Posted on

art-market disruption & the brick-&-mortar gallery

In a time of disruption of the art market by auction house and online agents, global accumulation of wealth at the high end, and growth of the world’s contemporary art market (21 times between 2001 and 2008), Belgian investment banker and art connoisseur/collector Alain Servais believes in the brick-and-mortar model of the art gallery.

In his opinion, a brick-and-mortar gallery, like a museum or an art biennale, is where works of art look best. Galleries are a “right location” and a “right context” for works of art. “There is an aura to the work of art in the right location and the right context, which nothing replaces.”

Mr. Servais provides insight into his collecting and offers his thoughts as to how the gallery could well evolve.

Why collect?

“I don’t believe that one decides to become a collector, but rather that you are or you are not. And more generally, collecting is more than acquiring works of art. It is a way of living, a way of thinking.”

“To express myself. Adding my “sentence” around the “words” created by the artists. To share new ideas, questions, doubts, and surprises. To learn about myself and the world I am living in, so to open my mind to other options. To participate in the constitution of the history of the art of today. To feed my insatiable drive to learn what is not taught. To think outside of the box.”

“Finally, art must surprise me, challenge me, open up my mind and heart following the definition that I heard many years ago from Mera Rubell: “Art is a language which opens your heart to the Other.”

How does he collect?

In “constant conversation with art history, because when you look with connoisseurship you can find people who are completely forgotten, disregarded, or underestimated.”

How should the gallery model evolve?

The goals of the gallery are to court collectors, sell artists’ works, and give priority to the artists and to the art.

What must galleries do to evolve well?

reinforce legal and best-practices infrastructure

stabilize the artist-gallery relationship

balance contracts at all levels of the industry

provide more transparency

on pricing: “there are growing conflicts of interest between artists and gallerists. Sometimes what is in the interest of the gallery is not in the interest of the artist. For example, pricing policies. How fast do you want to raise the price?”

on the gallery-museum relationship, “what’s dubious about the gallery system? One thing is the relationship between the museums and the galleries. Right now only the wealthy galleries can get their artists work into museums because one of the problems is: who can produce the works? Who can put the money up front for massive pieces for exhibitions and biennales?”

develop multiple exhibition strategies

multiple exhibition spaces

select art-fair participation

space exchanges in different cities

pop-up exhibitions in dedicated spaces

cooperative events with artists and peer-group galleries

 animate with intellectual discourse

“art spaces need to be “animated” – with talks, conferences, and events

this will serve to enable meeting spaces – forums for exchanges – between artists, galleries, dealers, curators, collectors, and other stakeholders

See:

“Interview with Alain Servais” | BMW Art Guide

“Collector Alain Servais on Why Galleries Should Act Like Luxury Brands to Survive the Internet” | Alain Servais, Artspace, 27 December 2016

“Collector Alain Servais on Insider Trading in the Art Market, “Blood-Sucking Leeches,” and Why We’re Now Just the Fashion Industry” | Andrew M. Goldstein, Artspace, 23 May 2015

“Art in the shadow of art market industrialization” | Alain Servais, NYAQ/LXAQ/SFAQ International Art and Culture, 10 November 2014

#art #artmarket #smartluxury #luxury #artcollecting #collectors #collections #connoisseurship #AlainServais #museums #galleries #brick-and-mortar #auctionhouse #disruption #finance

Posted on

“blockage” & the valuation of damage to art for an insurance claim

Ronald D. Spencer, Chairman of the Art Law Practice at the New York law firm of Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, addresses the issue of the valuation of loss or damage to art for an insurance claim. He specifically addresses the use of, and questions the appropriateness of the use of, “blockage” and “blockage discounts” as applicable standards for interpreting the loss valuation provisions of an insurance contract.

The insurance coverage amount is the maximum amount the policy will pay. This amount provides the basis for calculation of insurance premiums. Most insurance claims do not involve claims for the full coverage amount.

The methodology used by the insurer to value a damage claim is a relevant variable for the insured. Most art insurance policies are vague, however, on the valuation method, “providing, simply, that in the event of disagreement on the value of the loss, the insured and insurer will each retain their own appraisers, and if the appraisers do not agree on the value of the loss, the dispute is to be submitted to an umpire or arbitrator, whose decision will be final.”

New York’s Bruce Silverstein Gallery suffered loss on October 29, 2012 caused by flooding during Hurricane Sandy. The gallery had an “All Risks Fine Art Dealers Floater” insurance policy with a “Basis of Valuation” provision stipulating that “consigned property shall be valued at the Agreed Net Consigned Value Plus 10%.” The concept of “blockage” was applied by the umpire representing the gallery’s insurance company. This was the first time the concept of “blockage” for art sales, which first arose in 1972 in the context of art valuations for estate tax purposes, was applied to an art valuation for purposes of calculating a loss for an insurance claim.

When valuing the loss of many artworks, the concept of “blockage” values works as they could be sold on one particular date, the date of the disaster (or death, in the framework of estate sales) on which the loss takes place. Blockage discounts the present value of the works of art based on future streams of income from sales over the period of time it would require to sell the art.

The application of blockage is considered to be consistent with USPAP Standard 6 which provides that when a large mass of property is to be valued as of a specific date, the appraiser is required to take into account that the value of the whole may be different from that of the individual parts.

Mr. Spencer observes that “by choosing to apply a blockage discount to an insurance loss valuation, an umpire, in effect, is deciding that the insurance loss should be determined by the price a bulk buyer of the art at the date of loss would be willing to pay.”

He observes, further, that “the art owner should understand that the result of a blockage discount for the owners’ insurance claim is that the more art the owner has lost, the less the insurer will pay per item—the larger the volume of art lost, the greater the blockage discount for each piece.”

See:

“Think Your Art Is Adequately Insured? Here Are a Few Insider Strategies to Help Minimize Your Risk” | Ronald D. Spencer, artnet.com, 8 September 2017

#art #artmarket #artcollections #collectors #galleries #insurance #fineartinsurance #blockage #blockagediscount #risk #hurricane #Sandy #Harvey #Irma #NewYork #Houston #MiamiBeach #appraisals #valuations #finance #tangibleassets #contractlaw