0:02

This is Masters in Business with

0:04

Barry Ridholts on Bloomberg Radio.

0:09

This week on the podcast, I have a

0:11

special guest. Her name is brook Lampley.

0:14

She was the former head

0:17

of Impressionist and Modern Art at

0:19

Christie's. She is the incoming

0:22

chairperson of Fine Art

0:24

at South Abees. And this

0:26

is a little off the beaten path of

0:29

hedge fund managers and economists

0:31

and traders, um, but it's

0:33

no less fascinating if you're at all interested

0:36

in how artwork

0:38

is determined to have a specific valuation,

0:41

how we can tell the provenance and

0:43

and whether or not something is real

0:45

or not, what takes place at auctions,

0:48

and what the future of modern

0:51

art looks like. I suspect

0:53

you will find this to be a fascinating conversation.

0:56

I wish I had it for another hour because I have hundreds

0:59

of more questions I just didn't get

1:01

to. But with no further ado,

1:03

my conversation with Sothobes

1:06

brook Lampley.

1:11

My special guest today is Brooke Lampley.

1:14

She is the incoming vice

1:16

chairman of the Fine Art Department at Sothoby

1:19

is a job she will begin in early her

1:22

undergraduate at Harvard and her master's

1:25

at Yale were in art history. She did

1:27

curetorial work at the National Gallery

1:29

of Art before joining Christie's

1:31

in two thousand and four, where she quickly

1:34

became a rising star in the art market,

1:36

getting named to Crane's forty

1:39

under forty list. Eventually,

1:41

she rose to the position of head of

1:43

the Impressionist and Modern Art department

1:45

at Christie's, where she oversaw

1:48

the sale of more than a billion

1:50

dollars in Impressionist and modern

1:52

art. Brook Lampley, Welcome

1:54

to Bloomberg. Thank you. So now

1:57

is as good a time as any to talk about

2:00

what's going on in the art world. But

2:02

I have to back up a little bit and

2:04

get a little bit of background about you, um

2:07

undergraduate at Harvard, your studying

2:10

art history. Did you have any idea

2:13

you wanted to pursue a career selling

2:15

art? Annoyingly? I

2:18

did know for a long time that

2:20

I was interested in art. I

2:22

was quite a bookish, kind of nerdy

2:25

kid um and I came from

2:27

an artistic family. My mother

2:29

was a painter, my aunts and architect.

2:31

To my other aunt works in fashion. I

2:34

didn't have any um,

2:36

more conventional career models.

2:39

I didn't have a lawyer or a doctor or

2:41

a banker in my family. So

2:43

when I discovered art history, it

2:46

was the perfect fusion of

2:48

my kind of academic um

2:51

inclination with an

2:54

artistic interest.

2:56

And I loved it. UM. I loved

2:59

it in high school. UM. I

3:01

went to college and I actually I

3:05

did a joint concentration

3:07

or major in literature

3:10

and history of art because I didn't want to

3:12

solely focus on history of art, because

3:15

UM, I highly suspected that that was

3:17

something that I was going to focus on in my life.

3:20

So I enjoyed taking

3:22

a lot of comparative literature classes as

3:24

well as history of art classes. And I

3:27

was pretty certain at the end that I

3:29

was going to apply to art history graduate

3:31

school. So how do you go from art

3:33

history to the big auction

3:36

houses. That's an unusual

3:38

transition. It wasn't intentional. I

3:40

started out. I really believed that I

3:43

wanted to be a curator. I

3:45

was very academic and my interest I

3:48

was reading Art Forum every week, reading

3:50

like really theoretical, um

3:52

out there stuff about

3:55

art, and that's what I was really interested in. I was

3:57

really interested in critical theory. UM.

4:00

I thought that I was going to spend my life

4:02

writing UM. Quite esoteric

4:05

observations on art

4:07

that a very narrow

4:10

audience might read. UM.

4:12

But I went to graduate school

4:14

really young UH, and I discovered

4:17

there that I was young and I didn't

4:19

have UM a lot of professional

4:21

experience inform the career

4:23

path that I was choosing. UM, and I started

4:25

to get some cold feet about the fact that I was going

4:28

to be there for potentially five

4:30

years accomplishing my PhD before

4:34

then having a real work experience.

4:36

So I took a leave of absence to go

4:38

work at the National Gallery UH in a

4:41

curatorial department. I was working in the department of

4:43

Photographs UH, and I did that to

4:45

confirm that I wanted to be a curator,

4:48

and for better or for worse, it

4:50

didn't work out that way. UM.

4:52

It's quite It's a wonderful institution,

4:55

and the department I was in was doing incredible

4:57

work. At the time. UM Sarah Greeno

4:59

had just made it an independent

5:02

department, moved it out of

5:04

the administration of the Prince Department. They

5:06

were having their they had recently

5:09

endowed independent galleries within

5:11

the museum, so they were having their first

5:14

full UM schedule of exhibition

5:16

programming. So UM

5:19

three temporary exhibitions. In the year that I

5:21

was there, it was

5:24

full on, but it

5:27

was also highly administrative UM.

5:29

And I also it was the first time that I realized

5:31

that museum work wasn't

5:35

as free of commercial interest

5:37

as I had been

5:40

given to think. So I felt

5:43

that when I was in Academia

5:45

UM there was a very ivory

5:48

tower sort of division between

5:51

UM, the academics and the museum

5:53

world and the commercial art world. And

5:55

I was reflectively

5:59

very disdainful of the commercial art world. And

6:01

so in order to get away from

6:03

all of that commerciality in the museums,

6:06

you end up at Christie's. How how did

6:08

that happen? I decided to throw it open. I just

6:10

decided, you know, it was time to see what the commercial

6:12

art world was all about. And I

6:14

was attracted to the auction houses, particularly

6:17

because UM it gives a more macro

6:19

cosmic view of the market as

6:21

opposed to going to a gallery where you might focus

6:23

on a few artists in great

6:25

depth. And but

6:27

I looked at I was just applying to jobs

6:30

generally at that point I wanted to move to New York

6:32

and have a different job experience. So

6:34

at Christie's you discover you have

6:37

a talent for helping

6:39

to identify and sell art.

6:42

Tell us about that a little bit. Well,

6:44

Christie's, I really discovered that I loved business

6:46

as much as I loved art, and that

6:49

I loved the fast pace. I

6:51

loved the competitive nature. UM,

6:54

I loved the active discovery. UM.

6:57

What you get at the auction houses that you

6:59

don't get anywhere else is old

7:01

fashioned connoisseurship. You're really seeing

7:04

so much material by an artist. UM.

7:07

In my prior experience, at

7:10

you know, my academic and museum experience,

7:12

you were only looking at masterpieces and

7:14

you never had any context for why

7:17

something was a masterpiece because you weren't seeing

7:20

the drudgery. You weren't seeing run wire sketches.

7:22

You weren't seeing his smaller

7:25

paintings or vignettes

7:28

that were then cut down. You didn't

7:30

really have the full scope. UM.

7:32

Suddenly at Christie's, I had the full scope. I

7:35

got to see so much more, and

7:37

it was really invigorating. I felt like I trained

7:39

my eye and that was something that I

7:42

hadn't truly done before.

7:45

UM. It was a much deeper

7:47

experience with the art, and

7:50

UM it was thrilling

7:53

to be working with people directly.

7:56

UM. And talking

7:58

to them about about art all along in

8:00

a variety of capacity. Is whether I'm talking to a

8:02

seller or a potential buyer, or

8:06

appraising someone's collection. I

8:08

just talk to people about art. You said

8:11

something previously that I have

8:13

to ask you about. You said

8:16

you learn to train your eye

8:18

when looking at an appraising art.

8:21

Explain that a little bit by looking over

8:24

years at many

8:27

many examples of

8:29

artworks by particular artists.

8:32

So I have a field that I focus on, and that's

8:34

primarily European art from

8:36

the latter half of the nineteenth century in the first half

8:39

of the twentieth century. That's my favorite

8:41

grouping. So it's hard

8:43

not to be a favorite. It's mine too,

8:45

um. But by looking at so

8:48

many examples by these artists over and over again,

8:50

you really get a an

8:53

instinctual sense of

8:56

authenticity. That's what connoisseurship

8:59

is. It's the It's what

9:01

Malcolm Gladwell is talking about in Blink. It's

9:04

looking at something and having a gut

9:07

feeling. And you only get

9:09

that by looking

9:11

at a great range

9:14

and multitude of examples

9:16

by a particular artist. Ten thousand hours

9:18

and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of paintings

9:21

later, when you first see

9:23

something, is it immediate?

