All Art Is Unstable
July 14, 2016 6:53 AM Subscribe
David Bowie's art collection to be sold by Sotheby's. More than 400 items from Bowie's personal collection, including 200 works by many important British artists of the 20th Century such as Frank Auerbach, Damien Hirst, Henry Moore and Graham Sutherland, will be sold in a three part auction in November.
If we all chip in...
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:17 AM on July 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:17 AM on July 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Those estimates are nonsense. The Brionvega Radiophonograph. £800-£1200, is £5000 new. Sure, the auction one is second-hand, but it's BOWIE'S second-hand record player. If it doesn't make 10x the estimate, I'm van Gogh's ear syringe.
I mean, a restored Dansette in hipsterland can fetch £400...
posted by Devonian at 7:26 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, a restored Dansette in hipsterland can fetch £400...
posted by Devonian at 7:26 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd really like the auction catalog, but it's a bit pricey at $143.
posted by kimdog at 7:36 AM on July 14, 2016
posted by kimdog at 7:36 AM on July 14, 2016
I was reading about this, and my first thought was "what? Iman doesn't want art on her walls anymore?" Because Bowie, unlike a lot of people, was buying art to put up in his homes, not to crate up as investments.
Surely Iman, the kids, and/or the Bowie estate isn't so hard up for cash that they require this sale. Or was it part of his estate planning that all this get sold so the proceeds could be split up?
It just seems strange to me that this sale is happening.
posted by hippybear at 9:21 AM on July 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Surely Iman, the kids, and/or the Bowie estate isn't so hard up for cash that they require this sale. Or was it part of his estate planning that all this get sold so the proceeds could be split up?
It just seems strange to me that this sale is happening.
posted by hippybear at 9:21 AM on July 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
hippybear - I had exactly the same thoughts as you. I just hope this isn't a betrayal of his wishes.
posted by davebush at 9:47 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by davebush at 9:47 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the art is even POTENTIALLY very valuable and Bowie's estate planning was not immaculate, it is quite possible that this sale is being effectively compelled by the tax authorities.
Also, contemporary art is often physically fragile and sometimes outright perishable. Its proper maintenance and insurance is extremely expensive, and a not insignificant amount of the diligence that collectors do on provenance looks at the art's conservation history. Without the income that Bowie himself made from his ongoing work (as opposed to royalties), and without (perhaps) Bowie's high interest in the art and willingness to spend on it, the cash flow proposition for holding the collection could be very unpleasant for his heirs, and if they held it WITHOUT spending on the upkeep, they could destroy the value.
posted by MattD at 9:58 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, contemporary art is often physically fragile and sometimes outright perishable. Its proper maintenance and insurance is extremely expensive, and a not insignificant amount of the diligence that collectors do on provenance looks at the art's conservation history. Without the income that Bowie himself made from his ongoing work (as opposed to royalties), and without (perhaps) Bowie's high interest in the art and willingness to spend on it, the cash flow proposition for holding the collection could be very unpleasant for his heirs, and if they held it WITHOUT spending on the upkeep, they could destroy the value.
posted by MattD at 9:58 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
hippybear, davebush: at the end of the BBC News article about the sale, it says that ‘Proceeds from the sale will go to Bowie's family. Although lack of space, not money, is the reason they have decided to sell.’
posted by misteraitch at 9:58 AM on July 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by misteraitch at 9:58 AM on July 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I suspect it's about maximizing value. Bowie's things are going to sell for the best price during a relatively small window after his death, when the fact that it was David Bowie's will bring the best value. If the sale is delayed, there is the risk that Bowie's black star will fade, and the price will fall to whatever value the item has without Bowie's connection.
He seemed to be quite forward thinking, financially: remember the Bowie Bonds?
posted by the Real Dan at 10:20 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
He seemed to be quite forward thinking, financially: remember the Bowie Bonds?
posted by the Real Dan at 10:20 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Most sources list his estate's worth at a cool $100 million. It may be simply a matter of Iman and the kids having different tastes in art, aside from the reasons that MattD and misteraitch mention.
