Showing posts with label Vincent van Gogh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vincent van Gogh. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

ART BIZ | Some Forgers Are Good

"Portrait of a Man,"
misattributed to
Frans Hals. A fake.
Nov. 1, 2016–The NY Times yesterday has a story on a forgery, titled "Portrait of a Man" that originally fooled Sotheby's and other experts.

It was sold as a discovered portrait by Frans Hals. Sotheby's has now declared the painting to be a fake.

My mother, Hilda van Stockum, was impressed with successful forgers. She used to tell us with relish how some great forgeries were accepted for years as genuine by the art experts, the nomenklatura of the art world.

She asked out loud why their obvious talents weren't directed toward the traditional route of artists, which is to make their name by painting in their own style.

And then she answered her own question by noting that a good forgery can command immediate money in the art marketplace, whereas even one of the greatest painters who ever lived, Vincent van Gogh, took years to win consensus on his greatness, although as I have noted before, his younger brother Theo clearly knew all along that Vincent's work was valuable.

Hitler and Göring
I think that her concern about imperfectness of the art marketplace is what inspired HvS to include her story about the theft of a Rembrandt from the van Arkels' home in The Borrowed House (pp. 170-185).

She based it on news stories about the competition between Hitler and Göring over acquisition of art treasures.

When Janna "realized that you could like and dislike someone at the same time," referring to Erich Stolz getting rich stealing art from Hitler and selling it to Göring, that was my mother's voice I heard.

It's good to hear her voice today, All Saints' Day, on the tenth anniversary of her death.

Related Posts: Vincent van Gogh P&L . The Borrowed House

Sunday, June 19, 2016

ART BIZ | Eternal Springs Hope

Frank Sofo, "Bicycle at Main Beach," East Hampton.
Photo by JT Marlin, by permission of the artist.
June 19, 2016–Last month's 92nd Street Y exhibit at Ashawagh Hall (in Springs, N.Y.–Town of East Hampton) was a huge success, with one art work selling for $1,800, and one artist selling $3,400 worth of art.

By comparison, the Plein Air Exhibition this weekend was a washout.

Only four items sold out of about 75 on the walls and tables. I was responsible for one of the four purchases. The median price of the three paintings sold was $200.

So red dots were prominently absent, even in the middle of the second day. This commercial failure cannot be sloughed off as resulting from a lack of effort by the artists:
  • The exhibit was kicked off with a big opening party, attracting, says one person who was there, 200 people.
  • The artist collective had 30 participants, allowing for a wide range of landscape interpretations.
  • Organizers sent out press releases and posted notices of the exhibit.
  • It's an annual event, so one would expect repeat interest, which is a big plus.
  • Substantial publicity was focused on the plein air painting of connected artists at Pussy's Pond, the Farmer's Market, the Springs Library, the Blacksmith's Shop, the General Store, Gerard Drive, Maidstone Beach, Home Sweet Home and the Pollock/Krasner House.
  • The show was staffed at all times, and refreshments were on hand.
Frank Sofo, caught in the act of painting outside
Ashawagh Hall, Springs, N.Y.
Yet the total take from the sales of paintings was $550. Ashawagh Hall costs $600 to rent for two days and there were the costs of refreshments and publicity in mounting the show. At most three of the 30 artists covered any of their costs.

I talked about the economics of the exhibit with someone who sold two of the four items that were not homeward bound this weekend–Frank Sofo.

He is a competent artist who has illustrated the covers of a dozen or more reissued Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew books. He has written and illustrated several of his own books for children. His plein air sketch of a bicycle on Main Beach is shown at the top of this post, with Red Dot.

Veronica sees Vincent in the starry sky. Illustration
by Frank Sofo from Vincent & Veronica. Photo
by JT Marlin, by permission of the artist.
He was offering for sale a couple of his books. I bought one about Vincent van Gogh, who is related by marriage to my late artist mother, Hilda van Stockum–Vincent's brother Theo worked for a while at the van Stockum bookstore in the Hague. Sofo's invention is that Vincent had a cat named Veronica who loved her master and when he dies–SPOILER ALERT–is consoled by the fact that she sees his face in the sky.

