The George Lindemann Journal by George Lindemann

Corporate buyers are looking to complete their space in an interesting way. They also select paintings, photography and sculptures for their employees’ enjoyment and to project a certain image. Some view their art as an extension of their corporate work life. I enjoy the challenge of coming up with a plan that reflects what a client wants to say about itself.

I’ve been an art adviser to corporations, law firms, developers, trade associations and other organizations for 36 years. Much of my work comes from referrals. I’m often contacted by a managing partner of a law firm or a C.E.O. or firm administrator. If, after interviewing me, a group goes ahead with the project, it forms an art committee to work with me.

Every project is different, depending on the client’s goals. One company wanted to emphasize that it’s a global organization. I suggested a series of antique textiles — tapestries, paisley shawls, 18th-century English bed coverings, Indian embroideries, batiks, costumes and ethnographic artwork — from locations around the globe where the company has offices. We were surprised to learn that one of the shawls was a rare textile that experts believed had been lost. The client became so involved in the company’s collection that he was asked to join the board of the Textile Museum in Washington.

I’ve found that much exciting work today involves merging art and technology. Artists are using computer-generated images, LED lighting, video and other technology, and it’s attracting interest from companies.

Some organizations aren’t sure what they want when we start together. At a law firm I worked with, I learned that many partners had engineering backgrounds. I suggested devoting a portion of the collection to works of art in glass, either blown or cast in molds. I thought the glass-making process would interest people with that type of background.

People have different tastes, so the committees I work with often make trade-offs. When I propose artwork, I present electronic images from the artists or galleries, for example. If two or three people agree and a fourth is reluctant, that person might give in and say that she’ll get what she likes another time. A committee that’s too large doesn’t work well together, and one outspoken member can make the process uncomfortable for the others.

Organizations learn that selecting art is a process. Many groups that are compiling a collection buy artwork over time, as they can afford it. We come up with a master plan according to the budget. Currently, I’m curating a series of rotating exhibits that change four times a year. The organization’s goal is to encourage local artists, and the work of one or two artists is included at a time.

Once art is installed, I often give clients and their employees a tour of their acquisitions. I discuss the art’s context, including the period when it was made, and tell them about the artist. I go over this with the art committee when the art is selected, but everyone else gets to hear this introduction. Employees who understand why the art was selected are more likely to enjoy it.

Organizations that buy art are investing in themselves — and in more than a monetary sense. Art speaks to culture, self-expression and creativity. Corporations appreciate the reasons for art in the workplace more than they did when I started my company, and developers and architects know to consider art at the beginning of a project so it can be visually integrated into the setting.

WHEN organizations buy artwork, they are supporting the arts. That can mean buying from local artists, but it extends beyond that. Art touches lives. One client, a developer, had a perfect opportunity to do this. His Terrell Place project, formerly a department store, was a site of protest against racial segregation in the 1950s.We decided to reflect this event in the building and asked Elizabeth Catlett, a distinguished black artist, to create three large bronze sculptures for the lobby. To accompany them, we chose murals that illustrate the concepts of liberty and equality.

People who view the art and know the building’s history have told me that the artwork has brought them to tears.

As told to Patricia R. Olsen.

 

Eager to surprise her new husband, Mrs. Pincus said, she sweet-talked a concierge at the hotel to tell her everything he could about Moore. She learned that the artist had tea delivered to his room early every morning. That night she slipped the concierge a note to go on Moore’s tea tray telling him what fans she and her husband were and asking him if they could possibly meet.

“The next morning the phone rang,” Mrs. Pincus went on. “David answered it and said, ‘It’s a man, and it’s for you.’ He wasn’t happy.” The caller was Moore, who invited the couple to breakfast.

For David Pincus, a clothing manufacturer, and his wife, that meeting — followed by countless visits to Moore’s home and studio in England — began a lifelong passion for artists and for collecting. Over a 50-year marriage the couple got to know many of the biggest talents of their day: Andy Warhol, John Chamberlain, Mark di Suvero, Claes Oldenburg, Anselm Kiefer and Jeff Wall.

The couple also became involved with museums like the Institute of Contemporary Art at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Museum of Art, where they served on boards, gave money and donated as well as loaned these institutions countless works of art.

Mr. Pincus died in December, and now Mrs. Pincus is selling a significant portion of her collection at Christie’s in New York on May 8 and 9, including seminal examples of paintings by Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock, Barnett Newman and Willem de Kooning: Abstract artists who are all the rage now. The collection is expected to bring a total of about $100 million.

Mrs. Pincus said the decision to hold an auction has been difficult. “Our foundation needs money,” she explained, referring to the Pincus Family Foundation, which supports various causes including pediatric AIDS initiatives, museums and hospitals.

Laura Paulson, a deputy chairwoman of postwar and contemporary art at Christie’s, knew the couple for nearly 30 years. “They had a boundless appetite for art and would go all over the world buying from artists and from galleries,” she said. “David had an intuitive eye.”

Often their purchases reflected current events, Ms. Paulson explained. For example, in 1965, when the Institute of Contemporary Art organized Warhol’s first museum retrospective, the couple ended up buying his “Sixteen Jackies” (which they sold at Christie’s in 2006 for $15.7 million).

