Art

3° London Hi 9°C / Lo 3°C

Contemporary art is a fraud, says top dealer

The soaring prices - and their subsequent collapse - are proof to some experts that the works had a price, but not much value

By Andrew Johnson

Spanish artist Eugenio Merino's 2009 sculpture '4 the Love of Go(l)d' is a satire on Damien Hirst and the vast prices his work commands

Spanish artist Eugenio Merino's 2009 sculpture '4 the Love of Go(l)d' is a satire on Damien Hirst and the vast prices his work commands

One of the world’s leading art dealers this week launched an astonishing attack on the contemporary art market, condemning the millions charged for some works as “almost fraud”.

The comments from David Nahmad, a Monaco-based dealer who is possibly the biggest in the world, come as art buyers reel from the collapse of the contemporary market.

They echo remarks by the British sculptor Sir Anthony Caro, who last week said that “stupid outrageous values” had become more important than the work itself.

Mr Nahmad, who is reputed to have a £2bn collection of some 5,000 paintings, including 300 Picassos, told The Independent on Sunday: “There are a lot of embarrassed people who bought art that is now not worth what they paid for it. For the past three or four years it’s been a very, very thin market, with just two or three buyers pushing up prices by bidding against each other.

“Unfortunately, a lot of people knew the game. So those people who did not know are realising it now. It’s almost a fraud. I would never advise my clients to buy contemporary art.”

Mr Nahmad and his family have made billions of dollars trading art. They specialise in the works of great modern artists such as Picasso, Matisse and Rothko. He added that he doesn’t think any artist since Francis Bacon had pushed art forward. The last notable artists were Lucio Fontana and Yves Klein, he said. “There is the real art market, with real artists, and then there is the stupid art market which uses publicity to make some artists become very expensive. That doesn’t mean they are good. Damien Hirst’s diamond skull at $100m was a stupid thing; $100m is an offence. Hirst started with $10,000 – that’s OK. But $100m? That’s ridiculous.”

Last week Sir Anthony Caro, 84, one of Britain’s greatest living artists, bemoaned the fact that the market value of paintings had become more meaningful to artists than creating beautiful work. “Some art has got some stupid, outrageous values and it is very sad that money has become a very important part of the art world,” he said at the opening of a new sculpture exhibition in Monterrey, Mexico.

“Because of this crisis, something will change in art and there may be a rethinking of value. In my time, art was never about money. I am not a millionaire. I have tried to make good art.”

Louisa Buck, a columnist for The Art Newspaper, disagreed. “There is no doubt that the likes of Rothko, Picasso and Matisse are magisterial figures,” she said. “But the art world has moved on and to dismiss everything after Bacon is utter nonsense. The contemporary market has been subject to extreme speculation, but there is a difference between speculation and fraud. The economic downturn will moderate the speculative bubble that has seen some less deserving artists command extreme prices.”

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Hardly Confessional
[info]exeterite wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 04:04 am (UTC)
The headline promises some admission of fraud, a knowing sort of confession. But it turns out to be a dubious piece featuring a dealer who specializes in a completely different area from Contemporary art and who only stands to benefit if he is seen crowing publicly in some scintillating, sensational way. I doubt he would have popped his own bubble with such negative publicity back when he was riding the wave of speculation on the Impressionists, back when the Japanese couldn't get enough of the stuff -- a genre which has fallen from favor compared to those glory days. This thin piece is based entirely on the mutterings of two purveyors of the passe. Perhaps The Independent might have better left this matter to the specialist art press.
everything after Bacon is utter nonsense
[info]laconico wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 05:42 am (UTC)
The truth is very unfashionable these days but the pointless urban frauds have had their day. Socialite dullards were never impressive to anyone in search of beauty. Post modernism in a crappy society only means NO ART
At last a bit of sense!
[info]eto_seadog wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 07:01 am (UTC)
Of course countless 'normal' people have been saying the same thing for years ! Talented and skilled artists scrape a living while mini 'celebrities' like Hirst have been laughing all the way to the bank. Just another indicator of the shallowness of modern life. It is also high time that we acknowledged the scientists and engineers who keep the wheels of our civilisation going rather than the *ankers who pick our pockets while we sleep!
Someone has noticed!!!!!!!!
[info]comradekaff wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 07:47 am (UTC)
Contemporary Art is a load of tripe - and I bet none of the artists can actually draw - and I mean draw properly:

