To delve deeper into the mechanisms of the art market from the inside, and in particular curation and how one chooses to invest their time, work, and money on one artist rather than another, we decided to interview Ivan Quaroni.
How would you define the current state of the art market? What are the main trends you are observing?
The market is by definition conservative, that is, it tends to confirm established values. In 2024 the work sold at the highest price was one from the series L’impero delle luci by René Magritte, a painting from 1954 auctioned by Christie’s for over 121 million dollars. Following was a 1964 painting by Ed Ruscha, also by Christie’s, at over 68 million dollars, a Ninfea by Monet auctioned by Sotheby’s at 59 million dollars; Untitled (Elmar) by Basquiat sold for 46.5 million dollars by Phillips and, finally, another painting by René Magritte (L’ami intime, 1958), which totaled 40.2 million.
Considering these names, I would say that the trend has remained conservative. They are all artists of undisputed value. I don’t see an innovative trend in the market. As the writer and collector friend Piersandro Pallavicini wrote in «Il Giornale», the art world is increasingly oriented towards artists who address themes such as decolonization, gender equality, the protection of cultural minorities, in short, the whole corollary of Woke sensitivity, just look at the latest Venice Biennales, starting from the one curated by Okwui Enwezor in 2015, up to the most recent by Adriano Pedrosa. Ironically, the market continues to reward European and American artists, often purchased by large Asian collectors.
How has the role of the curator changed with the evolution of the market and the advent of digital technologies?
The task of the curator is “to take care”. The etymological meaning of the term is often forgotten, which derives from the Latin “Curator”, which is the one who guards, preserves, and organizes an art collection. A term that has then extensively indicated the person who organizes events or artistic initiatives.
In this sense, the role of the curator has remained unchanged. The market does not affect the curatorial role. In the case of the advent of digital technologies, the curator must only become familiar with issues related to tools and types of transmission and preservation of digital content. The digital art curator must know which devices should be used to allow the enjoyment of those contents.
The coefficient of artists is a topic often discussed. What is your opinion on its relevance in the contemporary art market?
The coefficient is a useful, but imperfect tool. It allows collectors to have a reference parameter for the price of an artist’s works, but not for their real value. Value and price are two different things, even if the market tends to equate them.
The value of an artist is something that only experts and enthusiasts can recognize, while the price is a useful indicator for speculators, who often want to know what exactly the coefficient of an artist is.
Digital art and NFTs have gained popularity in recent years. Do you think they represent a real opportunity or a passing trend?
I would say that what digital art and NFTs have gained in terms of notoriety in recent years has been partly dissipated by an industry, that of cryptocurrencies, which has unfortunately shown all its structural and cultural limits. I add that none of the digital artists are listed among the Blue Chips of contemporary art.
Even Beeple has not achieved the numbers of the famous auction at Christie’s again. And we know that it was mainly a strategic operation, which has nothing to do with the value of the work. The same can be said for Comedians by Maurizio Cattelan. These are marketing operations, designed to make news. A true collector, attentive, prepared, is not interested in this kind of things.
What are the fundamental qualities that make an artist interesting for the market?
They are the same ones that Donald Thompson describes in the book “Lo squalo da 12 milioni di dollari” when he talks about brand artists.
An artist is interesting for the market when they are represented by the right galleries, those that participate in the most important fairs (TEFAF in Maastricht, Art Basel, Frieze, Armony Show, etc.), have participated in the most important artistic events (Venice Biennale, Documenta, Manifesta), are purchased by famous collectors, and are exhibited in important museums like the MoMA or the Guggenheim in New York, the Tate Modern in London, or the Centre Pompidou in Paris.
If then it collaborates with fashion brands like Louis Vuitton or is in the collections of brand owners like Prada, Trussardi or Gucci, even better.
What role do art fairs play today in promoting artists and collectors? Do you see any critical issues in this model?
The fairs and auctions govern the market and, in a certain sense, are in competition with each other. The real work, however, is done by the gallery owners and art dealers, those who promote the artists, organize their exhibitions, produce their catalogs, and make their works known. The fairs have a fundamental role in making this important work of the galleries known. A gallery that does not participate in art fairs, regardless of their level, has little chance of surviving.