9:25

I know you By the way, we'll get to this in our appraisal

9:28

discussion, the tools of what you use.

9:30

And it's not just instinct, but

9:33

after a certain period of time, is

9:35

it instantly you could look at something and say

9:37

that's good, that's not good, that's authentic,

9:40

that's not How fast do you make

9:43

that decision after

9:45

a decade of practice, Oh, it's

9:50

instant. There of course exceptions

9:53

um or you know, particularly

9:56

excellent forgeries, or things

9:59

that are troubling

10:02

or juvenile lea by an artist that may

10:04

not look exactly like what

10:07

you expect from the artist, But by

10:09

and large it's it's immediate.

10:12

And then there are two wavelengths. It's not just

10:14

the authenticity wavelength. Then there's also

10:17

the um commercial

10:19

appeal instinct that

10:21

also becomes a reflexive reaction.

10:23

So so explain that every

10:26

artist obviously subjective. I

10:28

like this, I don't like that, I love this

10:31

artist, I can't stand that artist. But what

10:33

is the is

10:36

the commercial appeal subjective? Or obviously

10:38

we get auction numbers, so we know what

10:41

the most recent price transaction was,

10:44

but how subjective is

10:46

the evaluation of what's the

10:48

commercial appeal of this particular painting.

10:51

It's highly subjective, and

10:53

in as an expert we learn

10:55

to dissect and

10:58

quantify that subjectivity to

11:00

the degree possible. But it's also why,

11:03

at least at the auction houses, we work

11:06

in teams um and try

11:08

to utilize a diversity

11:10

of opinion to come to a

11:13

conclusion about something. But generally, yes,

11:15

I'm looking at something and I'm saying,

11:17

Wow, this is sensual

11:20

and romantic and has an incredibly

11:22

luscious surface. And I'm looking at

11:24

example B, which is a very similar

11:26

picture. Um, but it's not the

11:28

same because the color is just

11:31

not quite as rich

11:33

and the surface is not quite as thickly

11:35

painted, and that makes an

11:38

enormous difference in price. So

11:40

I read a statistic the other day

11:42

that that really shocked me. A

11:44

recent poll noted that about six

11:47

of wealthy U s art

11:49

owners claim they've never

11:51

sold a piece from their collection, and

11:54

about have never

11:56

even had their holdings appraised.

11:58

How consistent is that with

12:01

your experiences? That's

12:04

somewhat unsurprising to me, in the

12:07

sense that in my experience,

12:09

there are many people who are very comfortable with the appraisal

12:11

process, and there are

12:13

some who are just skittish about it, who don't

12:17

like the idea that somebody is going to know

12:19

what they have UM and

12:22

I understand that. I

12:24

don't think that. You

12:26

know, we're in a world where people are

12:28

concerned about privacy and the

12:30

private security I would image and their

12:33

data, and I

12:35

think that's changing UM

12:37

and people are becoming more accustomed

12:39

to UM needing to

12:42

share information in order

12:44

to receive insurance

12:46

and services. But primarily

12:48

people get appraisals for insurance

12:51

provider and that's the primary reason

12:54

UM or if they're receiving a loan,

12:56

for example. UM And then in

12:58

terms of selling, yes, many

13:01

people collect art over

13:03

their lifetime with no intention

13:05

of selling it, either until they pass

13:07

or their children determined that

13:09

it will be sold, or until they gift it

13:12

somewhere, So that can be

13:14

that can be quite common. That certainly used

13:17

to be I think, much more common

13:19

than it is today. So let's let's talk

13:21

about one of those collections that it appears

13:24

where there hasn't been a sale over

13:26

a long long time, the collection

13:28

of Peggy and David Rockefeller.

13:30

Some people have estimated this is three

13:33

quarters of a billion dollars or numbers

13:35

close to that um and have called

13:37

the upcoming sale of this the sale of

13:39

the century. What are your

13:42

thoughts on this Rockefeller collection

13:44

and what do they actually have? They

13:46

have some stunning works,

13:49

specifically from the period that I focus

13:51

on. UM, there are going to be wonderful

13:54

Monaise. There's an there's a sensuous

13:57

Matisse Odalisk painting from

14:00

the nineteen twenties that perhaps

14:02

will reset the market for that artist. And

14:05

when you say reset the market, Matisse

14:08

is considered one of the

14:10

grand masters of that era. I mean,

14:12

how much further can Matisses

14:14

be reset upwards? Or am I underestimating

14:17

that he is

14:19

widely recognized as

14:21

one of the most important artists of the twentieth century.

14:24

But the market is

14:26

driven by the examples that

14:28

come to market, and that

14:30

differs for every artist. So for example, for

14:32

Picasso, there have been great Picasso's,

14:35

truly great Picassos that have sold

14:37

publicly at auction in private hands,

14:41

yes, And as opposed to Matiste,

14:43

where a lot of work is in museums or

14:45

hasn't been sold for whatever reason.

14:48

So there haven't been equally

14:50

great examples by Matisse

14:53

in my view, that have come to market in the

14:55

last ten years, and every decade

14:57

the market is changing. So you

15:00

set a record. For example,

15:02

you know, a van Gogh that's sold in the eighties would

15:05

sell for a completely different number today,

15:07

and that would in a fact reset

15:10

the artist market. So it's not just about completely

15:12

fresh works, it's about the timing

15:15

of those works arriving on the market. Thirty

15:17

years is a long time. There's been a lot of appreciation

15:19

in the stock market, that's been inflation. One

15:21

would imagine that these are

15:23

selling for more. But when you say reset,

15:26

I'm assuming, hey, this is more than just

15:29

eight percent a year um, a

15:31

little above inflation. This is a

15:33

whole order of magnitude change. Is that?

15:35

Is that what you're suggesting about the Matisse

15:38

for example, Absolutely, I think it could double the

15:40

existing record the artist. So

15:43

we started talking about appraisals

15:45

and you said earlier you get

15:47

a sense of our work of art in

15:49

a millisecond, and that's just a function

15:51

of many, many

15:54

years looking at thousands of different paintings.

15:57

But you don't just rely on

15:59

instant tell us a little bit about

16:02

the tools of the trade, and I recall

16:04

you saying flashlight, camera,

16:06

tape measure and UV light.

16:09

What what can a UV light tell you,

16:11

Um, outside of c S I, what's what

16:13

can I tell you about a painting? A UV

16:16

light typically reveals

16:19

later stage painting, so

16:23

that could in some instances

16:25

even be the artist's own reworking

16:29

of their painting later on,

16:31

which is still important to recognize.

16:33

But generally speaking, it is

16:36

a restoration to the painting, and

16:39

people are of course very interested to

16:42

understand to what degree

16:44

the original artists work is preserved

16:47

in the painting that they're looking at, or

16:50

another hand has helped restore

16:52

the image to what we believe it should be,

16:55

and that would affect not so much the

16:57

authenticity of the painting, but

16:59

the final valuation is that is that a

17:01

fair statement? There's a range, but

17:04

generally yes, it just refers to

17:06

the condition of the work. So it

17:08

is a factor on the value

17:11

of the work, but not generally

17:14

the authenticity. Though of course, if

17:16

a work has been broadly

17:18

repainted and there is very little

17:20

evidence of the original hand, then

17:23

um, one would argue that that's an authenticity

17:26

issue. So let's let's talk about

17:28

authenticity a little bit. You you've discussed

17:31

and we'll discuss provenance. You've

17:33

referenced. Attribution is

17:35

essential, so for a lot of

17:37

paintings, we could literally

17:39

trace from the artist painting it

17:42

to the sale, and that chain of custody goes

17:44

down right to today.

17:46

What happens when you are confronted

17:48

with what you think is a unauthentic

17:50

original, but that providence

17:53

is missing, that that custody chain is missing,

17:56

and there could be decades where it was privately

17:58

held and nobody knows. So I have a

18:00

great example for this, actually, and it was

18:02

one of the most fun

18:06

things that I've worked on in my career. I

18:09

given that I went to Harvard, I

18:11

was contacted by a Cambridge

18:13

local a few years ago, I think this was

18:15

two thousand seven, and they

18:18

had a painting that they invited me to come

18:20

see, and it was a

18:22

Lege still life from the nine

18:25

twenties UM. It was fifty

18:27

inches high, It was radiantly

18:30

beautiful, and it clearly

18:34

to me was consistent with the work

18:37

by the artist that I had seen from this period.