So why was the 92nd Street Y show so successful in selling while the Plein Air show was not?

I suggested to Sofo these possibilities:
  • The 200 people who came to the opening party maybe didn't suspect that the artists want to sell their art and that's why they were invited?
  • Buyers are timid about buying right away
  • Buyers want to take time to make a decision, and a weekend is too short?
  • It takes more than a weekend to get reviews and then be open for post-review sales?
  • The organizers or beneficiary of the exhibition are entitled to a cut and the artists foolishly decide to avoid paying the cut (or split the difference with the buyer) by selling after the show?
  • The art is over-priced? (Not in this case.)
  • Not enough publicity? (Seems not the case here.)
  • Not enough personal word-of-mouth?
  • Artists are not sending their best work to this exhibit?
I would be interested in what you, dear reader, think might be the explanation.

I understand that some people consider art a hobby and they are happy to exhibit without selling. But art is also a profession and if artists are to be compensated as professionals they need functioning marketplaces. Galleries are great, but artist-organized exhibitions are places where artists can get their work directly in front of the public. If the public doesn't buy, it's just sad.

In response to my comments on the exhibition, Frank sent me an email, which I have his permission to quote. He said:
My own feeling about the art market is that since 2008 when the economy crashed the art market was affected badly, and hasn't yet recovered. Buying art has always been a luxury purchase for most people, and in our present economy more so. That of course does not account for the success of the 92nd St NY show. In my own case it has become harder to sell art these days. I was more successful 10 years ago.
It is true that in 2015, world sales of art were down 7 percent from 2014, to $63.8 billion. The number of art transaction decreased to 38.1 million, a 2 percent contraction. Sotheby’s reported a 2015 fourth-quarter loss of $11.2 million and predicted a significant drop in world sales in the first half of 2016.

But in the USA, $27.3 billion of art was sold in 2015, a 4 percent increase over 2014–a smaller increase, certainly, than the 10 percent growth recorded in 2014, but good news given that every other major art center declined. The USA was responsible for a 43 percent share of total sales of art by value in 2015, more than double the share of its next-biggest rival, the UK, where sales contracted by 9 percent to $13.5 billion for a 21 percent stake in the global art trade.

So if the art business seems slow in the USA, don't move somewhere else–because actually the United States is better off than the rest of the world. (And what will happen in the UK if it exits the European Union on Thursday?)

Other ART BIZ stories:
To subscribe to this blog, or its comments, or to search its contents or to forward this post using G+, see the options at top right.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

ART BIZ | Oct. 25–Pablo Picasso Born, Commercial Genius

Pablo Picasso (1881-1973)
This day in 1881 was born Pablo [Ruiz y] Picasso in Malaga, Spain. He and Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are the three artists who most defined changes in 20th century painting and related arts.

Picasso's Acrobat on a Ball inspired the symbol for Occupy Wall Street.

Among his most famous works are his early-Cubist Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907), and Guernica (1937), a portrayal of the bombing of the Basque town of Guernica by German airplanes during the Spanish Civil War.

Picasso’s father was a professor of drawing and trained his son for a career in academic art. Picasso had his first exhibit at 13 showing extraordinary artistic talent. He was living in an artists'  enclave in Barcelona–painting portraits–when one of his paintings was selected for the 1900 World's Fair in Paris. He went to Paris for the exhibition at the Fair, saw paintings by Manet, Cézanne, Degas, and Toulouse-Lautrec, and decided to be an artist.

The following year got great reviews for an exhibition at a gallery on Paris’ gallery-rich rue Lafitte and decided to stay in Paris. He produced a series of paintings called the Blue Period (1901–1904), evoking the sadness of poverty. It includes The Old Guitarist (1903).

