What this ad in Architectural Digest gets dead wrong

I was flipping through a recent edition of AD, as one does, and came across this ad and simply had to write something about it, because it is so out of touch. And just at the outset I want to say I’m not trying to slander this company, but I think it reflects a sentiment in the art market that is woefully out of date. A sentiment our company is working hard to counter for the benefit of our collectors, contemporary artists, and our culture.

What’s wrong with this picture?

While masterpieces and blue chip art are undeniably valuable investments, what this ad so unfortunately misunderstands is the absolute power of contemporary art, and the market’s interest in it.

Firstly, the relevance of contemporary art simply cannot be denied. Our collectors are acquiring artworks for way more than financial gain. These collectors are interested in the human experience, in the connection to our contemporary moment, in seeing their realities reflected and processed through art. They also get to experience the unique benefits and opportunities to build meaningful relationships with living artists, and experience the benefits of diversifying their collection through collecting vibrant contemporary art.

These artists— both emerging and established— address current social issues and perspectives. They capture recent history and help us integrate our lived experience. They use modern mediums and techniques which will in time evolve into art history, and reflect our current cultural moment. Very often their work resonates more strongly with today’s audiences. In fact, art often predicts and influences cultural shifts. The failure to recognize this is exactly the frustration most of the collectors I work with feel.

The ad suggests that high prices for contemporary art is an anomaly. It is not a “great art anomoly” [sic] but is in fact representative of our values and interests. Contemporary artists are selling because their work is compelling, evocative, and meaningful. This perspective forgets that the historical pieces they are referencing were once contemporary artists themselves. The Impressionists are a good example of this. When they first exhibited, critics called their work "unfinished sketches". Today in auction houses, works by Monet and Renoir command tens of millions, and are considered timeless masterpieces. This criticism of contemporary art prices echoes this same shortsightedness. It lacks foresight for what these artists can become and fails to recognize that price and quality are not necessarily correlated.

Time is not the best arbiter of quality. This idea, and the ad’s emphasis on “classic is forever” ignores how art valuations and tastes evolve. It also ignores the collectors’ role in elevating artists and works of art in the art world, shaping what is valued. These collectors support living artists, thereby contributing to cultural development. As with arguments about how we look at and discuss history, just because something has been around for a long time does not mean it has its merits still. Historical biases have heavily influenced what art survived and was promoted. Institutional support, documentation, preservation and cultural values all play major roles. We are currently reckoning with the lack of women artists in the canon. This is a prime example of how problematic this line of thought is.

There are also interesting market dynamics worth discussing here. Historical works have limited supply, and often have prohibitive prices, while the contemporary art market offers more opportunities for value appreciation. Early recognition of talent can lead to significant financial returns, and many emerging artists provide entry points to art collecting at various price points. This levels the playing field a little bit and lowers the barrier to entry of who can become an art collector.

Jean-Michel Basquiat, who by now I feel confident all of you will know, had a piece sell for $19,000 in 1984, and by 2017, it went for over $110 million at auction. Early collectors who recognized his genius and supported his work when it was still "contemporary" participated in shaping art history, and if they held onto it saw huge returns on their investment. This opportunity continues today with artists like Njideka Akunyili Crosby, whose works sold for under $100,000 in 2016 and now command millions. Contemporary art offers both cultural relevance and significant financial appreciation, a powerful combination that demonstrates why today's art market demands a more nuanced understanding than simply defaulting to historical works.