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/kathy.stephen/Pages/frame-page.html
I agree
[info]bruknet wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 09:13 am (UTC)
I am not an art dealer. I am not an artist. I am nothing more than an ordinary stupid bloke. But when it comes to art, I ask myself the question: "does it speak to me" and never look at the price tag. I come to the same conclusion: most of it is a fraud.
About bloody time
[info]fatboyspin wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 09:14 am (UTC)
I've been boring people in pubs (sorry wine bars) with this for years - Emporer's new clothes and all that - Beauty is in the eye of the beyholder and if you think it's rubbish, then it probably is......
ages
[info]seo_surrey wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 11:21 am (UTC)
the art speaks about the age. i can appreciate some of hirst's works but art prices in general (EVEN PRINTS) are scandalous.

http://sites.google.com/site/seosurreyuk
[info]martynb9999 wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 12:24 pm (UTC)
A lot of the speculation had be fueled by state diktat. It would be funny to see, online, what we've bought over the last 30 years.
Speculation-Fraud!
[info]cbouyio wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 01:19 pm (UTC)
"there is a difference between speculation and fraud"
says Louisa Buck, can one shed some more light on that because the only difference I can see is only with the privilege of hindsight. Speculatio9n that happens to be true is "brilliance" and speculation that happens to be false is fraud....

I think we have lost our mind as a society (and our values with it)
[info]cereinyn wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 02:33 pm (UTC)
Modern art initially was interesting because it was about involving the public interactively and initiating debate, not debate about the art but about society and about our own imaginations. Somewhere along the way, many an opportunistic person decided the lack of obvious skill in conceptual works meant that they too could create art. Their creations generally forgot to include any interesting concept and became about churning it out, about narcissistic hype and also about bigger is better. In the age of the Individual, therapy and self healing, all perspectives were deemed equally valid and interesting. Some of these artists were better suited for set and prop design than actual art making. Many others, drawing squiggles, defecating and rolling their eyes back into their heads, should have stayed at home. The success of substandard art perhaps comes from the ill conceived idea that we are all artists. If the celebrated artists create every man works, the every man feel superior and better about himself. Through this avid proliferation of the acceptance of everything, it is as though people forgot what they actually like, so oversaturated, so presented with options, so in great haste to keep up with everyone else and so eager to buy in for the sake of being an 'individual'. I do hope this massive downturn allows for a clearing of the dregs and an opportunity for people to recall that they need only possess what they honestly love. And this goes for everything not, of course, just art.
Obvious and true
[info]claphamomnibus wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 04:42 pm (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with David Nahmad, and it's sweet justice that the blind idiots who spent millions (of perhaps ill-gotten gains) on over-marketed pseudo-art should be sitting on enormous, erm, canvas losses.
No depth in conceptual - Emperor's clothes
[info]richardjeff wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 04:51 pm (UTC)
Most "contemporary" art today means "conceptual" art. It tends to illustrate a simple idea, though not often statable in language. Once you've "got it" i.e the point whatever it was, then, for me, it ceases to be interesting. For that reason I prefer art that seems to reveal more and more to me each time I approach it. There is art done like that today but the money and the marketing got diverted to conceptual and, now we've got the point, it has no more value to us....and as we've got no more money .....!!!!

Probably the market was fueled by merchant banker's bonuses (rhyming slang intended) who have proved now they had more money than sense.
[info]mr_scummy wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 05:43 pm (UTC)
Most rational people have known this for years. An unmade bed, pile of bricks, or dissected sheep is no more a work of art than the contents of my dustbin, regardless of how pretentious a title and pseudo-intellectual an explanation is attached to it.

Art should involve both imagination and technical skill; both seem optional these days.
fools
[info]mmaddox wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 08:08 pm (UTC)
So, let the fools who pay for nonsense enjoy it or suffer the consequences.

But if there is a hint of truth to the statement that art reflects the soul of an era, I fear that we are seeing our souls revealed as stupid and greedy - with modern art reflecting the souls of the bankers and their all too willing victims.