In sequence, Picasso tried different styles, from the Rose Period (1904–1906), in which he often depicted circus scenes such as the previously noted Acrobat on a Ball (1905), followed by the African-influenced Period (1907–1909). His Analytic Cubism (1909–1912) period was shared with the French painter Georges Braque, followed by his Synthetic Cubism (1912–1919) period, also referred to as the Crystal period.  The Cubist art has the subtext that art need not represent reality to have value, and brought collage to painting. Major Cubist works by Picasso included his costumes and sets for Sergey Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes (1917) and The Three Musicians (1921). After Cubism, Picasso explored various themes that included images of violence, culminating in Guernica.

His work comprises an impressive collection of more than 50,000 paintings, drawings, engravings, sculptures, and ceramics produced over 80 years.

Comment

My mother Hilda van Stockum stuck to traditional Dutch painting techniques and subjects, having gone to art school in Amsterdam and Dublin (she built a following in Ireland and is considered an Irish painter, having half-Irish mother). Her comment on Pablo Picasso is that he was one of many great painters but was a uniquely competent businessman. "A commercial genius," she said, because each of his artistic periods simulated his death.

My mother points to the many artists, like her cousin by marriage Vincent van Gogh, who were living either in poverty or in a situation where they relied heavily on a patron (in Vincent's case, his cousin Theo). She argues that Pablo Picasso, by killing off a subject matter or style of art, created scarcity in his art. This allowed his gallery promoters to consider the art produced in each period as having been capped, preventing dilution from subsequent paintings.

Monday, March 16, 2015

ART BIZ | Did Van Gogh Sell Just One Painting? (Updated Aug 19, 2018)

Vincent van Gogh, Self-portrait (L) and Brother Theo (R). 
Theo financed Vincent's painting career. Both died much too young.
March 16, 2015–On this day in 1901, Vincent van Gogh's paintings were shown at the Bernheim-Jeune Gallery in Paris, his first major show–11 years after he died–with 71 paintings in the show.

The exhibition made it easier for other avant-garde painters to exhibit, like Gauguin and Matisse in the coming years.

Garrison Keillor tells this story today in The Writers Almanac, and says  that van Gogh sold only one painting in his lifetime. That perspective is repeated many times on the web. It needs to be challenged:
  • Dealers often buy paintings and hold them until the marketplace catches up with the dealers' estimate of the paintings' value.
  • The quality of van Gogh's art was well recognized by other artists and dealers during his lifetime.
  • Vincent's brother Theo–his brother and an art dealer–gave him money to live on and to buy art supplies with.
  • Even though Theo was an art dealer, historians describe the money he gave to Vincent as charity. Why?
  • When Theo gave his brother money and at the same time took possession of the paintings, he was buying the paintings. 
  • Theo invested so heavily in Vincent's expensive art materials and provided enough cash for living expenses that Vincent could not be described as poor.
The full story of Vincent's and Theo's relationship is emerging as van Gogh's letters are transcribed, translated, indexed and made available by the Van Gogh Museum. The details of Vincent's and Theo's finances are becoming easier to follow:
  • Yes, The Red Vineyard, now rated the most valuable painting in the world after the Mona Lisa, did not sell until the year before Vincent's death. 
  • But before that he did sell a lot of his art–and the relatives who purchased it were connoisseurs. 
  • As mention, his art was greatly appreciated by other artists. 
  • Theo's charity could be considered an investment in Vincent's art.
  • The detailed financial records now available do not show Vincent to have been poor.
If poverty means you don't have money to spend, Vincent van Gogh was not poor. He was often broke, mainly because he denied himself little:
  • He spent freely on the materials for his art–paints, canvases, sketching supplies – in addition to the materials that Theo purchased for him at his request in Paris.
  • On an impulse he purchased 21 volumes of The Graphic.
  • As needed, he paid money for models–in 1882 he was paying his model Sien one guilder per day.
  • He moved to where he felt inspired, and purchased what was required to settle in. When he moved at the end of his life to a rented house, the "Yellow House", in Arles he purchased 12 chairs for it.
  • He spent money daily on self-indulgences like coffee, tobacco, alcohol, prostitutes (at two francs, F2.00, per visit, sometimes F3.00). [Letters 304, 659, 699, 677 on the Van Gogh Museum Letters website.]
Vincent Sold His Art