“Responding to the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, the couple also bought eight Warhol paintings of electric chairs,” Ms. Paulson added. Over the years they sold or donated them to museums.

Top among the paintings up for sale is a 1961 Rothko, “Orange, Red, Yellow,” which the Pincuses bought from the Marlborough Gallery in New York in 1967. Measuring nearly 8 feet by 7 feet, the painting is unusually large and of vibrant orange and reds. It is estimated to sell for $35 million to $45 million.

There have not been many paintings by Pollock at auction recently, and Christie’s will be selling “No. 28,” from 1951, one of his combinations of drip and painting in shades of silvery gray with red, yellow and shots of blue and white. Its estimate is $20 million to $30 million.

The auction will also include Newman’s, “Onement V,” from 1952. The last of a series of five paintings, it is the only one that is not in an American museum. The canvas, of rich blues, is expected to bring $10 million to $15 million.

Christie’s will also be selling the Pincuses’ de Kooning paintings and sculptures. One of the paintings, “Untitled V,” from 1983, was included in the recent de Kooning retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art. It is expected to bring $4 million to $6 million.

Asked why she thinks there is such a craze right now for abstract art, Mrs. Pincus paused and said: “I have no idea. When we started out, our friends said: ‘Are you crazy? Why are you putting that junk in your house?’ “

WORKS ON THE WATERFRONT IN BROOKLYN

A series of rectangular modules fashioned from galvanized steel, acrylic, Douglas fir, glass and plastic currently sits in the lobby of the Whitney Museum of American Art as part of its Biennial. The work of Oscar Tuazon, born in the United States and based in Paris, “For Hire,” as the installation is called, is not just a visual environment; it has its practical uses too. On May 20 it will move to the Whitney’s fourth floor, where it will function as a runway for a fashion show by K8 Hardy, founder of the feminist art collective LTTR.

For his next act Mr. Tuazon is creating three site-specific sculptures for Pier 1 at the new Brooklyn Bridge Park. On view from July 19 through April 26, the works will incorporate local trees, and like the sculpture at the Whitney they will be functional as well as interactive. (One will serve as a passageway along the pier.)

Having site-specific installations is a first for the park, for Mr. Tuazon and for the Public Art Fund, which has organized the project.

“We know that Brooklyn is an incubator for young artistic talent, so this is especially appropriate,” said Nicholas Baume, director of the Public Art Fund. “Michael Van Valkenburgh’s vision for Brooklyn Bridge Park has created one of the most extraordinary new landscapes in the middle of New York City, and now, for the first time, one of our most exciting emerging artists has the chance to respond to it.”

Mr. Tuazon’s installation is just one of many projects on the Public Art Fund’s spring and summer schedule. Perhaps the most unusual will occupy the Doris C. Freedman Plaza, on Fifth Avenue and 60th Street, from June 20 to Aug. 26. A twin-engine airplane rotating on its own axis, called “How I Roll,” is the first public art project in America for the Italian artist Paola Pivi. “It will be one of those projects that stops people in their tracks,” Mr. Baume said.

The Munch Museum/The Munch-Ellingsen Group/Artists Rights Society (ARS), NY.  This version of Edvard Munch’s “The Scream,” dated 1895, will be up for sale at Sothebys in May

"It has adorned everything from mugs and t-shirts to key chains, anti-George Bush campaign buttons, inflatable dolls and iPad covers. Now a version of Edvard Munch’s celebrated painting “The Scream’’ will be up for sale at Sotheby’s in New York on May 2nd, the auction house announced on Tuesday morning. Officials there estimate it could bring more than $80 million." -- Carol Vogel for the NY Times (2/21/2012)

November 16, 2011

Last week’s outrageous auction results have left dealers and savvy collectors giddy, puzzled and mentally exhausted. A number of works soared to stupefying heights, defying the gravity of the euro crisis, the Middle East madness and the unexpected softening of gold prices. How and why, at times like these, can art values continue to peak, and Sotheby’s proudly report that it had the third-highest Contemporary sale results in its entire history?

 

Spending some quality rehash time with sophisticated dealers and collectors revealed that all is not as hunky dory as it appears, and that the market has bifurcated into two distinct price ranges: the items that sell for $4 million and below, and the stuff that brings out the Monopoly money.

 

Let’s start with the Monopoly money art. What is it? It’s the art that sells for prices that no one can imagine or understand, like two large abstract paintings by Gerhard Richter, one that made $21 million at Sotheby’s last Wednesday and another that capped out at the same sale at $18 million. Only a year ago a similar and perhaps better one fetched $10 million at auction, a price that seemed awfully high at the time, so how can it be that a 79-year-old artist’s work has doubled in a year of financial crisis? What makes these results even more strange is the rumor that these pictures had been on the market for a while, with no buyers anywhere near these levels. But let’s not forget the early and important black and white photorealist Richter painting that didn’t find any takers in the sale at Christie’s last Tuesday night. The photorealist paintings are the more significant and historic works from Mr. Richter’s oeuvre, and yet the historically “important” art found no buyer while the pretty, colorful abstractions sold for double their presale estimates.