18:42

This would be an unusual painting in

18:44

some senses to copy, not because

18:47

forgeries of Lege are unusual, because

18:49

they're actually very common, but

18:52

because of the scale of the work UM,

18:55

and how beautifully

18:58

painted it is, and how reductive

19:00

the style is it's particularly

19:02

difficult to forge

19:05

minimalist paintings very well. So

19:09

I looked at it, and then I learned

19:11

something even more important that

19:13

the person who I was speaking to was

19:16

a family descendant, direct

19:19

descendant of the

19:21

previous UM Guggenheim director

19:23

and MoMA curator, James Johnson Sweeney.

19:27

So they have no provenance,

19:29

They had no bill of sale for the work,

19:32

and they had There is

19:34

no authenticating body for

19:37

the artists Lege, so the

19:39

only resources that

19:41

we have in the market are the

19:43

catalog resume and provenance,

19:46

and this work was not in the catalog resume, and

19:50

one had to believe that

19:54

this work would have been given or sold

19:56

directly by the artist to the

19:58

curator, James Johnson Sweene. And that's

20:00

why it was not featured in

20:03

the book and also why

20:06

it was you know, this had to be a proven

20:08

implausible history. But one thing that

20:10

was missing was Lege

20:12

typically titled, numbered,

20:15

and dated his works

20:17

on the reverse of the canvas, and

20:19

there was a backing on this painting, and that could

20:22

not be seen. And my

20:24

team and I basically came to the conclusion

20:27

that as long

20:29

as this had the inscriptions

20:32

on the reverse, that it would

20:34

ring true, but if it didn't

20:36

have the inscriptions on the reverse, it was implausible.

20:39

And we brought it to New York and

20:41

we reverse. We took the backing off the painting,

20:44

and they're beautifully perfectly

20:46

as we wanted to believe it would

20:48

be. Was exactly the

20:51

style of signature and inscription

20:54

and titling on the reverse that we

20:56

have come to expect from Lege in this period,

20:59

and we were able to solve the

21:01

work. It was estimated at I believe

21:03

three to five million dollars and sold for

21:06

eight million, and it was

21:09

stunning success. That's fantastic.

21:11

So I'm a car guy and we call

21:14

um the occasional find

21:17

garage finds where there's some old Porsche

21:19

Ferrari that's gathered us for thirty

21:21

years. Literally the sun went

21:24

off to Vietnam, didn't

21:26

come back, the parents couldn't sell the car.

21:28

It's worth many times more than what was paid. Many

21:30

years ago, not too long ago, I

21:33

read about a garage find somewhere

21:36

in the Midwest of a Jackson Pollock.

21:39

Someone had called somebody in to

21:41

authenticate like a three hundred

21:43

dollar um sports piece

21:46

of memorabilia, and in the pile in the

21:48

garage at the bottom is this

21:50

Jackson Pollock. At this point

21:53

in the world, with the Internet and everything else,

21:56

how realistic is it that great

21:58

works of art are buried

22:00

in people's addicts or garages or

22:02

what have you. It's still uncommon,

22:05

as much as we'd all like to believe it will happen to

22:07

us. But what needs

22:09

to be understood is that we now live in

22:11

the information age. So we assume

22:14

that there is a clear

22:16

archive of historical

22:18

data associated with every artwork that

22:21

is available to us, and it's just not true.

22:23

Yes, if you're buying a contemporary artwork, that

22:26

should be able to easily be traced back

22:28

to the dealer and the artist. And

22:30

if you can't do that, well, then

22:33

um, you should be out of

22:35

luck, because that should be so easy,

22:38

that information chain should be

22:40

unbroken. But for as

22:42

recently as the early twentieth century,

22:44

the information chain is definitely

22:47

broken for so many artists. There

22:50

are so many artists for whom we have incomplete

22:52

archives, or the dealers

22:54

didn't preserve um their

22:57

journals and their invoices well

22:59

enough for us have a complete picture of

23:01

sales, and so for the

23:04

dealers who did do that in the early

23:06

twentieth century, it's a huge

23:08

boon to the market. Or for example,

23:10

the fact that Picassoum

23:13

was quite logical

23:16

and UM he codified a lot

23:18

of his work, He numbered and dated almost everything.

23:20

He also cooperated in

23:23

UH the publication of

23:25

a fairly thorough book,

23:28

a catalog resume of his very

23:30

extensive production. These

23:33

these are huge market tools. I

23:35

remember when sixty Minutes

23:38

had Picasso on and in the

23:40

back of his property is a

23:42

barn literally filled with

23:44

hundreds of his work. I don't remember

23:46

which UM correspondent

23:49

was interviewing him, it might have been Leslie

23:51

Stall and she says, aren't you concerned?

23:53

You have thousands of these works worth millions

23:55

of dollars, anyone could steal them?

23:58

That they're invaluable, and his aunt it

24:00

was not until I signed them,

24:02

and I always was very much amused by

24:04

that. But how realistic is

24:06

that someone steals a Picasso from

24:09

his garage that's unsigned? Is

24:11

there any value there? There are

24:13

unsigned works UM,

24:16

and for every artist, actually there

24:18

are works that generally

24:20

remained in the studio and we're

24:23

unsigned, unfinished, unsigned,

24:25

or unloved.

24:28

That's that's also for a subjective

24:31

there is an opinion to that whether

24:34

unsigned and unfinished are the same, and

24:36

whether that is that is different

24:39

for every artist. It's unstable.

24:41

It's not a direct equation. But um,

24:45

there is value. There's definitely value.

24:47

It's just like anything. It's

24:49

a factor on the value, and

24:51

so everything is

24:54

an exponent on the

24:57

artwork itself. Makes sense. Let's

24:59

tell a little bit about some of the

25:01

auctions and things that are going on

25:04

in the world of art today. And we

25:06

would be remiss if we did

25:09

not discuss that giant

25:11

da Vinci sale a few

25:13

weeks ago. Tell us about

25:16

that. Does four fifty million

25:18

dollars make any sense for

25:21

a da Vinci work that, let's

25:23

be honest, not his best

25:25

day in the studio. Here's

25:27

how it makes sense. The

25:30

market, the art market is definitively

25:32

shaped right now by

25:36

individuals who are

25:38

aligned with institutions

25:40

or creating institutions. The

25:42

fusion of the institution and

25:45

the individual is hugely

25:48

powerful at the top end of

25:50

the market. So the way

25:52

I see it, there

25:54

could be no greater

25:57

attraction for the louver of Abu

25:59

Dhabi. There is no greater

26:02

single object that they could

26:04

add to their collection to make

26:06

that institution makes sense,

26:09

especially in its pendant

26:11

relationship to the Louver in Paris

26:14

than a painting by da Vinci.

26:16

There are what twenty or less examples?

26:18

There are fewer than twenty paintings

26:21

that exist in the world, all of

26:23

them in museums, and all of them

26:26

just utter masterpieces. Is that? Is

26:28

that a fair statement? Or am I overstating it?

26:30

I I wouldn't personally

26:33

attest that they're all utter masterpieces

26:35

because I haven't seen every single one of

26:37

them. What are you doing? You travel so much,

26:40

shouldn't you do like a da Vinci world

26:42

tour? That I would think that I could actually

26:44

quit my job and do a da Vinci

26:46

world tour. Probably that should be the

26:50

time job between college and grad school. That's

26:52

a in the hierarchy of

26:54

works by da Vinci from

26:58

the Last Supper, And I'm not

27:00

a Mona Lisa fan, so that I don't put

27:02

that at the top of the heap. It's kind

27:04

of small, and there's a weird history

27:07

of it being stolen, which is what made it so famous.

27:09

But where does this current

27:11

piece rank? And

27:14

is it four d and fifty million dollars

27:17

because it's a da Vinci and any

27:19

da Vinci would have gone for that for this museum

27:22

or there is. Is there an inherent value

27:24

that I'm completely missing. No,

27:26

it's a notional value based on it

27:28

being a da Vinci. It has almost

27:31

nothing to do with the object itself. I really

27:33

don't believe that the people

27:35

who are pursuing this object cared deeply

27:37

about how it looked or the condition

27:39

of the work. Um I. And

27:43

that's that's fine, that's

27:45

their right. But the

27:48

the value of this object is founded

27:50

almost entirely in the fact

27:52

that there is no other da Vinci painting

27:55

that you can ever acquire,

27:57

none of these other sixteen or seventeen

27:59

or coming up for sale.