Vincent did sell his art to his relatives, who were experts and dealers in art. Theo claimed the right to buy and sell Vincent's art. Vincent had a background in art pricing and he estimated the value of his art highly: 
  • Three children of the grandfather of Vincent and Theo van Gogh, also named Vincent, became art dealers. 
  • Vincent's Uncle Cor commissioned 12 pen drawings from Vincent for 2.50 guilders ($20) each, i.e., for $240.
  • Theo interpreted his willingness to pay Vincent as part of a dealer's bargain with his client.  “I regard the money I give him as payment for his work,” he told Mrs. van Gogh in 1885. We should take him at his word. [Letter 442.]
  • In April 1888 Vincent wrote that he valued his best paintings at F1,000 each (about $4,000). The art world eventually met and streaked passed Vincent's own estimate of his paintings' worth.
  • Vincent van Gogh had a short career as an artist – he started late and died young. This affected his ability to build up a reputation as an artist during his lifetime. But it also meant his art had scarcity value after he died. If he had lived longer his art would surely have appreciated in value during his lifetime, but an individual painting might not be so valuable today.
Theo Was an Investor

Theo was well positioned in this business, dealing in the 1880s with Oscar-Claude Monet, Camille Pissarro, Edgar Degas, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Paul Gauguin, Emile Bernard, Paul Signac, and Louis Anquetin. When in 1888 Theo sold Gauguin’s Breton Women Chatting for F600, about $2,400, it showed a strong demand for the work of the painters that Theo represented.

Theo valued his brother's paintings and was well-informed about the art market, enough to know how and where he would sell Vincent's art in due course. Theo surely had every intention of making money from them.  He didn't expect that first Vincent and then he would die very young. For him, investing in his older brother was an investment in a long-term, appreciating asset.

The money Theo gave to Vincent wasn't a large percentage of his income and was not, for the most part, a great burden. Theo gave money to his brother affectionately and without any evidence of reluctance. I believe Theo's attitude is that he was investing in Vincent and was willing to wait for a return. Theo must have felt that, taken as a group, he and his clients couldn't lose by investing in his stable of artists. In retrospect, he was absolutely right. He might have even suspected that his brother's art would one day command a higher price than the art of any of the others.

From the letters, it does look like a beggar-to-donor relationship. The reason Vincent wrote so many letters to his brother Theo is that Theo happened to include money with so many of the ones he sent to Vincent. Vincent’s request “Write to me soon” was often a euphemism for “Send me money quickly”.  When Vincent writes “Thanks for your letter”, the context suggests: “Thanks for the remittance”. [See Letter 204 on the Van Gogh Museum Letters website.]
La reconnaissance de la plupart des hommes n'est qu'une secrète envie de recevoir de plus grands bienfaits. (Often translated loosely: “Gratitude is the lively expectation of favors yet to come.”) - François de La Rochefoucauld
I don't think this detracts from Theo's generosity. But it does undermine the idea that Vincent never sold any paintings. His brother Theo was implicitly buying them, one by one, on consignment.

The P&L of Vincent and Theo, 1872-1890

I'm not basing my contrary perspective on a hunch, but on the letters of Vincent and Theo about their yearly profit and loss.

1872.
Vincent's first recorded job appears to be at the Goupil & Cie gallery in The Hague at 18. At 19 years old he wrote a letter to a client about a visit in October 1872 to the W. P. van Stockum antiquarian bookstore and auction house, where art was apparently auctioned as well as books. It is family lore, passed on to me by my mother Hilda van Stockum, that Theo worked for the W. P. van Stockum firm, perhaps as what we would call today an "intern". Vincent may also have started working there.  The experience they both would have gained would help explain why Vincent and Theo were hired at a very young age doing sophisticated work for firms based in Brussels and Paris. They must have made a name for themselves as knowledgable about art and about auctions. The van Stockums were well known in the Hague and both Vincent and Theo knew Willem Jacob van Stockum, after whom my uncle was named. He married Carolien Haanebeck, a van Gogh relative. The van Gogh family was well known in the book and art business, but not so much in the Hague. [Letter 001a.]

