Fair or foul: more art fairs and bigger brand galleries,
but is the model sustainable?
Many galleries acknowledge that supply is a problem, with
artists under pressure to produce more work
By Georgina Adam. Market,
Issue 236, June 2012
Published online: 20 June 2012
Dealers are increasingly calling it “the fair marathon”: a
six-week epic that started with Frieze New York (4-7 May), continued two weeks
later in Hong Kong with ArtHK (17-20 May) and will reach its apogee with Art
Basel, the one fair the art world really, really can’t miss (14-17 June). Some
brave souls, including Tim Marlow, the director of exhibitions at White Cube
gallery, even slotted São Paulo ’s Sp-Arte (9-13
May) between New York and Hong Kong,
withstanding a two-night journey by air from Brazil
to Asia .
The explosion in the number of art fairs is the most
significant change in the market since the turn of the century. The numbers
tell the story: in 1970, there were just three main events (Cologne ,
Basel New York edition last month, and
the Masters fair, which debuts alongside the London
While some fairs have disappeared (notably Art Forum Berlin
The reasons for the proliferation of fairs have been often
cited: the need to offer a buy-it-or-you’ll-lose-it situation to challenge the
auction houses; a way of extending a gallery’s global reach; a way of making
contacts with both artists and buyers around the world; and the need to be part
of today’s event-driven culture.
This brings in its wake the need for more inventory. The
art market is currently growing: based on art sold at auction, turnover last
year was the highest ever, at $11.8bn, according to Artprice. But the market is
supply-driven and ultimately rests on the artists’ ability to produce enough
material. With more fairs on the horizon, is the current model sustainable?
“The pressure that this growth has put on artists cannot be
underestimated,” says Victor Gisler of Zurich
Many galleries acknowledge that supply is a problem. “We
try to steer away from pushing artists to make fair-related pieces,” says
Andreas Gegner, the director of the London branch of Sprüth Magers, while
Olivier Bélot, a co-director of Paris’s Yvon Lambert gallery, says bluntly: “No
artist worth his salt can decently produce a great deal of work every year.”
During Frieze New York , many dealers remarked
that work had already been shipped to Hong Kong —and
that the best work, anyway, was being kept for Art Basel, the one fair nobody
can put in second place.
As well as putting pressure on artists, the fair phenomenon
is putting galleries on the spot. “It’s definitely a juggling act,” says Andrew
Kreps, the owner of the eponymous gallery. “I don’t think anyone was dying to
add yet another fair to the calendar.”
“The pressure to participate in fairs is very high,” Gisler
says. He segments the market into three. At the top are the major dealers such
as White Cube, Gagosian and Hauser & Wirth, who participate in all the main
fairs. David Zwirner, for example, is taking part in 15 this year—more than one
a month, with many clustered in the prime selling seasons of spring and autumn.
“They have no problems. In fact, they need the fairs to generate sales. Their
brand is in the art fair market,” Gisler says. “They have large staffs to
administer the logistics.”
Alongside the fair explosion, there has been a parallel
increase in the size, both physical and global, of the biggest art galleries.
Gagosian has 11 outlets worldwide; Hauser & Wirth has five; Zwirner has
corralled a chunk of 19th Street in New York, with a new space in 20th Street,
and plans to open a gallery in London this year; White Cube has four, counting
its new Hong Kong outlet; Pace is in New York and Beijing; Ropac has a vast new
Parisian space; Perrotin is about to open a gallery in Hong Kong.
Indeed, some of the big galleries say they could use even
more space. “We work with more than 50 artists and even with four spaces, our
problem is programming them regularly enough,” Tim Marlow says. “You can save
work from the gallery to show at a fair—you’re not necessarily stretching the
artist.” In the case of David Zwirner, supply for fairs is boosted by a big
chunk of the gallery’s secondary market dealing and its management of some
major estates. Julia Joern, a director of the gallery, estimates that
approximately 50% of its turnover comes from this source. White Cube, Ropac and
other big galleries often make about 20% of their sales in the secondary market
as well: Hauser has been sharing part of the renowned collection of Helga and
Walther Lauffs with Zwirner.
The difficulties, Gisler says, are at the level of the
mid-sized and smaller galleries. “Here things are far more problematic. The
mid-sized galleries, with perhaps five to 15 people, feel they must participate
in the main fairs. It’s worse still for the small galleries, whose price points
are not over $50,000—they don’t have many works at that level and doing a fair,
if it doesn’t work out commercially, can be a killer.”
Galleries feel obliged to do fairs because they fear being
seen as rejected by the selectors, but the Catch-22 situation is that they are
selected on the basis of their gallery programme. If this falters because they
are overstretched, then they might not be admitted to the most prestigious
events. But everyone I spoke to was clear: the gallery comes first. The
programme “is the most important part”, Kreps says, while Thaddaeus Ropac asks:
“What sort of gallery does its main business at fairs?”
This year, Gisler decided against doing Frieze New York and Hong Kong .
“It’s just too much. You have to put your gallery space first, and concentrate
on the shows you are doing there. And in spite of globalisation, it is
important as well to stay in your national context, to serve your local
community,” he concludes.
No comments:
Post a Comment