28:03

And there's such a premium

28:05

in the market in the world for

28:07

paintings over works on paper. If

28:10

you could ever have something, it would be perhaps

28:12

a pencil drawing, and

28:14

and he did lots and lots of drawings, and people

28:17

want paintings so much

28:19

more. That makes sense. So let's

28:21

talk about some of your favorite

28:24

paintings. We mentioned the legare

28:27

uh that that you sold.

28:30

Let's talk about La Femme Dajare

28:32

by Picasso, which is I

28:34

think lovely work that went for lots

28:36

and lots of money. Tell us about that

28:39

that was a stunning painting. It

28:41

is a work that had previously been an auction

28:44

in the Gan sale,

28:46

so it was interesting that it was not the

28:49

first time that it was ever appearing on the market.

28:51

And what did it sell for, because I

28:53

want to tee up the surprise ending three

28:56

million dollars alright, so not an

28:58

insubstantial amount of money, but

29:00

twenty years less than twenty years

29:02

later it went for how much eighty

29:05

million dollars. That's a lot of money, and that's

29:07

a lot of appreciation. What changed

29:10

in the not even twenty years

29:13

to make that rise sixfold? First

29:15

of all, there's just general inflation, because if

29:17

you just do the math on the

29:21

over that time, it would have multiplied

29:25

significantly. But it's

29:27

also the power of the painting is

29:30

staggering. This is a

29:34

work. This is unlike the painting we were previously

29:36

talking about. This is a seminal painting.

29:38

This is a fully realized, complex,

29:41

multi figure, rich abstraction.

29:45

It is balancing um.

29:48

It is walking the fine line and Picasso's

29:50

work between abstraction and figuration

29:53

perfectly. It's incredibly

29:56

colorful, dense. It just really

29:58

shows off both his is pain

30:01

early prowess and his tight

30:04

draftsmanship because it is a very

30:06

architecturally designed,

30:09

fractured painting. So

30:12

it's just it's Picasso. It's the epitome

30:15

of Picasso. And what

30:17

you have in those intervening years

30:20

is you no longer have a

30:23

largely Western driven

30:26

market for great

30:28

Western art. You have a global

30:31

market for great Western art. You

30:33

have people from every part

30:36

of the world competing for the best Picaso.

30:38

So that's Asia, especially China,

30:41

South American, Brazil and of course

30:43

the Middle East. Let's talk about

30:45

another Picasso. I my

30:48

French is not as good as it should be. Um,

30:51

but Painter and Model is another UM.

30:54

His English translation is another work

30:56

that that you I believe helped

30:58

bring to auction, and I am I correct

31:01

in that recollection. They are the only

31:03

thing about that is the Painter and Model was a very

31:05

popular series or

31:08

a series that Picasso pursued for

31:11

a period in the sixties. So there are a

31:13

number of them. So how many of those did

31:15

you help sell? I've worked on I've

31:18

probably sold ten Painter and Model. Really, there's

31:20

that many of them, alright,

31:22

So we mentioned Picasso Legier,

31:25

let's talk about the grain Stack by Monet,

31:27

which everybody is seen there. They're fairly

31:30

seminole um it's the Not Dame

31:32

series and the grain Stack series. Tell

31:34

us about that. What was that sale like? That

31:37

was a real highlight for

31:39

me. I had seen that painting

31:42

for many years. He's done

31:44

a few of those, a number of studies and

31:46

various versions, but

31:48

there hadn't been one on the market for fifteen years.

31:51

And in that time, in that intervening

31:53

fifteen years, there had been

31:55

a huge surge in prices

31:58

for water lily paintings, and

32:01

that had essentially moved the

32:03

market. The modern market or the contemporary

32:06

market from Mona is all

32:09

about the profundity and abstraction

32:11

of the serial pictures, whereas

32:14

the market for Mona twenty years

32:16

ago was all about

32:18

the classicism and clarity

32:20

and beauty of the eighteen

32:23

seventies Impressionist pictures. So

32:25

the market for money has completely

32:27

changed over twenty thirty

32:29

years. And during this course

32:31

of time, we have a fifteen year gap between

32:34

the last Haystack coming to market and

32:37

this one. So we

32:39

knew that there was an opportunity here,

32:41

Um, we did not know exactly

32:44

what the market tolerance or

32:47

on the benchmark price

32:49

would be for a haystack. And and tell

32:52

us how that transaction worked

32:54

out? So I believe the

32:56

bidding opened at around fifty

32:58

or fifty five million dollars. The work ultimately

33:01

sold for eighty million dollars. I

33:04

was on the phone with the direct underbidder and

33:08

it was a fight. It was a real duel

33:11

till the end, and they were very disappointed

33:15

because it was a staggeringly

33:18

beautiful picture that not

33:20

only really bridges this

33:22

important period of art Impressionism,

33:25

but also can be situated perfectly

33:27

in a contemporary or modern

33:30

collection. So let's talk about a

33:32

few others that you've brought to market. Modigliani,

33:36

Van Go Jacom Eddie tell us

33:38

about an example of each and

33:40

ps I don't mean to downgrade

33:42

these artists in any way. We could talk

33:45

about any of the billions of dollars

33:47

of artwork you helped sell, but

33:50

for time's sake, I just want to reference

33:53

these three together. Well there,

33:55

Madigliani is remains

33:58

one of the most fascinating artists to bring

34:01

to market today because of

34:03

the profound scarcity of his

34:05

production. He died young, um

34:08

and really at his at

34:10

the peak of his artistic power,

34:13

so you'll never know his

34:16

His biography really fits

34:18

into the mythology that people much

34:20

like Van go as well. Um like to associate

34:22

with great artists and the

34:25

tortured soul who dies young? Is that?

34:27

Is that what we're yes? And you never perhaps

34:30

got to see their fully realized greatness.

34:33

We can only imagine how much we got

34:35

to see Picasso live a full

34:37

life and see what he how

34:39

his art changed decade

34:42

over a decade. And there's a great fascination in

34:44

that. But there is an equally

34:47

great fascination in the curtailed

34:49

genius, in the

34:52

genius that never came perhaps

34:54

to complete fruition. Where would his art have gone?

34:56

And with Madigliani, you have

34:59

beautiful, full portraits, stately

35:01

portraits. We've sold

35:04

arrange, we've sold great

35:06

male portraits, and that exceeded

35:10

our expectations because the

35:12

market is so impoverished of Medigliani,

35:15

and that people are truly

35:19

thrilled or excited by any examples

35:22

that come up and really will chase

35:24

them. It's another scarcity issue. There's only

35:26

so many of them, and if you want one, you're going

35:28

to pay up that. And

35:31

then of course we sold

35:34

in my time at Christie's the Marquis

35:36

Medigliani, the best Mendigliani you're

35:38

ever going to get a reclining female nude

35:41

and what did that go for? A hundred

35:43

and seventy three million? Not not too shabby.

35:45

We have been speaking with Brook Lampley.

35:48

She is the former head of Modern

35:50

Art and Impressionists at Christie's, soon

35:52

to be the vice chair of Fine Arts

35:55

at South Abs. If you enjoy

35:57

this conversation, be sure and stick around

35:59

for the podcast extras, where we keep

36:02

the tape rolling and continue discussing

36:04

all things aren't related. We

36:06

love your comments, feedback, end suggestions

36:09

right to us at m IB podcast

36:12

at Bloomberg dot net. You

36:14

can check out my daily column on Bloomberg

36:17

dot com or follow me on Twitter at

36:19

rich Halts. I'm Barry Rich Haults.

36:21

You're listening to Masters and Business on

36:23

Bloomberg Radio. Welcome

36:39

to the podcast, Brook, Thank you so much for doing this.

36:41

I am fascinated by the

36:43

topic and really want to delve

36:46

into so many more questions.