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:54 AM on July 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:54 AM on July 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
My understanding of his art collection is that he was collecting primarily for personal interest, not really as an investment vehicle. So what's in the collection might be very cool, important, or interesting, but not anything terrifically coveted by people collecting with an investment return motive or a collection-building motive. I would wonder if any contemporary art museums will be at the sale, or if we'll see any major gifts after the sale.
If the family is not into the art, they probably are making a calculated decision based on expected future value vs. upkeep vs. auction timing vs. sentimental value. There are probably pieces they're keeping because they're favorites or in frequent rotation at home-- this is what I assume my family would do with my art, keep the few they care about and sell/give/toss the ones from storage. (Then again, my art collection basically has no value, so...)
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:55 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the family is not into the art, they probably are making a calculated decision based on expected future value vs. upkeep vs. auction timing vs. sentimental value. There are probably pieces they're keeping because they're favorites or in frequent rotation at home-- this is what I assume my family would do with my art, keep the few they care about and sell/give/toss the ones from storage. (Then again, my art collection basically has no value, so...)
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:55 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder if the DB Is exhibit is a dress rehearsal for a permanent museum.
posted by brujita at 2:04 PM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by brujita at 2:04 PM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
To add to blnkfrnk's point - this is some 400 items going to auction! Even assuming there is a lot of art on the walls of all of his family's homes, there must have been some items that were in storage at the time of Bowie's death.
(I have friends who are serious purchasers of less-expensive art, and after 20 years as collectors, significantly more of their works are stored in their archives than on the walls at any given time.)
posted by mishaps at 3:01 PM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
(I have friends who are serious purchasers of less-expensive art, and after 20 years as collectors, significantly more of their works are stored in their archives than on the walls at any given time.)
posted by mishaps at 3:01 PM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I saw a BBC article earlier today about this, and thanks for the link, adept256. It's a shame the company I work for never had opportunity or reason to interview him for any of our clients' shows or objects. I would've loved to have known what he thought about artists like Kandinsky or Chagall or Kara Walker. I may have to go to London in November! Who'll put me up? Dead serious.
Looking at some of these, I was struck by the dichotomy of the clean, modernist lines of the record player in the photo vs. the organized chaos in the work of a lot of the painters he liked. The idea that he would hang on to his somewhat lowly origins though art as opposed to some other type of connection, and also buy objects from his adolescence that would've cost a lot more, that's fascinating to me, especially when I consider the seam in his own work about the ability or lack thereof to supersede one's origins.
I recently listened to a "play songs you like"/interview/caller Q&A program he did in 1979 for Capital Radio, and his speaking voice was something else. It wasn't upper crust, or even quite middle class, but it wasn't the kind of voice one thinks of "Sarf Lundin" residents having, though he could pour it on when he wanted to (cf. Scary Monsters and Super Creeps). One teenage boy called in and asked him about New Wave and whether he felt threatened by it, and he replied in a very theatrical, cod-aristo accent, "But, darling, I AM New Wave," and the kid giggled, obviously chuffed that David had called him "darling".
As for this auction, I think it'll get reported on extensively only because the people who think of him as a GOAT are in media and the arts. I feel he was an A-level cult artist, where most people knew a hit or two, but he was only a true, all-caps LEGEND to the more artistically sensitive and creatively-inclined Boomers, maybe about half as many similar Gen-Xers (myself included), and half again to as many Millennials. One of my early-20-something nieces was very much, "Who?", and when told who he was: "Why all the fuss over some old, dead white man?" Boy, did I feel old and not very black. Just because she likes Jay-Z's Takeover (which samples Fame) doesn't signify, of course. She had a bigger amount of sympathy about Prince and Ali, but not much more, because again, they were old people whom, to her, only old people liked. Though I think I need to school her a bit, it was ever thus.
posted by droplet at 3:48 PM on July 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Looking at some of these, I was struck by the dichotomy of the clean, modernist lines of the record player in the photo vs. the organized chaos in the work of a lot of the painters he liked. The idea that he would hang on to his somewhat lowly origins though art as opposed to some other type of connection, and also buy objects from his adolescence that would've cost a lot more, that's fascinating to me, especially when I consider the seam in his own work about the ability or lack thereof to supersede one's origins.