Maybe some day someone will explain what it was about the Renaissance that produced outstanding visual arts, or about the Baroque/classical that produced outstanding music. But really, what would it take to see new works that resonate as deeply as those masterpieces?
Education Education Education
[info]shah_kenaw wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 08:40 pm (UTC)
To paraphrase Ben Kinglsey in Sexy Beast what the art "world" needs is education, education education. Art education is practically non existant, or should I say absolutly, for the average bloke. Should anyone take enough time to begin to educate themselves enough to produce anything important one simply marginalizes themselves. Why? Art does not sell, I mean by those who do not have the family, school or... business (art as a business? Pablo`s gotta eat honey) connections to show at decent galleries. Now we find "conceptual art" as what is conteporary, or cough... current. To put it simply art education has been neglected like some bachelor`s rubber plant. I`ve heard of secondary school art "teachers" who would not teach about who Keith Harding was because he had not been proven to be relevant. And here we find statements such as "Most "contemporary" art today means "conceptual" art. It tends to illustrate a simple idea, though not often statable in language." This is like saying paint has color, food has taste. Every simgle peice of art has an idea behind it. Weather it is Picaso`s Guenica, Bacon`s cardinals or David`s Oath of the Horati. Or a child`s finger painting (I like my mommy, or My dog is fuunny). It is simply because the market has absolutly no idea what they are buying that it is easy to defraud a buyer who`s greatest fear is to have their utter ignorance exposed while spending millions on a painted twig or the image of a man being sodomised with an umbrella. And it is paradoxicaly because good art is as rare as the good schools which produce it that millions are spent. There is no counterweight to the very well produced and entirely vapid art sold for thousands. It`s either that or worthless shite.
For the love of gold
[info]thesavageirish wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 08:45 pm (UTC)
Thank the muses! Perhaps we shall see a return to a day when the work of the individual concerted hand and mind will supplant the hollow hollywoodizing of what once was considered fine. A respect for originality, philosophy, beauty, open commentary or criticism on the crucial, if fiscally suidicidal for the artists themselves, aspects of the great issues of our time, rather than the supplication of art and artist to the oft sensitive sensiblities of vain speculative pursers, can again be pursued. A return to a personal art, where the inception, execution and credit for a particular 'work of art' lies with a particular artist and the support of such be the cause of any serious collector and deeply considered when judging the worth of any particular piece would offer some reasonable clarity of importance.
Of course money is a profound necessity in the physical creation of any object and though 'Factory art',i.e. assistant artists involved in the execution of multiples or monumental work, has an age old pedigree, this stultifying climate of art judged the speculative onanism of todays aspiring Medicis, to say nothing of the equally onanistic artist/facilitators, should not be the guiding light.

for the love of gold correction
[info]thesavageirish wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 09:05 pm (UTC)
Correction.

"art judged BY the speculative onanism"
Who is funding these "bids"
[info]desdecker wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 09:53 pm (UTC)
If I put the contents of an ashtray on Ebay and got friends to bid millions for it, paid them back with the proceeds and took the hit for the commission, my next ashtray could become my pension (assuming I lived long enough having smoked so much)?

What I would like to see is an investigation into who is funding these "bids". Is it not in the interests of an artist, dealer or gallery to inflate the market value of the work?

My interest in this subject was raised when after "selling" many millions worth of "work" an artist was forced to make staff redundant?





[info]lima_charlie wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 01:06 am (UTC)
Though what has been said hardly comes as a revelation I am surprised to hear someone from the Art world saying it. For years now the emphasis has been very firmly on the Art market and the value placed on each individual artwork seems to have had little to do with its inherent quality and more who was responsible (or at least, attached their name to it seeing as fewer and fewer artists seem to have hands on involvement these days). Is it any good? Doesn't matter, it's a [insert name of artist here] and it'll sell for a farcically huge sum...

The problem with it being an Art market first and foremost is that once people have started to invest in it, it becomes increasingly difficult to change anything. If all these people have been making or paying exorbitant sums for art which isn't particularly good, is anyone from the Art world really going to turn round and say, "Is it just me, or does anyone else reckon this is all a bit... well, rubbish?" and if other people started putting their hands up too saying "Thank god for that, all these years and I thought it was just me!" then the values would start to go down and there'd be a lot of unhappy artists and even more unhappy buyers. Perhaps this is why, despite believing there's been nobody of any substance since Bacon, Nahmad has chosen now to make his remarks - at a time when values are slipping anyway due to the crunch?