36:50

And I don't know whether to pick up with the Jacob

36:52

Addie Vango and Brank Quc or let's

36:55

let's let's talk about the question

36:57

I would imagine is on a lot of people's

36:59

minds is how investable

37:03

is art? Because everything we've been

37:05

talking about has been. Forget

37:08

da Vinci, what do we say there was seventeen

37:10

sixteen paintings? When

37:13

when? And then even if you go to as

37:15

prolific as Picasso and to

37:18

a lesser degree, money have been,

37:21

there's still only a finite number

37:23

of those works. And when we

37:25

look at the modern worlds,

37:28

and I don't mean modern painting, I mean twenty

37:31

eighteen painting from

37:33

artists that are working today and

37:35

selling their works, how investable

37:39

are those works? Is it the sort of thing

37:41

that we're gonna a century

37:43

from now those are gonna be the next hundred million

37:45

dollar paintings, or has the golden

37:48

age of art production kind

37:50

of come to an end and everything going forward

37:53

is something different. It's

37:56

a funny thing, you know, Hindsight is always

38:00

so. I think we look back at our

38:02

view of the

38:05

art market of eras

38:07

past, and the works that we're

38:09

still selling today is

38:11

defined by a selection

38:14

process that's already happened, and

38:17

today we're faced with

38:20

how we make that selection process

38:22

in real time. Surely a

38:25

great number of the artists working

38:27

today will be valuable in the

38:29

future. But if

38:31

I had a crystal ball to

38:34

know exactly who those would be and who

38:36

they wouldn't be then I

38:39

would, you know, I would quit what I'm

38:41

doing and just do that full

38:43

time. Well, you still need the capital to go out

38:45

and spend even even at five and ten

38:47

thousand dollars a painting. So

38:50

I'm doing that

38:53

to some degree myself.

38:55

I'm interested in that, but I really

38:57

believe I can't help

39:00

but be wooed in the stories

39:02

and the people I've met by the people who collected

39:06

with their hearts just for the love of it, with

39:08

a passion, and that passion stood

39:10

the test of time. I think time

39:13

and again you hear and see

39:15

that people who really

39:18

cared about what they were looking at and

39:22

collected with a view to that

39:25

level of quality. Um

39:28

that the market rewarded them,

39:30

because at the end

39:32

of the day, that's what we all

39:35

care about, and that's also what drives the market,

39:37

is the quality. So how

39:39

much how much of that is the luck of the

39:41

era? And let me rephrase that. So

39:44

we mentioned earlier the Rockefeller collection

39:46

from from David Rockefeller, that

39:50

here's a person who inherits

39:53

his fortune in the

39:55

mid twentieth century,

39:58

so he's got the preview is hundred

40:00

years of works that we now know

40:02

are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, tens

40:04

of millions of dollars um. But he's

40:07

buying what he and his wife like. He's

40:09

buying what's available. He's buying, um,

40:13

what is actually up

40:15

for sale, and a

40:17

hundred years later, fifty years later, it's

40:20

it's an enormous collection. If

40:22

we were to do the exact same thing today,

40:25

somebody inherits a few billion dollars

40:27

and they start buying what they like over

40:29

the next fifty years, what are the odds

40:32

that what they pick up over

40:34

the next few decades are going to appreciate

40:36

the way uh, the Impressionists,

40:39

the early modernist Because when we look at

40:41

the arc of history of painting, we're now in

40:43

a totally different sort of

40:46

zone than what's developed

40:48

over the past previous few centuries.

40:50

But I think we still need to recognize that even

40:52

when the Rockefellers

40:54

were acquiring so

40:57

it's interesting, it was a mix of his

40:59

story, oracle and contemporary art.

41:02

I think those prescient

41:06

Picasso and Matisse choices

41:09

that people made when these people were still

41:12

actively producing works, um

41:15

were incredibly wise and wonderful

41:18

selections, but they were pretty

41:20

much they were already established

41:23

artists they were. This is like buying

41:26

a Richard Sarah. Okay,

41:28

this isn't buying um

41:31

you know, an artist down in Chelsea who

41:33

is having their first gallery show. This

41:36

is buying a very well

41:38

regarded Jeff Coon's, someone

41:40

who is has already been

41:43

shown in museums and

41:45

already has a commercial following

41:49

and established collecting

41:51

base. So I

41:53

believe what the Rockefellers did. And

41:56

there are many other examples, though not

41:58

to the same degree. Us. Yes,

42:01

that will prove valuable time and again.

42:03

If you were able to go out today and buy

42:07

career, mid career examples

42:09

by already established

42:12

artists, and you saw that in fifty years.

42:14

I do believe in that value. There's

42:17

I there's no question in my mind.

42:19

But I think the greater question is

42:22

how you buy truly

42:24

contemporary art and

42:27

how how do you And

42:30

for that I think, um, the people

42:32

who have been most successful are

42:34

people who had

42:37

some kind of governing

42:40

philosophy or um

42:44

metric. So whether that be

42:47

I'm buying German photography

42:49

from the nineteen eighties, I'm

42:51

buying women

42:54

artists of earlier historical

42:57

periods. I'm buying um

43:00

great Cuban art from

43:02

the nineteen fifties, whatever it

43:04

may be. UM, the people

43:07

who really dedicate themselves

43:10

to some sort of theme and

43:12

they buy the virtue of collecting

43:15

in that theme are already they

43:17

are working in tandem with their collection. They're

43:19

enhancing the value because they

43:22

are creating a

43:24

story, a narrative. They're

43:27

creating the category essentially for people

43:30

to follow. So how

43:32

does one determine this

43:35

is a tricky question. So whether you're

43:37

looking at contemporary art that's

43:39

being painted today or finding

43:42

a niche such as nineteen

43:44

fifties Cuban or nineteen twenties

43:47

UM German photography,

43:49

how do you determine

43:52

what is a realistic valuation

43:55

when you're making a purchase, because there

43:57

really isn't a whole lot in the way of comparables.

44:00

You're kind of figuring out

44:04

some number, but it seems to be I don't

44:06

want to say random, but really

44:08

subjective and in a tremendously

44:11

broad potential range, if that makes

44:13

any sense. Oh, it's incredibly difficult, and this

44:15

is why people love auction. Auction

44:17

and the secondary market provides the security

44:20

of um comparables

44:24

of a market history and

44:26

some parameters for pricing

44:28

that are based on historical

44:31

data. But when you go to a gallery,

44:33

there is no data, there is no

44:36

context. It's just what they're

44:38

pricing it at, and you have to make an

44:40

evaluation that is really subjective

44:43

about whether you

44:45

think something is worth that value. Now, of course

44:47

you're welcome to ask the dealer, and you should um

44:50

what the pricing history has been for the

44:52

artist, what you know previous shows they've had.

44:55

UM, if they can give examples of other sales,

44:57

that can bolster the information that you have

45:00

UM. But that market is essentially untested

45:03

until someone tries to re sell

45:06

their work. So a challenge the auction houses

45:08

face very often is people

45:12

artists used to contact me all the time wanting

45:14

to sell their works directly through the auction house,

45:16

and I'd say, I'm sorry, this is a bit

45:18

of a chicken and an egg, but you

45:21

we don't really sell anything that hasn't already

45:23

been sold. We need there to be a track record

45:26

that's the floor at the very least. So let's

45:28

talk a little bit about the auction process.

45:30

I was surprised to read that

45:32

a lot of these lots go off in

45:34

a matter of seconds or barely

45:37

minutes, because when we see something

45:39

like that Da Vinci it was seven

45:41

or eight minutes of bidding and it got

45:44

frenetic and crazy. What is the

45:46

typical auction process, like, how

45:49

do you determine

45:51

how what the starting prices

45:53

and how long do the actual bidding

45:56

process take. It's a great question

45:58

because it's hugely variable. So watching

46:00

the Da Vinci sale, I think it was actually

46:03

fifteen minutes of bidding and that's a really

46:05

long time in the auction room. And

46:07

I'm not sure what the record is, but it may be up

46:09

there. For a single lot, every

46:14

lot is the auctioneer

46:16

has a tremendous amount of discretion going

46:18

into an auction, which is a live auction,

46:21

which its state you know, for the

46:23

purpose of this conversation, live auctions, the

46:26

auctioneer will sit down and

46:28

look at something called the auctioneer's book before

46:31

the auction and think about where they would

46:33

like to start the bidding on each lot, based

46:36

not just on where the reserve prices, because

46:39

most lots offered at you

46:41

know, Christie's or Sabbs, say, have reserves,

46:44

which meaning if it doesn't at that price, it doesn't get

46:46

sold. It's the confidential minimum

46:48

below which the work will not be sold. But

46:52

in addition to the reserve. The other information

46:54

that they may be considering is how

46:56

many phone bidders have signed up to been on the

46:58

lot, how many internetters

47:01

are registered for that lot. If

47:03

somebody's left an absentee bid, So,

47:05

if you have a lot of competition on

47:07

the lot, you would probably start higher

47:10

and closer to the reserve. Then

47:12

if you have nobody, you might

47:14

start further away from

47:16

the reserve and chandelier

47:18

bid more give yourself more room.

