The Art of the Steal
---
The New York Times pulled a rather "artistic" stunt in continuing to "paint" malevolence toward the successful as concern over the fiction of "rising income equality" —
In any case, rising revenues can, and likely are, more explained by increased volumes than by increased prices; one triptych does not a market trend make. (Indeed a different "Times" article about the Bacon triptych suggests, contra the New York Times, that the two great auction houses are not doing all that well right now. Go figure.
(Incidentally, the Bacon triptych is currently owned by a Swiss, not an American. How it therefore has anything to do with "rising income inequality in America" remains, like so much contemporary art, a matter of abstract interpretation — i.e., pompous gobbledygook.)
Meanwhile, the fact that there is an increase in art auctioning could just as easily suggest that times are tough for the hyper-wealthy: why sell art unless you need the money? Unlike a truly productive industry, an auction market for pre-existing goods is a zero-sum game: for every buyer eager to spend money, there must be a seller eager to receive money. This would suggest, if anything, distress within the collector class. (Recall that auctioned masterwork art is, to be blunt, "used" art. Would a boom in the used car market necessarily signal good times in Detroit?)
And besides, this is all presumptive speculation anyway. How do we know that all this art isn't being bought and sold by museums and other institutions? Or perhaps in some instances a wealthy collector dies, and the estate is being sold to disperse the wealth among the heirs. (As I've previously noted, haters of American mega-prosperity generally refuse to acknowledge the fleeting nature of American entrepreneurial wealth across generations. Unlike Europe and Latin America, there are in fact astonishingly few multi-generational American business dynasties (unlike political dynasties, which are all too ubiquitous in America).
In any case, the leftist malcontents who continue to bemoan "rising income inequality" continue to ignore that income itself is rising across all demographics (just at an unequal rate), and that the U.S. does not have a caste system: the people in the top 1% of incomes today are not necessarily those in the top 1% yesterday or tomorrow. This phenomenon — call it "turnover" or "churn" or whatever you like — is even more pronounced at the other end of the distribution: the "bottom 20%" of households by income are largely immigrants — who promptly make their way upward and out of the bottom 20%, replaced by new immigrants more than eager to be "victimized" by rising income equality.
It's quite simple really: The best way to care about the poor in America is by not caring about the rich in America.
Sotheby's estimates it will raise a record $375 million to $477 million. Christie's hopes for $280 million to $390 million, also a record. Both hope to sell paintings at prices once reserved for large corporate jets or small islands: Sotheby's expects to get $70 million for a triptych by Francis Bacon, almost $20 million more than the record for the artist set last year.How typical of the Times editorial board to confuse business with war ("spoils"?) and to reframe all human transactions as antagonistic "us versus them" confrontations.
Reassuring as it may be to see a least some consumer spending booming, the art world's ever rising valuations are a symptom of a growing imbalance in the American economy: the unprecedented concentration of the spoils of growth at the very top.
In any case, rising revenues can, and likely are, more explained by increased volumes than by increased prices; one triptych does not a market trend make. (Indeed a different "Times" article about the Bacon triptych suggests, contra the New York Times, that the two great auction houses are not doing all that well right now. Go figure.
(Incidentally, the Bacon triptych is currently owned by a Swiss, not an American. How it therefore has anything to do with "rising income inequality in America" remains, like so much contemporary art, a matter of abstract interpretation — i.e., pompous gobbledygook.)
Meanwhile, the fact that there is an increase in art auctioning could just as easily suggest that times are tough for the hyper-wealthy: why sell art unless you need the money? Unlike a truly productive industry, an auction market for pre-existing goods is a zero-sum game: for every buyer eager to spend money, there must be a seller eager to receive money. This would suggest, if anything, distress within the collector class. (Recall that auctioned masterwork art is, to be blunt, "used" art. Would a boom in the used car market necessarily signal good times in Detroit?)
And besides, this is all presumptive speculation anyway. How do we know that all this art isn't being bought and sold by museums and other institutions? Or perhaps in some instances a wealthy collector dies, and the estate is being sold to disperse the wealth among the heirs. (As I've previously noted, haters of American mega-prosperity generally refuse to acknowledge the fleeting nature of American entrepreneurial wealth across generations. Unlike Europe and Latin America, there are in fact astonishingly few multi-generational American business dynasties (unlike political dynasties, which are all too ubiquitous in America).
In any case, the leftist malcontents who continue to bemoan "rising income inequality" continue to ignore that income itself is rising across all demographics (just at an unequal rate), and that the U.S. does not have a caste system: the people in the top 1% of incomes today are not necessarily those in the top 1% yesterday or tomorrow. This phenomenon — call it "turnover" or "churn" or whatever you like — is even more pronounced at the other end of the distribution: the "bottom 20%" of households by income are largely immigrants — who promptly make their way upward and out of the bottom 20%, replaced by new immigrants more than eager to be "victimized" by rising income equality.
It's quite simple really: The best way to care about the poor in America is by not caring about the rich in America.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
12 May 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
