The art market is collapsing.
At least, according to the NYT. “Young Artists Rode a $712 Million Boom. Then Came the Bust.”
The paper of record gives examples such as Amani Lewis:
First came the meteoric rise. A haunting painting Lewis made in 2020 sold at auction just a year later for $107,100, more than double its estimate. Two other works had recently tripled expectations, and a collector offered $150,000 in cash for new pieces fresh from the studio. There were shows in Paris and Miami — Lewis had seemingly conquered the market at age 26, upgrading to a new art studio and a Tesla.
But when the original painting re-emerged at auction in June and its price plunged to $10,080 — losing 90 percent of its value — the party was over. By then, Lewis had stopped renting a $7,000-a-month luxury apartment in Miami and temporarily moved in with their brother.
“It was such a nice high and then it drops,” the artist, now 29, said. “It feels like, ‘We’re done with Amani Lewis.’”
More:
…
“…should go for $25,000 to $50,000”? Seems to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work.
The comments on this article are now closed, but from my review of the ones already posted, there’s one recurring theme (which may also explain why the NYT closed the comments): these emperors have no clothes.
Or to put it another way: “The art shown in the article is awful — not something I would like to see in 10 years let alone 100.” And: “I’m not interested in looking at any of these paintings for months or years. No offence intended, but what’s the point of collecting paintings unless you enjoy looking at them.”