Just one other comment before I finish waffling - 'Art' as it stands today is essentially undemocratic insofar as literature, cinema, theatre, music and other areas of 'the arts' rely to a greater or lesser extent on the public. Art on the other. hand doesn't need us, in fact doesn't even want us (perish the though of being... ughhh, popular). Ultimately it's just a game for rich people and a few others who have figured out to play the system. I'm not saying the public at large should be the sole arbiters of worth (and in a world where the X Factor and its ilk exist, I should surely hope not) but when you look at some of the artists the general public have well and truly taken to heart over the decades and even centuries, are we really all that bad at recognising quality?
I've always thought art was about what's important
[info]panchoangry wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 05:03 am (UTC)
That could take a variety of points of view. But it can never say much with abstractions, I thought though some artists are clearly quite expressive even under the most severe self-imposed constraints. Not that it's worthless, just very sparse.
It's always been the case...
[info]gonzologist wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 10:31 am (UTC)
It's always been the case that most art produced at any time is not outstanding in any way, much is indifferent, mediocre or just plain rubbish. The real quality is rare, as are the people with critical faculties sufficiently developed to recognise it.

The unfortunate effect of the recent financial bubble has been that vastly overrated prices have been paid for work that will end up flushed down the toilet of history. Maybe some sanity will return to the art market.
Art is in the street and on the internet
[info]hiragani wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 10:34 am (UTC)
Most of the celebrities of art sold out long ago and the tossers who buy their work because of their names also buy Lacoste clothes and all the designer stuff because they are just that "names". That's their problem and if they are landed with junk, well, blame the free market, they weren't made to buy the stuff.

The real art, i.e. expressions of society / beauty/ (whatever your definition of art ) is made by people with visual communication skills (natural or learned) and is to be seen in small exhibitions all over the world and above all on the internet where artists have discovered that they can show their work to the world without the costs of mounting an exhibition, which are crippling to any poor, unrecognized artist.

Sure there is a load of crap on the internet, but that is no different to any other era. If you enjoy interesting, moving and excellent art it can easily be found. The artists don't make anything much of the time, which makes it all the more art. Celebrity is one thing, art is another.
Oh Really?
[info]sapdesign wrote:
Tuesday, 24 February 2009 at 03:25 pm (UTC)
There are so many great artists out now you can hardly keep track of the greatness, Today's culture is so flooded with talent in all genres that one would have to be a real ignorant individual to say the likes of Yves Klein to be one of the last notable artists, taking finger painting to a whole new level... you're kidding me right? My 4 yr old daughter could paint the 'Blue Epoch' There are scores of artists out there not even popular yet, or never will be...but that doesn't mean some creative weirdo from the 50's who rose up from his parents coat tails is the last popular artist worth a damn...seriously ya'll
cmon
[info]ianob234 wrote:
Monday, 2 March 2009 at 10:08 pm (UTC)
The same Hirst that had a show in nahmad gallery in london back in '99( i think). Cmon mr nahmad, really, cmon!
How can art be fraud?
[info]theuc wrote:
Monday, 16 March 2009 at 09:34 pm (UTC)
A fake Picasso sold as the real thing, that is fraud, in my humble opinion. A real Hirst sold as the real thing for gazillions on bucks, that's hype, not fraud. An art advisor telling an unsuspecing rich person to spend the gazillion on a promise he will make a fortune on the resale ... that's investment banking. And the person actually spending the money is "no harm done". Better than buying weapons for resale, innit? And not any more stupid than paying a thousand bucks or more for some fizzy wine or 90 grand for a beamer.

As a non-rich collector, this whole art-hype-bubble-burst-top-dealer-damien-hirst-mumbo-jumbo affects me not in the least, apart from amusement. I still buy what I want AND can afford. As an uneducated collector, I consult fellow collectors with more exprience until I can judge for myself. I ask gallerists who promote artists I'm interested in and which I can afford. I never ask investment bankers.

And to those complaining about contemporary artists not being able to draw: I don't understand how that would be a necessary skill in video art ...

http://blog.independent-collectors.com
Contemporary art
[info]catfishspy wrote:
Wednesday, 10 June 2009 at 09:13 am (UTC)
Upload your photo and our unique system lets you choose your Photos on canvas photos to canvas canvas Prints and canvas Art and see your product come to life.

Most popular