Art Market Dip Last Year Reflects Lack of Supply, Not Demand
3 min
The global market for art may have been softer last year against a more volatile economic backdrop, but trends detailed within the latest annual report from Art Basel and UBS released earlier this week continue to show collectors are willing to buy.
Scanning a chart within the report of sales since 2009 reveals an ebb-and-flow in the overall market, but surprising consistency in the value of transactions and an uptick in volume.
The year-to-year differences, such as the 4% dip in market value to US$65 billion last year, are mostly driven by the number and outcome of big-ticket sales, which declined across auction houses and galleries in 2023.
How many high-value works of art come to market in a given year, however, often has less to do with buying interest from collectors during shaky economic conditions and more to do with the willingness of sellers to part with paintings or sculptures during a time of perceived weakness, according to Matthew Newton, art advisory specialist at UBS Family Office Solutions in New York.
“I don’t think we see an unwillingness to buy those works when they do come to market,” Newton says.
When the economy is weak, estates with less discretion over timing often are the main consignors of expensive art. For example, last fall in New York, Sotheby’s sold works owned by Emily Fisher Landau , a long-time patron who amassed a collection bursting with masterpieces that hadn’t appeared at an auction before.
Sotheby’s single-owner auction of the Fisher Landau collection led to the US$139.4 million sale of Pablo Picasso’s Femme à la montre (the second highest price for a Picasso work at auction); the US$41 million sale of Jasper Johns’ Flags ; and the record US$18.7 million sale of Agenes Martin’s Grey Stone II —prices that were within or exceeded expectations.
“People are still willing to make trophy purchases,” Newton says. “I don’t think there’s a lack of demand, it’s about a lack of supply.”
Rising interest rates since 2022 arguably could be another factor in slower high-end sales, since wealthy individuals finance about 29% of their art collections, on average, while the ultra-wealthy (those with a net worth above US$50 million) finance as much as 39%, according to a separate report on global collecting trends published late last year from Art Basel and UBS.
But Newton doesn’t believe higher rates played a significant role in the art market last year. The wealthy typically borrow money for business or investment opportunities; if they have a US$500 million art collection on their walls, borrowing against it can be a good source of liquidity. Any impact it has on the market would be “within the margin of error,” Newton says.
Another chart in the report tracks sales growth from 2009 through 2023 in five segments of the auction market, from works sold below US$50,000 to those achieving US$10 million or more. The results show the performance of most works of art that are sold—that is, those that fall below the US$10 million level—has been “relatively flat over a decade plus,” Newton says. “It’s really those works that are over US$10 million … that’s where we see growth in the art market.”
At auction, the US$10 million-plus segment fell a substantial 25% in 2023 from the previous year, but overall, the sales trend for those ultra-expensive paintings since 2009 has been on an upward trajectory. That’s no accident, considering the population of billionaires who fuel those sales has also continued to rise, with their wealth doubling over the last 10 years to about US$13.1 billion, according to the report.
“It’s a relatively very small group of people who can spend over US$10 million on artwork,” Newton says. Of those who can afford to, not everyone does, meaning a few individuals can alter total sales for the whole market.
In part, that’s because global art sales are relatively small even at US$65 billion. Consider the global private-equity market—another place where the wealthiest individuals place their money—was estimated to reach US$16.3 trillion last year, according to London data firm Preqin.
“$65 billion … that’s obviously a lot of money,” he says. “On the other hand, that’s the entire art market—it’s like less than half the net worth of a few individuals.”
Newton says he often reminds clients that not that much art that exists in the world is sold. “What is traded is a very, very small percentage of the work that’s out there.”
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
A divide has opened in the tech job market between those with artificial-intelligence skills and everyone else.
A 30-metre masterpiece unveiled in Monaco brings Lamborghini’s supercar drama to the high seas, powered by 7,600 horsepower and unmistakable Italian design.
A divide has opened in the tech job market between those with artificial-intelligence skills and everyone else.
4 minThere has rarely, if ever, been so much tech talent available in the job market. Yet many tech companies say good help is hard to find.
What gives?
U.S. colleges more than doubled the number of computer-science degrees awarded from 2013 to 2022, according to federal data. Then came round after round of layoffs at Google, Meta, Amazon, and others.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts businesses will employ 6% fewer computer programmers in 2034 than they did last year.
All of this should, in theory, mean there is an ample supply of eager, capable engineers ready for hire.
