Steven A. Cohen, hedge fund billionaire and long time art collector, will be selling off almost $80 million worth of art from his sizable collection at Sotheby’s and Christie’s next week. For those who don’t know, Mr. Cohen is the founder of SAC Capitol Advisors, a hedge fund thats been in the news quite a lot lately. SAC has been under fire from the Securities and Exchange Commision since 2010, after several employees of the company supposedly took part in insider trading. While stopping short of charging Mr. Cohen with any criminal charges, federal regulators have filed a lawsuit against him, claiming lack of oversight. Just a few weeks ago, a settlement was announced where SAC will plead guilty in addition to a $1.2 billion fine, which will essentially be paid by Mr. Cohen himself.
Some of the works that will be auctioned off include, two 1963 Warhol’s from his “Death and Disaster” series that are expected to pull in $40 million. Also planned for the auction is a 1986 abstract canvas by Gerhard Richter. Mr. Cohen purchased the Richter from Pace Gallery only last year for $20 million, and it is estimated that it will sell for $15-20 million next week. While Mr. Cohen will be selling over a dozen different pieces, he will still be holding on to some of his most valuable ones such as the “Le Rêve” by Picasso, which he bought for $155 million in March. People close to Mr. Cohen claim that the timing of this sale is purely coincidental to what is happening at SAC. Mr. Cohen is apparently only taking advantage of the currently highly active art market.
When I read about this in the New York Times, the part that struck me the most was seeing how the art market is in a constant cycle of buying and selling. I find it fascinating how art can pass through thousands of hands over the course of its lifetime and is never truly stationary.
Article Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/arts/design/steven-a-cohen-to-sell-works-at-sothebys-and-christies.html?src=mv
I’ve always felt similar to you in that it is strange to me that art has become yet another trading piece in the commercial markets, rather than finding one or two homes of collectors that truly love the artwork. I think this has to do with how wealthy art has become and it has had more of the rich buying up the best of art, raising prices, rather than fellow artists or art critics who truly love the piece. I personally believe this devalues the idea of art since art should be something all can get to see, whether out in the open or in a museum, not the locked safe of a millionaire who wants to use it as an investment.
Kind of reminds me of lord of the rings with the chase after a ring, not for its beauty, but for its power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk4Ntcq5uNg
I found your article to be very interesting. I think that the idea of selling art is brutal and not right. Especially paintings that are so old and painted by someone famous. I think we shouldn’t be making money and fighting like hound dogs over other people’s art. I think work by Picasso, Monet, and Rembrandt should be in a museum, not being sold for millions of dollars to make a profit. As you pointed out, art has really become a business of selling and buying and it shouldn’t be like that. As the state appointed emergency manager tried to do when a museum couldn’t pay its bills, “Kevyn Orr, the city’s state-appointed emergency manager, raised the idea of selling works, as if the institute were a goose whose golden eggs included art by Rembrandt, van Gogh, Caravaggio, van Eyck and Breughel.” How can you possibly treat priceless art as collateral and trading material to pay off bills. I think the most important thing about such famous paintings is that we should be able to appreciate them without them being in someone’s home or bought and sold so someone can pay off bills.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/arts/design/in-detroit-a-case-of-selling-art-and-selling-out.html?_r=0
I’ve always seen the selling and buying of artworks as something that is expected in the art world. But after reading your article and finding this one; http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuarogers/2013/11/01/hot-investment-tip-for-november-buy-art-headed-for-the-whitney-biennial/, I must say, this for-profit business irks me. To me, art is something to be admired. I have no problem with it passing hands, I have no problem with it going into a private collection but, when you turn the art market into a stock market, that bothers me. The fact that people are betting on the value of certain artworks to go up or down or selling them for revenue (Cohen’s situation could’ve been avoided in the first place) upsets me. And I’m not just talking about historical artwork like Rembrandt or Picasso, any artwork in general. The fact that appreciation for a piece of work is taken away, the effort is overlooked, the story is pushed to the side, and all that is left is “Is this piece profitable? Is it new?” And as much as I don’t have an issue with private collectors; how many of them actually appreciate the Warhol they have hanging in the basement? How many of them have it because it’s a sign of wealth and prestige and how many of them are waiting for the art market to rediscover Warhol so they can sell it at a profit?
I don’t quite believe that this momentous auction is simply taking place because of the “highly active art market.” As the article states, Cohen might stand to lose millions from selling his abstract canvas by Richter at this time. This suggests to me that Cohen is trying to liquidate some of his assets in order to pay for the oncoming lawsuit. I think buying and selling art is necessary to the arts world. Without a method of valuing pieces, the discussion of what is good art and what is bad is distorted. Having a price marker gives a rudimentary basis on what the general populace sees the piece worth. Additionally, that’s why the term priceless and worthless is applicable. What a work of art is deemed monetarily is not an objective valuing. It’s an educated subjectivity that is as pushed and pulled by supply and demand as any other market.
I think that it is beautiful that art can be traded from person to person as a relic of what once was and what it means today. I imagine myself owning many paintings as I grow up, but to also be selling or trading them. I think that the aesthetic view and the feelings that the paintings perceive allow one to express themselves by simply hanging the painting. It is the trading of paintings that allow people to also trade a part of them, and I think that is what makes people interested in paintings in the first place. Just knowing that you have the chance of owning a masterpiece gives a riveting feeling. It is also knowing that you could buy one that you’ve always admired that gives one the push to do great things in order to physically own a masterpiece that may embody oneself so well. The only real sad part of past masterpieces or famous paintings, is that the ultra rich own them and they tend to sell their paintings to other ultra rich people which leaves the market fairly closed off to more than 99% of the world. However, this means that the younger and less wealthy people have a whole new market to look at which will eventually become mainstream, but for now are extremely cheap. I think that if our generation continues to buy art that is made by our peers and not made by dead painters, then we can truly create artwork that will become truly desired for.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/arts/art-market-shuts-out-all-but-the-super-rich.html?_r=0
What I find interesting in this article is the direct correlation between art and wealth. I have always been perplexed with the massive amount of profit that one piece can yield. For example, a Van Gough painting probably has a total cost of $40. Yet, they sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. When looking at American culture, this vast difference in cost versus value demonstrates our culture’s value of the creative license. I always found this idea interesting because I could never understand why one would pay thousands of dollars for a piece. However, looking at the issue from a business perspective, it makes sense that Mr. Cohen bought the pieces at a lower price and now is selling at a higher price. I found an article talking about the value of creative license and I urge you to check it out if your interesting in understanding the cultural background to creativity. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/28041
I find it very interesting how many large business owners appreciate art. I wonder if they buy it because they can or if they truly do appreciate and love it. They have billions of dollars, whats 40 million on a painting to them? pocket change which brings much praise and admiration. I feel they use their money to buy things which will put them even higher in the rankings and give them more spotlight. Now that he is under fire and being investigated, it does not surprise me that the first thing he decides to sell is his art collection, because it probably doesn’t mean much to him. I feel the reason he bought it was strictly to show he can afford its monetary value, but the fact that he is selling it comes to show that he can not afford its sentimental value.
In this article, we see that people spend a ton of money on buying things that are not important just to feel good. It may feel good, but it is not worth. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/opinion/sunday/cant-save-heres-why.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1383757564-dAdcUbkZzRfeTpJ/1khXTw
It is much more important to start saving