This spring, auction houses across the world alchemically turned Andy Warhol’s art into currency. One of his 1963 paintings of Liz Taylor sold for $27 million. A self- portrait from the same period—the first he ever made—went for $38.44 million. At the same auction, during which eight Warhols moved in all, a less desirable later self-portrait, from 1986, was gaveled off for $27.52 million. It was public theater, investment banking, and brothel rolled into one. Andy was in the news. Again. But his renown notwithstanding, one does wonder: Why such market-mania for Warhol? Why not Rothko, Newman, Nauman, or Judd? Why not Rosenquist, Kusama, Hesse, or any other first-rate big name?
Part of the reason is simple supply: Unlike many other modern masters, Andy was crazily prolific. One family of megacollectors, the Mugrabis, own about 800 pieces. The Warhol Foundation, which retains more of his individual works than anyone else, periodically raises funds by selling some of his pieces. (These entities function almost as a cartel, an Andy opec, exerting a certain amount of price control.)
This all means there are enough works available for a herd mentality to take hold, as it certainly has. With Warhol, the in-crowd is all-in. Paying inflated sums for his instantly recognizable work is proof that you’ve got good taste. Or rather, the right taste at no risk to social standing—or bottom line. You buy these because other people you know buy them and you think they’ll make you look like you know about art and investing. After all, when those other people buy them, the prices keep going up. It’s wealth 101: Money prefers going where other money already is. As Sarah Thornton pointed out on an Economist blog last week, auction houses now take what are called “irrevocable bids” on these artworks before the sales begin, effectively preselling them.
Economics aside, though: What does Andy mean to these people? Warhol once said, “If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface of my paintings.” Okay, let’s. Warhol’s work is easy to like, especially now that it seems—at first glance, anyway—less strange than it did when it was created. Much of it is large, shiny, and brightly colored; Warhol’s smudged, skidding silk-screens make his images pop. There are those clashing electric colors that no one ever put together before—it’s as though he discovered a new note on the saxophone. There is also Warhol the man, who still strikes many as a strange swish outlaw. That gives his work an edginess and borderline-risqué feeling; Rothko, by comparison, is more about gravitas and suicide. Collecting Warhol seems naughty but not really obnoxious. Hedge-funders and industry titans see themselves in him: the leader of a factory; the workaholic who empowers others to make things possible; the one who collects and hoards, who turns junk into art.
Warhol, a collector himself, would revel in the speculation, spin, and trophy-hunting that now accompanies the buying and selling of his work. He loved making money, and he loved making the moneybags dance for him. He loved shopping, celebrating celebrity, and being original by being unoriginal. He also condoned acting out; that’s what is going on here too, of course. Someday, when fashions change and the Warhol bubble deflates, some of these same people will wonder why they let themselves get caught up in such a ridiculous business. In the meantime, those with the means would do well to recall Warhol’s own words before raising that auction paddle aloft. “Good business,” he said, “is the best art.”
“”In the Future, Every Millionaire Will Buy and Sell Fifteen Warhols”"
To themselves at artificially high prices.
Thus hyping up the real value of a commercial artist who made prints of celebrities.
There again everything Jerry Saltz writes is sadly true.
It’s interesting to note that Jerry dances on the line: praising Warhol just enough not to undermine the investments of these collectors, while appearing to criticize the hype to the “outsiders”.
Shrewd, well done, and perhaps necessary given the Bravo fiasco. I can’t say I blame him. It’s true that you get nowhere in the Art world by being completely sincere.
But sometime, I would like to hear what he really thinks.
Won’t win the war, ‘pick you the poison’, without taking the battlefield. Market = NeoNature.
(EvoBrain< Warhol<Friendly Fire) [perhaps viceVersa]
In the future Andy Warhol will be DEAD for fifteen minutes….enough time to get a drink before the next ” Mass Produced – Factory Made piece of shit ( untouched by Warhol’s hands) goes on the ( ALTER ) Auction Block. I find it amazing that SILK SCREENED Photos that were created by everyone but Warhol are fetching INSANE prices when ONE OF A KIND ” HAND PAINTED ” works by the actual Artist are being ignored?????blows my mind, you’ll be lucky if he even ” Signed ” the piece…madness…peace
Jeff Koons is an example.
These people can turn anything into a profit. because they are all connected.
One needs the other and they all promote temselves, prop each other up and profit.
The Robert Hughes interview with Mugrabi exposes the reality.
It is on Youtube under the title “The Business of Art ( Mona Lisa Curse)- Robert Hughes ”
It is done time and again.
Very rich influential people buy up an artists work.
Hype prices up in auction rooms.
Therby increasing the value of their stock.
Promote the artists in the national and other press and media and make huge profits from it.
These people look at art as currency not art.
In the end they start to believe their own hype.
Wheels within wheels.
I can’t disagree with you, but I have more of a bone to pick with Robert Hughes than I do with the market.
Hughes spends all this time complaining about the hype, but then doesn’t present any contemporary artists as an alternative… which is counter-productive. There are thousands of alternatives, what about Lucien Freud, Odd Nerdrum, Vincent Desiderio, Andrew Wyeth, Julie Heffernan, Jenny Saville, even some of John Currin’s work?
traducción del español al inglés
Certainly this is how it says in the article J. Saltz.
I’m not sure it changes.
And this occurs because it is very difficult to determine what is art what is not. As hard as a rich man (buyer) to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Warhol was of his time and he created his celebrity status when the New York newspapers made a big deal of him promoting his soup cans as fine art.
He got the publicity and that made him famous.
He churned out lots of screenprints in his “factory” to milk the moment and make a fast and quick profit and no one can criticise him for that.
At the time did Warhol believe that his prints had a short shelf life as in their value?
After all, seing as most of his screenprints look the same.
Why would anyone want to own 800 Warhols?
Warhol snore hole
He has the last laugh lol Andy pants
nasty comments there .do you know the fable of two people who walked together thru a park when they came out one commented to the other about all the doggie poop and other rubbish around the park and how awful it was .the other replied i didnt notice all i saw was the beautiful array of flowers the trees and the georgous smell of freshly cut grass, my friends please look at warhols work with different eyes
Warhols celebrity propaganda art is the same as Soviet propaganda art.
The message in Warhols celebrity propaganda art is the opposite of Soviet or Chinese propaganda art but the art is the same.
I see beauty in everything and I wouldn’t want 800 screenprints of Lenins face either.
Maybe for a couple of hundred dollars I would buy a Warhol screenprint.
In the future
All art collectors will wish they were vegans