As the economy slowly takes a turn for the worst, it will be interesting to
see how Americans choose to spend their money. In these troubled times,
everyone is being forced to cut back or at least seriously consider what is
worth parting with their money for. This reality affects people in every
economic sphere, though some will undoubtedly feel it more than others.
Which brings me to an interesting example: art. Investing in art has become
a common way of diversifying one’s assets, but collecting art is still
largely considered to be a luxury. Can the state of the art market be an
indication of the state of the economy? How will American art collectors
compete with international collectors, especially in light of the weakening
dollar?
The fall auctions brought in significantly less money than was anticipated,
and some major works remain unsold. Even with the discounts that auctions
like Sotheby’s and Christie’s offer as a courtesy, people could not be
persuaded to spend millions of dollars on paintings or sculptures.
From an art historical perspective, it will be interesting to see which
artists and works remain untouched by the economic crises. Malevich’s
painting entitled “Supremacist Composition” sold for $60 million at a recent
auction, arguably proving his significance as a contemporary artist. On the
other hand, Francis Bacon’s “Study for Self-Portrait” remained unsold
despite its $40 million projected selling price. Is one an inherently
better piece of art than the other? Are either one worth millions of
dollars? That, of course, is a matter of opinion, but it is precisely these
opinions, and those who are in a position to act on them, that will
determine the course of 21st century art.