This trend is confirmed by the exponential multiplication of art fairs around the world and the expansionism of those of brand, like Art Basel and Frieze, the first present, in addition to Basel, in Miami Beach, Paris, and Hong Kong, the second, in addition to London, with locations also in New York, Los Angeles, and Seoul.
The model of brand fairs is the logical consequence of the global market. It works especially for the big names in art, but often has nothing to do with the often territorial and culturally rooted logics of local or national artistic productions.
How can the art market adapt to a younger audience, often less inclined to purchase traditional works?
The market is never innovative. People can be, certain entrepreneurs, but the market goes where the money is. And the money revolves around artists who do not devalue, like Magritte, Monet, or Basquiat. The problem with young collectors is that they are either not rich enough to afford traditional works or too ignorant to understand their value. I suspect that it is ignorance, more than the lack of funds, that makes the difference. Your question, however, is another.
You want to know if these young collectors can be encouraged to buy art that they can understand, made by artists closer to them generationally. The answer is that it is their task, that is, of these so-called young collectors, to find these artists, purchase their works, support them, in short, to perform the role of patrons towards them, as Charles Saatchi did with the former YBA (Young British Artists). It is not the market’s task to find young artists, but that of gallerists, curators, and collectors.
Is there a significant difference between the art market in Italy and the international one? What are, in your opinion, the strengths and weaknesses of the Italian market?
The difference is that Italy now counts for very little on the international art chessboard. We represent about 2 percent of the global market, dominated by the United States (42%), China (19%), the United Kingdom (17%), and France (7%), which together constitute over 85% of the total value. At least these are the data from the «The Art Market di Art Basel» Report of 2023.
I don’t think much has changed. In the first half of 2024, it is known that the revenue of the art market in Italy contracted by 28% (these are the data from the report “Il mercato dell’arte e dei beni da collezione” by Deloitte Private) and that the main auction houses experienced a double-digit contraction in their turnover with a decrease in offers from collectors.
Frankly, I do not see strengths in the Italian market compared to the foreign one. In fact, it does not seem to me that there have been, apart from the Art Bonus which however does not impact much on the market, government policies to support the artistic supply chain in Italy.
How do you see the future of traditional galleries in an era of increasing digitalization and online marketplaces?
When you buy a work worth hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars, you want to see it in person, you want to observe it closely by going to the gallery and talking to the gallerist. You don’t buy it in an online marketplace because you have no guarantee. Digitalization is necessary, especially for the preservation of documentation related to the works and for displaying images on the gallery’s website.
The sale, however, is another thing. It’s one thing to sell a multiple or a print, another to sell a unique work. I would never buy an important work online, unless it is an accredited auction house. But even in that case, I would try to go see the auction exhibition first.
What advice would you give to someone who wants to invest in art?
I advise not to follow the market. If you are not a speculator or a trader, you don’t need to know which names are strong in the market. If the market is dealing with them, it means the deals have already been made and you are left with the crumbs.
I believe that those who want to invest in art have only two options. If they have time, they start studying and taking an interest in art. Over time, they will learn to know and understand what things to purchase. Those who do not have time must rely on an expert, or better yet, a curator.
I would avoid art advisors, professionals who know the art market, not art or artists. You don’t see them at young artists’ exhibitions, they don’t visit artists’ studios, they don’t read art history books, they don’t understand the intrinsic reasons for an artistic pursuit, simply because they are interested in something else. Those who truly know art, frequent it, live it, can sense things that art advisors then confirm, when the rise or success of an artist has already occurred.
There is also a third option, perhaps the most common one: those who do not have time to study or do not want to use a consultant can imitate what famous collectors do, those who act as trend setters. However, it seems to me a truly sad perspective.
As expert in digital marketing, Amelia began working in the fintech sector in 2014 after writing her thesis on Bitcoin technology. Previously author for several international crypto-related magazines and CMO at Eidoo. She is now the co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Cryptonomist and Econique.
She is also a marketing teacher at Digital Coach in Milan and she published a book about NFTs for the Italian publishing house Mondadori, while she is also helping artists and company to entering in the sector. As advisor, Amelia is also involved in metaverse-related project such as The Nemesis and OVER.