1873. Vincent earned a good salary in 1873 - 50 Dutch guilders per month in 1873, roughly $400. Theo, four years younger, was paid 38 guilders a month.[FR b2683.]

1876. Both brothers passed on part of their salaries to their parents. When Theo was given a raise and a bonus of 15 guilders ($120) in 1876, he donated some of it for his sister Willemien’s education. [FR b2225-6.]

1879.
Vincent lost his job with the art gallery and his replacement jobs were poorly paid - instead, he became a paid evangelist, starting in January 1879, doing Bible readings, Sunday School and visiting the sick. His pay in Belgian francs was BF50 a month, of which he paid out in turn 60 percent of it on rent. [FR b2456-b2457.]

1880. 
In June, Theo’s support of Vincent is first mentioned. "I learned at Etten that you had sent 50 francs for me; well, I accepted them. … [W]hat else can one do?” His parents also contributed to Vincent's expenses occasionally - in June they sent him a parcel of clothes and F60. In October, when Vincent went to live in Brussels, Rev. van Gogh, his father, sent him BF60 (Belgian francs) a month, of which BF50 was spent on his lodgings. [Letters 155 and 160 and FR b2494.]

1881. Theo’s income rose in 1881 when he was put in charge of the Goupil branch on the Boulevard Montmartre. His father was pleased that Theo could make a bigger financial contribution to the family: "It is really very kind of you to want to pay part of Vincent’s expenses.” Vincent in April 181 was told by his father of Theo's generosity and he said: "I heard from Pa that you’ve already been sending me money without my knowing it, and in doing so are effectively helping me to get along. For this accept my heartfelt thanks." Later: "I damned well hate having to give Pa an account of every penny." [Letters 164, 192, FR b2235.]

1882.
The remittances were regularized and were linked to Vincent's living expenses. From June 1882 Theo sent money three times a month on or around the 1st, 10th and 20th of the month. For Vincent these remittances were "most welcome". Sometimes it was F100 ($400) a month, sometimes F150 ($600), nearly ten times what a factory worker was paid in 1870 to support a family of seven. In 1880 a good seamstress earned only about 6 guilders ($48) a week, and a laborer around 10 guilders ($80). The Dutch poor relief gave mothers a maximum allowance of 1.50 guilders ($12) a week, plus bread. [FR b1706]

1883-1887. Vincent paid 14 guilders ($112) a month rent in The Hague in 1883. He preferred having his payments from Theo spread out because that reduced the chance that he would run out of money too soon. With the exception of the years when he was living with Theo in Paris, and in Saint-Rémy,  the payments were made to Vincent monthly. [Letter 234.]

1883. When Theo fell in love with Marie in 1883, he also started supporting her. Later, he increased his spending on his wife Jo and the infant Vincent Willem. [Letter 394.]

1888. Theo reassured his elder brother not to worry about debts: "You talk about money that you owe me and and that you wish to pay back to me. I know nothing of that.” Why not take him at his word? He kept track of his spending so that later he would have a basis for claiming ownership of some of the paintings he acquired. Others he might sell and just keep the dealer's commission.