47:21

What does that mean? Chandelier bid So the auctioneer

47:23

in New York State can leally bid

47:26

on behalf of the auction house, so

47:28

essentially fake bid up

47:31

until the reserve, so that if

47:33

someone comes in and bids ten

47:35

tho dollars but the reserve is eighteen

47:38

thousand, the auctioneer will bid against

47:40

them in an effort to entice

47:42

them to bid up to eighteen. If

47:45

it doesn't hit reserve, it doesn't get sold. So it's

47:47

a harmless process

47:49

and it perhaps moves a sale. And it also

47:52

protects the confidentiality of

47:54

the reserve because what is less effective

47:57

is to just say, okay, seventeen thousand,

47:59

does anyone want to bid eighteen and

48:02

everybody is just waiting and looking at each other

48:04

to see if anyone will bid. That

48:07

would discourage people from bidding, because

48:09

they would wait and let the work not sell and

48:11

then try to make a cheaper off after what

48:14

is and does that happen? If something doesn't

48:16

go for reserve, there's the option. So

48:18

again my frame of references automobiles,

48:21

it's the same thing. The auctioneer says reserve

48:23

has met or the auctioneer says says

48:26

reserve is withdrawn. This is a car that's

48:29

going to sell and lo and behold.

48:31

Very often that runs the price up. What

48:34

is the bidding process like, um

48:38

in terms of increments? What is it like

48:40

beyond the reserve? Once we know that a

48:43

sale is taking place. So

48:45

the increments are fairly standardized, and

48:49

they go in fives

48:51

or ones, between one and two, twos,

48:54

between two and three, zero

48:58

to five, eight, ten,

49:00

between three and five and then five above

49:02

that, between five and ten um

49:04

in all iterations,

49:07

UM in hundreds and thousands and hundreds

49:10

of thousands. But um

49:13

the bidder can always request

49:16

a smaller increment. They can always

49:18

try to break the bid

49:21

and then break the bid. Meaning is that

49:23

what we saw with the da Vinci going up in three

49:25

million dollar lots when they could have gone

49:27

up in one or two million dollar lots. Well,

49:29

with the da Vinci was particularly

49:31

unusual and very interesting.

49:34

UM. But yes, essentially,

49:37

the bidder can determine their own bid at the

49:39

auctioneer's discretion, and then the auctioneer

49:41

might try to control um. The bid

49:44

increment is their greatest

49:46

control over the momentum

49:49

of the auction. So the

49:51

only reason they don't want the bid increment

49:53

to break down is because they want UM.

49:56

There's no reason if you have multiple bidders

49:58

to work in very small into increments

50:01

UM. But with the da Vinci, it was fascinating

50:03

because the direct underbidder

50:06

was always bidding two

50:10

million dollars and the

50:13

next bid, the

50:15

eventual buyer, bid

50:17

eight million dollars each time, and

50:20

then eventually made like a thirty

50:22

million dollar bid. So they were kind of saying,

50:25

dude, give it up, I'm taking this home and

50:27

you can't here. They were communicating through their bid,

50:29

and yet the underbidder continued

50:31

to come along, thinking, so is that a

50:33

little bit of poker? They're there, Hey, this

50:35

guy is bluffing at eight million of pop. I'm

50:37

going to stay in. I thought it was their own demonstration

50:40

of determination. I thought it was really interesting.

50:42

I thought the direct underbidder was even more interesting

50:45

than the um the buyer, because

50:48

of their resilience and saying you won't

50:50

move me. I was a little um

50:53

depleted that they didn't win

50:55

that battle at the end because and we don't know who

50:57

the underbidder was. No one stepped forward

50:59

and said you that was mad. No nobody has identified,

51:02

so I guess at this time I can reveal

51:05

I'm just kidding. So

51:07

that that's kind of fascinating. It

51:10

sounds like there is this very specific

51:13

set of rules and a very specific

51:16

um dynamic to the bidding process.

51:19

How does somebody who is you

51:22

know, there's a lot of I hate the word newfaux

51:24

reach, but there's a lot of new money.

51:26

Let's say you're a bitcoin millionaire and you want

51:28

to go buy some art because

51:31

bitcoin can be lost, but the art

51:33

at least you can ensure it. How

51:36

does someone learn on

51:38

some of these ten and twenty million dollars or more

51:41

paintings? How do you learn how

51:43

to engage and behave

51:46

at an auction? You talk to me,

51:49

is that what I'm here for? So, so, if you're

51:51

working for the auction house, who

51:54

you know obviously is incentivized to maximize

51:56

the price on behalf of the seller. How

51:59

do you sist the buyer you're

52:02

with a house, the real estate agent

52:04

is usually the seller's agent. Unless

52:07

you go out and get a buyer's agent, you're

52:09

fighting, you know, fighting

52:12

um or negotiating with someone

52:14

who isn't working on your behalf. If

52:16

you're at the auction house and I say, hey,

52:19

I really have a thing um for

52:21

BRINCUSI and I want Brooke

52:23

to help me, uh find one,

52:26

how does that work with you and

52:28

the auction house? If the auction house is representing

52:30

the seller, it is tricky that we work on

52:32

both sides. Um. My response

52:35

that would be that the market is

52:37

repetitive and cyclical, relationships

52:40

are long. I'm not interested in

52:42

a short term relationship with a client. I'm not

52:44

interested in over selling them

52:46

on one object to the

52:48

detriment of what our long term relationship

52:51

would be. Because I have so

52:53

much art to sell um

52:56

more than four times a year. I have so much

52:58

art to sell all the time, and we have so

53:01

much on offer. The market is

53:03

so voluminous, UM, so

53:06

transaction heavy right now that

53:08

it's really in my interests to

53:10

help someone find the right

53:13

thing and have them be happy. Also

53:16

because in my

53:18

line of work, I work, as you

53:20

mentioned, with both buyers and sellers,

53:22

so every perspective,

53:25

buyer is a future seller. So

53:28

I want them to be happy with their purchase

53:31

because if they're going to sell

53:33

it someday, I want them to come back and talk to me. Um.

53:36

But the other answer would be that

53:38

there are lots of independent advisors

53:41

in the art world who are

53:43

full time, who are consultants,

53:46

who UM would love to make themselves

53:48

available to people to advise

53:51

them on transactions.

53:54

And you know how to work with an auction

53:56

house. Um. The only thing is, as

54:00

with any industry you know, there, they take

54:02

a commission and I

54:05

take no commission. So you're working

54:07

for the house and the house is taking their pound

54:09

of flesh. But your your job

54:11

is to just make everybody happy and look

54:14

look for repeat business related

54:16

to the auction. I have a couple of other questions

54:18

I don't want to forget. So something doesn't

54:20

get sold and it

54:23

doesn't meet the reserve or whatever, and it

54:25

isn't sold then and there you're suggesting,

54:28

Hey, these auction houses eventually become

54:30

giant galleries with warehouses

54:32

full of stuff to be sold. Even if

54:34

it's not being sold at auction, it may be sold

54:37

at some other non auction date.

54:39

What do I have that right? So

54:41

everything that happens after the auction is

54:45

variable and at the seller's discretion. The

54:47

first thing that happens is, um,

54:49

we will generally accept offers

54:52

after sale, offers for things that

54:54

didn't sell, not not like the day

54:56

after. You're talking weeks or even months

54:59

immediately after. Okay, maybe in the hours

55:01

after you really three days to five

55:04

days maybe after the auction. So but once

55:06

a week goes by, that's it. It's done.

55:08

It's probably it's probably too late. So I miss

55:10

I miss purchasing something at the last auction.

55:13

But I'm you know, it's been on

55:15

my mind for a few months, and I call

55:17

up Brooke and say, hey, remember that monet that

55:20

didn't sell? Um,

55:22

I'm interested in pursuing that. How

55:25

How what can we do? Can can you reach out

55:27

to the seller? Do things like that happens

55:30

all the time, really, and there

55:32

is no limitation. I definitely

55:34

can, and I will when it's appropriate,

55:37

And then the auction house gets paid their normal

55:39

pan of flesh. Anyway, if they facilitate

55:42

the transaction, it would be then classified

55:44

as a private sale. We do

55:47

non auction transactions

55:49

as well. What's the balance typically

55:52

is how much is auction and how much is non auction.