But in their feverish pursuit of artificial-intelligence supremacy, employers say there aren’t enough people with the most in-demand skills. The few perceived as AI savants can command multimillion-dollar pay packages. On a second tier of AI savvy, workers can rake in close to $1 million a year .
Landing a job is tough for most everyone else.
Frustrated job seekers contend businesses could expand the AI talent pipeline with a little imagination. The argument is companies should accept that relatively few people have AI-specific experience because the technology is so new. They ought to focus on identifying candidates with transferable skills and let those people learn on the job.
Often, though, companies seem to hold out for dream candidates with deep backgrounds in machine learning. Many AI-related roles go unfilled for weeks or months—or get taken off job boards only to be reposted soon after.
Playing a different game
It is difficult to define what makes an AI all-star, but I’m sorry to report that it’s probably not whatever you’re doing.
Maybe you’re learning how to work more efficiently with the aid of ChatGPT and its robotic brethren. Perhaps you’re taking one of those innumerable AI certificate courses.
You might as well be playing pickup basketball at your local YMCA in hopes of being signed by the Los Angeles Lakers. The AI minds that companies truly covet are almost as rare as professional athletes.
“We’re talking about hundreds of people in the world, at the most,” says Cristóbal Valenzuela, chief executive of Runway, which makes AI image and video tools.
He describes it like this: Picture an AI model as a machine with 1,000 dials. The goal is to train the machine to detect patterns and predict outcomes. To do this, you have to feed it reams of data and know which dials to adjust—and by how much.
The universe of people with the right touch is confined to those with uncanny intuition, genius-level smarts or the foresight (possibly luck) to go into AI many years ago, before it was all the rage.
As a venture-backed startup with about 120 employees, Runway doesn’t necessarily vie with Silicon Valley giants for the AI job market’s version of LeBron James. But when I spoke with Valenzuela recently, his company was advertising base salaries of up to $440,000 for an engineering manager and $490,000 for a director of machine learning.
A job listing like one of these might attract 2,000 applicants in a week, Valenzuela says, and there is a decent chance he won’t pick any of them. A lot of people who claim to be AI literate merely produce “workslop”—generic, low-quality material. He spends a lot of time reading academic journals and browsing GitHub portfolios, and recruiting people whose work impresses him.
In addition to an uncommon skill set, companies trying to win in the hypercompetitive AI arena are scouting for commitment bordering on fanaticism .
Daniel Park is seeking three new members for his nine-person startup. He says he will wait a year or longer if that’s what it takes to fill roles with advertised base salaries of up to $500,000.
He’s looking for “prodigies” willing to work seven days a week. Much of the team lives together in a six-bedroom house in San Francisco.
If this sounds like a lonely existence, Park’s team members may be able to solve their own problem. His company, Pickle, aims to develop personalised AI companions akin to Tony Stark’s Jarvis in “Iron Man.”
Overlooked
James Strawn wasn’t an AI early adopter, and the father of two teenagers doesn’t want to sacrifice his personal life for a job. He is beginning to wonder whether there is still a place for people like him in the tech sector.
He was laid off over the summer after 25 years at Adobe , where he was a senior software quality-assurance engineer. Strawn, 55, started as a contractor and recalls his hiring as a leap of faith by the company.
He had been an artist and graphic designer. The managers who interviewed him figured he could use that background to help make Illustrator and other Adobe software more user-friendly.
Looking for work now, he doesn’t see the same willingness by companies to take a chance on someone whose résumé isn’t a perfect match to the job description. He’s had one interview since his layoff.
“I always thought my years of experience at a high-profile company would at least be enough to get me interviews where I could explain how I could contribute,” says Strawn, who is taking foundational AI courses. “It’s just not like that.”
The trouble for people starting out in AI—whether recent grads or job switchers like Strawn—is that companies see them as a dime a dozen.
“There’s this AI arms race, and the fact of the matter is entry-level people aren’t going to help you win it,” says Matt Massucci, CEO of the tech recruiting firm Hirewell. “There’s this concept of the 10x engineer—the one engineer who can do the work of 10. That’s what companies are really leaning into and paying for.”
He adds that companies can automate some low-level engineering tasks, which frees up more money to throw at high-end talent.
It’s a dynamic that creates a few handsomely paid haves and a lot more have-nots.
ABC Bullion has launched a pioneering investment product that allows Australians to draw regular cashflow from their precious metal holdings.
On October 2, acclaimed chef Dan Arnold will host an exclusive evening, unveiling a Michelin-inspired menu in a rare masterclass of food, storytelling and flavour.