I recently listened to a "play songs you like"/interview/caller Q&A program he did in 1979 for Capital Radio, and his speaking voice was something else. It wasn't upper crust, or even quite middle class, but it wasn't the kind of voice one thinks of "Sarf Lundin" residents having, though he could pour it on when he wanted to (cf. Scary Monsters and Super Creeps). One teenage boy called in and asked him about New Wave and whether he felt threatened by it, and he replied in a very theatrical, cod-aristo accent, "But, darling, I AM New Wave," and the kid giggled, obviously chuffed that David had called him "darling".
As for this auction, I think it'll get reported on extensively only because the people who think of him as a GOAT are in media and the arts. I feel he was an A-level cult artist, where most people knew a hit or two, but he was only a true, all-caps LEGEND to the more artistically sensitive and creatively-inclined Boomers, maybe about half as many similar Gen-Xers (myself included), and half again to as many Millennials. One of my early-20-something nieces was very much, "Who?", and when told who he was: "Why all the fuss over some old, dead white man?" Boy, did I feel old and not very black. Just because she likes Jay-Z's Takeover (which samples Fame) doesn't signify, of course. She had a bigger amount of sympathy about Prince and Ali, but not much more, because again, they were old people whom, to her, only old people liked. Though I think I need to school her a bit, it was ever thus.
posted by droplet at 3:48 PM on July 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
As an old, but living, white man riding the forgotten back half of the baby boom, I thought Bowie was awesome. This look inside leftover fragments of his personal life was an exercise in voyeurism. Would read again.
posted by Autumn Leaf at 7:32 PM on July 14, 2016
posted by Autumn Leaf at 7:32 PM on July 14, 2016
David Bowie’s art collection to visit Hong Kong before London auction (South China Morning Post)
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:40 PM on July 14, 2016
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:40 PM on July 14, 2016
Possibly to interest HK investors, of which there are many looking for art right now.
Thinking on it more, I kind of wonder what prices we're going to see for the Basquiat and any associated pieces? As far as I can tell, his stuff is in an up/sell-high phase right now.
It would be sad to see such an involved personal collection be broken up without any discussion of it as a whole. Even if it weren't David Bowie's collection-- any big art collection guided by one person out of intense interest is going to be fascinating.
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:53 AM on July 15, 2016
Thinking on it more, I kind of wonder what prices we're going to see for the Basquiat and any associated pieces? As far as I can tell, his stuff is in an up/sell-high phase right now.
It would be sad to see such an involved personal collection be broken up without any discussion of it as a whole. Even if it weren't David Bowie's collection-- any big art collection guided by one person out of intense interest is going to be fascinating.
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:53 AM on July 15, 2016
It would be sad to see such an involved personal collection be broken up without any discussion of it as a whole. Even if it weren't David Bowie's collection-- any big art collection guided by one person out of intense interest is going to be fascinating.
Honestly, I'd bet the estate would make a lot more money by setting up a world-wide museum tour of the collection as a whole, with commentary written by his family or even by Bowie himself if there are any records. Let it take 2, 3, 5 years to go around the globe drawing audiences. THEN sell it if it seems appropriate.
I mean, the David Bowie museum exhibit that's currently touring is doing pretty well, right?
posted by hippybear at 6:27 PM on July 15, 2016
Honestly, I'd bet the estate would make a lot more money by setting up a world-wide museum tour of the collection as a whole, with commentary written by his family or even by Bowie himself if there are any records. Let it take 2, 3, 5 years to go around the globe drawing audiences. THEN sell it if it seems appropriate.
I mean, the David Bowie museum exhibit that's currently touring is doing pretty well, right?
posted by hippybear at 6:27 PM on July 15, 2016
« Older The Mile High City: lower-income neighbourhoods a... | Meanwhile, in Japan Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Theta States at 7:16 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]