of players like Simchowitz. Collaboration can and must be encouraged.

Online: Make Yourself Useful [redux]

Big Data is set to transform the art market and the art business — my hope is that it can be applied to helping smaller to midsize galleries, and I am encouraged to know that some of the smartest players in this field are already hard at work at this task. Additionally, tools to grow the market and aid collaboration should be encouraged. Aside from more logistical, marketing, and information tools I mention in Part One, more careful consideration and support needs to be offered to art market organizations in the financial-tech sector. While it makes the art world decidedly uncomfortable, this is the reality that we have to work with. It’s like the argument for gay marriage, If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married: If you don’t like art as an investment tool, then don’t buy art as an investment.

Ventures like Art Money (short-term, zero-interest loans to buy art) and Arthena (data-driven mutual fund for art investment) are important tools the likes of which are available and successful in countless different markets, and are now being applied to the art market [full disclosure: I’m a strategic advisor to Arthena]. Ventures like these should be encouraged, as they are poised to bring new entrants into the art market, and are targeted precisely at the tiers that need all the support they can get — the middle to lower end of the market. Who cares if these new buyers come into the art market as investors, or if they need a little financial help to get started? They should be encouraged on their own terms, and then it should be the task of the art world to evolve them from art buyers to art collectors and lovers.

In my final post (I know, I know… I said it was going to be three parts… I got carried away), I’ll take a closer look at the three sectors that are the most critical parts of this puzzle: art fairs, new models, and artists.

[Part 4 — a brief commentary in the The Art Newspaper on Art Fairs — can be found here or here. Part 5 — more on art fairs, as well as new models and artists — is here.]