55:55

I'm kind of curious about Well, it's

55:57

changing all the time. I

55:59

think the last statistics

56:02

UM for Christie's

56:05

in um,

56:08

we're

56:11

we're non auction, but I

56:13

could I'm not sure if I'm utterly correct

56:15

about that. That sounds about Bullpark, right,

56:18

but it's it's a growing

56:21

sector of the business and

56:23

there's because

56:25

really, um, what everybody

56:28

is realizing is that while

56:32

we all know the

56:34

gross auction revenues of

56:37

the auction houses year on year,

56:39

and there fluctuates,

56:42

say between Christie's and Southeby's together,

56:44

in the last ten years it's been anywhere from

56:46

ten to fifteen billion a year.

56:49

But then there's a whole another potentially

56:52

forty five billion dollars worth of art

56:54

being sold every year that

56:57

is outside of that, there's a lot more

57:00

market to capture. Are you familiar

57:03

with artsy So? Rich

57:05

Barton is the person behind Expedia and Zillo

57:07

and glass Door, and this

57:09

new site he's developed he's co

57:12

founded is below everything

57:14

we see it at auction is

57:16

a huge market of art that

57:19

doesn't really have a way to

57:21

be tracked and transacted. Is

57:24

that potentially the next larger

57:26

wave of art sales?

57:30

I think digital is I'm going to

57:32

transform the art world. Transformed.

57:35

That's that's a big word. I don't think it's necessarily

57:38

outside of the auction houses. I

57:40

think, um, it's already

57:42

happening. There are increasingly

57:46

digital auctions taking

57:48

place or sales online

57:50

at both Christie's and Southebys,

57:52

as well as other auction houses, as well as other

57:54

online platforms. And yes,

57:58

what I've seen is that there is

58:00

a remarkable appetite to buy

58:03

things online at much greater price

58:05

points than I think people would fathom.

58:08

Um, and we should know because I

58:10

buy everything else in my life online. So

58:13

Um, clearly we're all getting much more

58:15

comfortable with buying

58:18

online and that is now extending

58:20

significantly into the luxury

58:22

space. That makes sense. Amazon is

58:24

now twenty years old. So when we talked

58:27

earlier about about

58:29

providence and fraud, I

58:31

read a crazy statistics somewhere had said

58:33

that art theft and

58:36

fraud and they didn't break it out is

58:39

six billion dollars a year is that is that

58:41

number remotely plausible?

58:43

That seems like an insane Wow, that's

58:46

that is significant.

58:48

That's shocking to me. I wouldn't

58:50

know. I am fortunate

58:53

that we're not really directly

58:56

involved. We do see

58:58

people bring us four juries, but

59:01

we don't because we try

59:03

to avoid them and refuse them

59:06

and not price them. Um,

59:09

we're not really quantifying that space

59:13

as unthinkable as it is. Hypothetically,

59:16

a non

59:18

original slips through and gets auctioned

59:20

off and then subsequently,

59:22

as we've discovered recently with a handful

59:25

of not auction houses but galleries,

59:27

people have sold hundreds

59:29

of millions of dollars worth of stuff that's that's

59:32

forgeries. Does the auction house

59:35

stand behind the prominence of what they sell

59:37

or is it simply they're facilitating

59:39

a transaction and not making any sort of

59:42

guarantee. Now there's a warranty.

59:44

There's a five year warranty, and

59:47

UM, I believe that's standard in the

59:49

industry, which is that this is if this

59:51

is sold as a picasso, it's a picasso.

59:54

The warranty is specifically on

59:56

the attribution of the work. It's

59:59

u pretty much, UM,

1:00:02

not about anything else. It's not about

1:00:04

the condition. It's not about um

1:00:06

other specifics. I mean,

1:00:09

surely if we said the work was fifty

1:00:11

one by thirty inches and it turned out to be

1:00:13

you know, two by three inches, UM,

1:00:15

that would be included. But if

1:00:18

nobody cares it's it is

1:00:20

by the artist as as it's either by

1:00:23

the artists or not, that's the issue. And

1:00:25

it's a five year warranty. But beyond that,

1:00:27

UM, there's significant reputational hazard.

1:00:30

You know, they would be a serious

1:00:33

issue for either auction house.

1:00:35

And has any of these come up

1:00:37

in the past twenty years where something

1:00:39

was sold discovered to be not who

1:00:41

it was supposed to be by and the auction

1:00:44

house made good. Absolutely.

1:00:46

It happens UM and

1:00:49

generally and hopefully not usually at

1:00:51

the um you know da Vinci

1:00:54

and Picasso fumtall jaire level. But

1:00:56

it happens UM when there are changes

1:00:59

in scholarship or what we call

1:01:01

in the industry expertise UM.

1:01:04

There are authenticating

1:01:06

bodies for a lot of these artists, particularly

1:01:08

in the in my field an Impressionist

1:01:11

and modern art UM in France

1:01:14

the Duat morale Um. It

1:01:16

is a legal right authentication

1:01:18

on behalf of one of these artists is

1:01:21

illegally appointed

1:01:23

or given right in France. So,

1:01:26

um, when these when

1:01:29

this changes hands, when different

1:01:32

scholars take over and perhaps

1:01:35

change the view that was

1:01:37

given ten years ago. Um,

1:01:39

that can be an issue that is brought

1:01:42

back to an auction house. And

1:01:44

I keep coming back to Jackson Pollock. I recall

1:01:47

an issue with I remember

1:01:49

a girlfriend or a mistress. It

1:01:51

was a painting that was supposedly gifted

1:01:54

to her or then was it by her? And

1:01:57

is this a fifty painting or a

1:01:59

fifty million dollar painting? How

1:02:01

do these sorts of things get resolved or

1:02:04

do they remain unresolved?

1:02:06

And hey, you want to take a chance for

1:02:09

fiftys maybe you're getting

1:02:11

nothing, maybe you're getting a ten million

1:02:13

dollar Pollock? Is it

1:02:15

that open ended? So

1:02:18

all roads lead back to Da Vinci. The

1:02:20

Da Vinci is a great example. The Da Vinci

1:02:23

is a painting that in two

1:02:25

thousand five I believe, was purchased

1:02:28

at a very small regional

1:02:30

auction house and after

1:02:34

extensive research was re

1:02:37

attributed to Da Vinci. It was

1:02:39

not attributed to Da Vinci at that time

1:02:41

when it was purchased for I think ten

1:02:43

thousand dollars. So what

1:02:45

is most incredible in the story of this Da Vinci

1:02:48

is that a work of this importance by

1:02:50

such a famous artist would have been

1:02:53

so recently rediscovered

1:02:55

and reattributed to the artist. And the way

1:02:57

that that happened was that there was an

1:02:59

important an exhibition at the

1:03:02

National Gallery of Art in London

1:03:04

in I want to say

1:03:07

UM. But in addition to scholarship that

1:03:09

was done by the purchaser

1:03:12

and just generally in the field UM.

1:03:14

Through this exhibition, a consensus was able

1:03:16

to be established among leading scholars

1:03:19

in the field UM and communicated

1:03:21

to the world at large through this exhibition

1:03:23

that this is now known as a Da Vinci Um.

1:03:25

That's essential. It's that's

1:03:28

where the commercial and the academic world's

1:03:31

really converge. We do not rely

1:03:34

on ourselves as a

1:03:37

soul arbiter, because clearly

1:03:39

we have a commercial incentive to sell. So

1:03:42

we look to academics and we

1:03:44

look to a scholarly community to make

1:03:46

these attributions. How often does

1:03:49

do we see a major change

1:03:51

in attribution like that where

1:03:53

something literally goes for ten

1:03:55

thousand dollars to half a billion dollars.

1:03:57

I mean, that's a forget the price. How

1:04:00

often do we discover a Da Vinci

1:04:03

that we previously didn't think was a DaVinci.

1:04:05

And I don't mean just with that artist, I mean any

1:04:08

major artist from Picasso,

1:04:10

Amoni to Rothcot or whatever. Hardly

1:04:13

Ever, what is much more common

1:04:16

rather than adding works into the cannon,

1:04:19

is that there are works that are excluded

1:04:21

from the canon that could potentially be

1:04:23

real. So you have any

1:04:26

number of people who own medigliani is

1:04:28

today um coming around

1:04:30

clamoring saying I have all of this information,

1:04:34

this is a real Medigliani UM.

1:04:36

And you have a bunch of experts

1:04:38

in the art world or commercial

1:04:41

experts saying I'm really sorry, I can't

1:04:43

help you because there is no

1:04:46

universally recognized expert

1:04:48

in the field for Medigliani right now.