 

Then there was the unusual case of the four rare and handsome Clyfford Stills sold by the artist’s estate to raise money for the Still museum in Denver, Colo. They all sold unbelievably well, but one of them made an outrageous $61 million that night, a number that astounded even the Sotheby’s experts; you could read it on their wide-eyed faces (see them on my website, www.adamlindemann.com). Only two or three years ago, Bob Mnuchin of L+M gallery offered me a similar large Still painting for $20-some million and I thought he was daft, but after these results, am I now supposed to believe that was a bargain?

 

Usually when a group of works by a single artist comes up for sale, you can expect to see some casualties, but in the cases of the Richters and the Stills, the auction house invested in the hype of promotion and marketing, and managed to create a feeding frenzy on the night of the sale.

 

During the Sotheby’s sale hundreds from the art handlers’ union protested raucously outside in Occupy Wall Street style, making the 1 percent (we rich people) feel really weird about the whole art-selling spectacle. But $20 million and $60 million prices are a phenomenon that can spark only among the 1 percent of the 1 percent—those who have seemingly infinite money to spend, and who seem to want to spend it mainly at auction, paying double what they would pay for the same artwork in a gallery. The “real” art market that transacts underneath these inflated, theatrical prices is often struggling and slow, and though things are still moving these days, there’s difficulty, and bargaining, and plenty of teeth grinding.

 

Drop down in price from the crazy-money pictures, and you’ll quickly find that most evening sale lots fall in the $3 million to $5 million range, and though a few outperform, for the most part works sell at the low end of their presale estimates. Far too often the “better,” “smarter” and more historical pieces are the ones that tend to underperform, while the flashy and commercial stuff finds the less sophisticated “bourgeois” audience, the people who like only pretty if inconsequential pictures. Take for example a historic though small 1964 Warhol Car Crash that was rumored to be mine. I watched as it was hammered down at its low estimate of $3.8 million while a decorative but otherwise inconsequential 1981 Warhol Mickey Mouse painting from the “Myths” series made a robust $3.5 million, about the same money one of Warhol’s fashiony Brigitte Bardot portraits would have made. The Car Crash is a piece of art history, but auction buyers aren’t the types to hang “Five Deaths” on their wall. For the same money, they’d rather put up a colorful Mickey Mouse or a big bold Warhol Dollar Sign, one of which went for $3.6 million that night.

 

Take the classic Charlie Ray glass sculpture that made a realistic $3.1 million, while Cady Noland’s Oozewald sculpture soared to $6.6 million. I don’t consider myself to be overly stupid, but the facts would seem to point to it: I was offered the same or a similar Noland piece a few months ago for $2.5 million, and I thought it was a joke. Cady Noland has become a hard-to-get, cultish, niche artist. She stopped making work years ago, she doesn’t allow visitors, and she’s supposedly borderline insane, but who cares? That type of result bears no relation to reality—but then again, perhaps auction results don’t have to.

 

A classic and historic 1999 Takashi Murakami DOB in the Strange Forest sculpture barely squeaked by at $2.7 million, but another work from this edition of three made $3.5 million in 2008, which even then was a disappointing result considering its alleged guarantee at a full $5 million: so some good works are definitely still on their way down right now. How about a large and important 1989 Richard Prince monochrome joke painting selling for only $2.7 million, when that same picture in a gallery would be quoted at a minimum of $3.5 million? Confusing as this may seem to the auction market onlookers, the art market has split, with the top, trendy lots selling for funny money, and the “value” pictures struggling in the backwash. You can often see the strong dealers step in to pick up the valuable casualties, but in this time of financial crisis, even the richest of them are nervous about what may or may not happen in the future, and they’ve become more and more conservative, usually dropping out above the $3 million level.

 

Am I predicting a market crash? Absolutely not. I’m a believer in art’s value, but I can’t help but sympathize with the protesters, though my personal protest is a little different: I think outlandish and irrational prices jilt the whole picture out of perspective because I know for a fact that there’s plenty of death and disaster in the market. Contrary to public perception it’s not all peaches and crème. Last week at auction we witnessed “La vie en rose,” a time when in a bad economy a single and beautiful Andreas Gursky photograph made $4.3 million, a world record for a photograph at auction, when for the same money I would have bought Jeff Koons’s iconic 1985 Two Ball Total Equilibrium Tank, even though it doesn’t decorate a living room wall. But quality doesn’t always sell well in this environment, and sometimes, as in the case of the 1960s photorealist Richter portrait, it doesn’t sell at all.

 

If last week the art market could speak, it would have cackled and then quoted the great Mark Twain by saying, “The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” But even putting those spectacular Monopoly money trades aside, the proof was still in the pudding; most of the artworks successfully found new homes at reasonable if not modestly bullish prices. So what’s my advice to those intrepid collectors like myself who are committed to moving forward? These days I’ll take my cue from the wisdom of old Ben Franklin, who once said: “Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

 

 

 

 

Back to NY Observer Archive →

Back to Home Page →