  • In Arles, the sums paid to Vincent rose considerably, to about about F2,300 ($9,200) between his arrival on February 20 and and Gauguin’s at the end of October. 
  • Theo also paid for much of the paint and canvas that Vincent needed. He appears to have promised Vincent F50 a week. When Gauguin was visiting, the five remittances were for F100 ($400), plus an emergency payment of F100 before that, so the total from the end of February to the end of 1888 was F2,900 ($11,600), about what Vincent seems to have spent on furnishing the Yellow House. 
  • The F250 ($1,000) a month he had to spend compares favorably with the F135 ($540) a month that his friend the postman, Joseph Rollin, had to feed his family of five. 
  • From May 1888 on Vincent spent F30 ($120) a month for his hotel and F15 ($60) a month to rent the Yellow House as a studio. 
  • He ate his meals in a restaurant for F1.50 ($6) a day.
  • In May-September he paid F90 ($360) a month for bed and board (excluding the bar bill). That fell to F60 ($240) a month in the Yellow House. 
  • The cleaning woman was at first paid F4 ($16) a month, which rose to F20 ($80) a month when Gauguin was staying there. 
  • So Vincent had F100 ($400) over for the rest of the month and F130 ($520) when he moved out of the hotel.
  • Vincent ordered his paints and canvas from Paris, through Theo, who therefore paid the bills. Vincent occasionally purchased canvas and stretchers. The latter cost F1.50 ($6) or less each, depending on the size and frames , which cost about F5 ($20) each. [Letters 592, 676, 681, 683, 713, 736, 738, 762.]
1889. In 1889 Vincent wrote: “You’ve given it [money] back to me several times over, both by your work and by a brotherly affection.” In January-May 1889, Vincent paid F21.50 ($86) a month for the Yellow House, renting two more rooms. He also bought a black velvet jacket for F20 ($80), a suit for F35 ($140), and six pairs of socks for F4 ($16). He spent F25 ($100) to install gas in the Yellow House so he could work at night. For Vincent’s one-year incarceration in Saint-Rémy from May 1889, and his stay in Auvers-sur-Oise from May-July 1890, Theo paid F3,310 ($13,240). Vincent's time in the asylum in Saint-Rémy cost F100 ($400) a month. Theo itemized his income and expenditure for 1889, reserving F250 ($1,000) a month for Vincent. That year he also gave his mother F1,000 ($4,000) and Willemien and Lies F678 ($2,712. Vincent felt guilty about Theo’s expenses. In May he wrote: "The money that painting costs, that crushes me under a feeling of debt and of cowardice, and it would be good for that to stop if possible". [Letters 669, 709, 760, 767 and FR b2206. Account book, 44-45.]

1890.
In March 1890 Theo sold Vincent’s painting The Red Vineyard to Anna Boch for F400 ($1,600). The painting today is rated the second most valuable in the world. This price was a fraction of the cost of Vincent's painting materials in the 13 months starting in June 1889, as Vincent was filling many canvases with some of his best work. "Vincent’s account" lists slightly more than F900 ($3,600) for materials supplied by the firm of Tasset & L’Hôte, and nearly F400 ($1,600) for Tanguy. Theo meanwhile signed a favorable contract with Boussod et Valadon in August 1890. It was backdated to take effect from 1882, perhaps creating what we call today a “signing bonus.” Theo was paid a salary of F4,000 ($16,000) a year, with a bonus of 7.5 percent of the net profit of the branch he managed, which for 1882-90 came to more than F8,000 ($32,000). So in 1889-1890, he was paid about F12,000 ($48,000) per year. From this Theo paid Vincent an average of less than F2,000 ($8,000) per year, i.e., less than 16 percent of his income. Theo also sent money home to his parents, and thus contributed to the upbringing of his sister and his brother Cor. [Letter 855, Account book 2002, pp. 44-45, 139.]


Without discounting Theo's love of his brother, there is no need at the same time to assume that his support of Vincent was strictly charitable. He knew quality paintings and he knew he was getting value for money. So the talk about "only one painting being sold" omits the fact that so far as Vincent was concerned his work went right out into the hands of a friendly art dealer, who gave him enough money to support himself well.

Vincent van Gogh Letters Search:

Sunday, August 24, 2014

CityEconomist Just Passed 90,000 Page Views

August 24 - CityEconomist was at
80,000 page views on June 11. That
is 10,000 page views in 74 days.
More than 6,000 page views during 
the past month. Thank you for 
reading. Here are the top 10
posts viewed in the last month,
July-August 2014


Jul 29, 2014, 










230











172
82
79
63
62
40
34
31
31