1:04:50

There are some people competing for that um

1:04:52

kind of status in position, and hopefully

1:04:55

perhaps one day we will have someone who we all

1:04:57

recognize, But right now there are a lot of

1:04:59

people who own Igliani's who can't

1:05:01

be helped. Those could be good value

1:05:04

purchases, because they're not or could

1:05:06

be a waste of money unless you really like it. Let

1:05:08

me get to some of my favorite questions. Tell

1:05:11

us the most important thing people don't

1:05:13

know about your background. I

1:05:15

think it's the fact that I grew up in London

1:05:18

from the time I was twelve until

1:05:20

I went to college. No accent whatsoever.

1:05:23

I would never have guessed I have no accent.

1:05:25

So no Madonna was there for a weekend, then

1:05:27

she ended up with a British accent bingo.

1:05:29

This is always what I say. So the reason

1:05:31

I don't have an accent is because people would show up

1:05:34

from like Austin and two days later

1:05:36

have an accent and we'd say, who are you Madonna?

1:05:40

That's funny. Tell tell us about some of your early mentors.

1:05:43

I was really fortunate, as I mentioned

1:05:45

before, to not

1:05:48

have a family where I was expected to follow

1:05:51

a conventional career path. I

1:05:53

would say that my father was

1:05:55

an early influence. He is

1:05:58

a sportscaster. He's had the pre viedge

1:06:00

in his life to do something that

1:06:02

he loves, and he really

1:06:04

made me feel that it was possible to do something

1:06:07

that I love as a career. That's

1:06:09

a really interesting

1:06:12

history. Tell us about who

1:06:14

influenced your approach to

1:06:17

working in the world of art and

1:06:19

and the commercial side of

1:06:21

it. A lot of people. I've worked with,

1:06:24

so many great people. I

1:06:26

really enjoyed working with Stephen

1:06:29

Murphy, the previous or

1:06:32

recently previous CEO of

1:06:35

Christie's. He was someone

1:06:37

who was a really inspirational

1:06:39

leader and created

1:06:43

great opportunities for me at

1:06:45

an important moment in my career. What

1:06:47

are some of your favorite books, be they fiction,

1:06:49

nonfiction, about art or anything

1:06:52

else? And and by the way, this is everybody's

1:06:54

favorite question. They listeners

1:06:56

wanna learn about new books

1:06:59

or books they may not be familiar with. Why

1:07:02

if I fear my answer won't be surprising

1:07:05

enough, then I am a great

1:07:07

lover of fiction,

1:07:09

of great novels. I am

1:07:12

you know the corrections? Um?

1:07:16

Great? Like meaty? Right now? What

1:07:18

am I reading? Uh? I'm reading The

1:07:20

Knicks. If

1:07:24

I could only remember, it's like a first

1:07:26

time novelist, I think, Um

1:07:30

any favorite art books? There

1:07:33

are many to choose from

1:07:36

the Life of Picasso's pretty

1:07:38

good, John Richardson, you can't

1:07:40

beat the Life of Picasso for being not only

1:07:43

informative, but saucy and

1:07:45

gossipy and scintillating. Picasso's

1:07:48

Life is richly entertaining. And

1:07:51

give us one more fiction that

1:07:53

you're reading? Oh I have if

1:07:56

I could only Oh, I read a Little

1:07:58

Life. Who didn't love that book? It's devastating

1:08:01

a little life. All right,

1:08:03

Let's talk about changes

1:08:05

in the art market. What is different today

1:08:08

than twenty years ago? And

1:08:10

is this a good thing? So

1:08:13

many things. It's so much more global as

1:08:15

a marketplace, and that's

1:08:18

definitely a good thing. It um

1:08:21

it puts. It changes

1:08:24

the way that we appreciate

1:08:27

art, and we're

1:08:29

now seeing our exposing

1:08:32

and publicizing

1:08:37

great regional works

1:08:39

almost to the same degree that we are great

1:08:43

examples of the canon. Overall,

1:08:45

I think that there was a much more Western

1:08:48

perspective in the past. Tell

1:08:50

us about a time you failed and

1:08:52

what you learned from that. I

1:08:55

was challenged by working

1:08:58

at a museum in

1:09:00

my early career, and it

1:09:03

was a surprise to me at the time

1:09:06

because it wasn't that the work was hard.

1:09:09

In fact, it was that I wanted to work harder,

1:09:11

but there wasn't a place for it

1:09:14

there at that moment, and

1:09:18

it was I was really limited by the fact that

1:09:20

I hadn't completed my PhD

1:09:23

in terms of what type of work I was engaged

1:09:26

to work on. And that

1:09:28

was part of what motivated me to work

1:09:30

in a more commercial, business

1:09:32

minded environment because it

1:09:35

felt more meritocratic. I wanted

1:09:37

to work hard, and I wanted to work somewhere where

1:09:39

that was innately valued.

1:09:42

You have a fun job, tell us what you

1:09:44

do for fun outside of the office.

1:09:48

I have two kids, so that's

1:09:50

pretty full time in my non

1:09:52

working time. Um, two

1:09:54

kids under the age of five, two boys. Um,

1:09:57

so I got a lot of exercise just hanging

1:09:59

out with them. I also like

1:10:01

to spin. What sort

1:10:03

of advice would you give somebody who's

1:10:06

a millennial or recent college grad

1:10:08

if they came to you and said, Hey, I

1:10:10

am interested in a career in the

1:10:12

world of art. So

1:10:14

I have a conversation a lot. Uh,

1:10:17

and I always look forward to it because I

1:10:19

try to be more candid than

1:10:22

I feel either people were with me

1:10:25

or actually I think I just didn't

1:10:27

ask enough. And um,

1:10:29

it's usually you know what, This

1:10:32

isn't any easier than any

1:10:34

other field. You have to really love

1:10:37

it. There's a scarcity

1:10:39

of opportunity here. It's an oversubscribed

1:10:41

career path. There are so many people coming

1:10:44

out of school with art history degrees.

1:10:46

And if

1:10:49

you do love it, then take

1:10:52

any job that you can get and

1:10:55

keep going and it

1:10:57

will inform your next step. And our final

1:11:00

question, what is it that you know about

1:11:02

the world of art today that you

1:11:04

wish you knew back in two thousand and four

1:11:06

when you were first getting started. That's

1:11:10

such an interesting one. I

1:11:13

speak Mandarin, Oh really, I

1:11:17

I was. I wanted to learn

1:11:20

Japanese as a kid, um,

1:11:22

and because I thought it was an interesting

1:11:24

culture, and not because I was so business minded.

1:11:27

Um. But there's

1:11:29

there are incredible opportunities

1:11:32

in the art world right now in regional

1:11:35

markets, especially Asia, particularly

1:11:39

China. You were in London, did you

1:11:41

want to spend more time in Asia?

1:11:43

What what would you have done different if you had

1:11:46

a perfect other than collecting certain

1:11:49

works? What would you have changed in

1:11:51

your career path had

1:11:54

you known how the future would unfauld?

1:11:57

No, I think I could do what I do, but also

1:11:59

connect. Uh. It's very

1:12:01

difficult to connect authentically with

1:12:04

collectors um without speaking their

1:12:06

language. And that makes perfect sense,

1:12:08

um, and I respect that. But if I

1:12:10

want to really help collectors

1:12:12

in any other part of the world, UM, I

1:12:14

need to speak their language. That's quite interesting.

1:12:16

We have been speaking with

1:12:19

Brooke Lampley. She is the incoming

1:12:21

chair of Fine Arts

1:12:24

at Sothabes. Thanks Brooke,

1:12:26

thank you so much for doing this. If

1:12:28

you enjoy this conversation, be sure and look

1:12:30

up an inch or down an inch on Apple iTunes,

1:12:33

SoundCloud, overcast uh

1:12:36

or Bloomberg dot com wherever finer

1:12:39

podcasts are sold, and you could see

1:12:41

any of the other hundred and seventy or so

1:12:43

such conversations that we've had. We

1:12:46

love your comments, feedback and suggestions

1:12:49

right to us at m IB podcast

1:12:52

at Bloomberg dot net. I

1:12:54

would be remiss if I did not thank

1:12:56

my Cracks staff who helps us put together

1:12:59

this conversation. Asian Taylor Riggs

1:13:01

is my booker. Producer Medina

1:13:04

Partwana is our audio engineer.

1:13:07

Michael Batnick is our head of research.

1:13:10

I'm Barry Ridholtz. You're listening

1:13:12

to Masters in Business on Bloomberg

1:13:15

Radio.