Museums, Galleries & Auction Houses: The New Art World Blur

by Elizabeth Casale

0ver the past couple of years museums have been subject to growing criticism of their increasingly commercial stance. A related trend, the contours of which are only now becoming apparent, concerns the shift in the behavior of commercial galleries and auction houses, which are becoming decidedly more “museum-like”.

One manifestation of what the Financial Times recently described, in an article on auctioneer, dealer and art fund manager Simon de Pury, as “the blur of the new art world”¹  is the gallery building boom. The super-galleries are super-sizing, and, as with countless museums around the world, are using architecture to signal their power and brand. This “new species of mega-gallery,” as the New York Sun has called it,²  is monumental, pristine, and shrine-like, a league apart from the standard Chelsea or Bond Street digs and a far cry from the funky, scrappy little spaces of the 1980’s East Village. The recent gallery building-boom in New York and London is impressive. In London, trendy Hauser & Wirth has added two spaces this year alone. Larry Gagosian has opened two spaces in two years—a 12,900 sq ft space near King’s Cross and a smaller West End space. Not to be outdone, Jay Jopling’s new 12,500 sq ft White Cube gallery cost $20 million. Described as “a little Whitney Museum,” Jopling himself admits the new space “was intended to be more of an institution.”³

In New York, David Zwirner has tripled his space this past year to 30,000 sq ft. For context, that is more than three times as large as The Drawing Center (9,800 sq ft); as big as the old New Museum (29,040 sq ft), the new American Folk Art Museum (30,000 sq ft), and London’s Design Museum (30,666 sq ft); and larger than the pre-Piano Morgan Library (23,600 sq ft) or the Contemporary Art Museum, Houston (21,200 sq ft). In addition to a 6,000 sq ft gallery, Marianne Boesky’s new building includes a private apartment for visiting artists with whom she plans to do artist residencies – traditionally the purview of the not-for-profit sector. Boesky says that the rationale for all of this expansion is the fact that galleries are feeling pressured to keep up with museums.

Galleries are doing more exhibitions, often of a historical nature, in which no works are for sale. They are often accompanied by big-budget catalogues, the type previously associated with museums, put together with the help of in-house art historians and researchers. They lend scholarly and intellectual credibility to the gallery, imbuing it with a gravitas that enhances the brand. As dealing is increasingly conducted at the fairs, for which artists now produce pieces to order and dealers now reserve their best works, galleries have taken on a new role. Like Madison Avenue boutiques, where merchandise is minimal and sales transactions deliberately few, they are showcases that shore up the brand, establish authority, and point the way toward the place of exchange—the booth at the fair. It is not uncommon to find that the conventional gallery price list contains no prices, leaving it vague as to whether the works are for sale, have sold out or were pre-sold, or indeed if they ever were for sale. The little red dot, that iconic marker that signifies a piece has been sold (and, by extension, that it was recently available) appears to be going the way of the dodo. The trend of exchange-less galleries will likely continue as long as art fairs remain popular – and there is little evidence to suggest their appeal is waning.

Auction houses are also getting into the business of exhibition, interpretation and scholarship. Christie’s made news last spring when it mounted a pre-sale exhibition of 35 works by Donald Judd slated to be auctioned on behalf of the Judd Foundation. The exhibition, complete with door-stopper catalogue and an Acoustiguide, received seriously glowing reviews, including in the New York Times, where Roberta Smith referred to the show (which, Christie’s reminded viewers, was the largest exhibition of Judd in the U.S. since 1988) as “...the most beautiful survey of Judd’s work ever seen in New York.” Smith goes on to note that auction houses may be “mov[ing] in on museums” because in this case, in putting “art before architecture” Christie’s “has indeed behaved like a museum – or at least in a way more museums should act.”⁴ 

Meanwhile, Sotheby’s now features online “private views” to provide educational context – and, certainly, to stoke desire – for the works to be auctioned. The preview of the November 14, 2006 contemporary art sale featured Tobias Meyer, glamorous art world “it” boy and Sotheby’s worldwide head of contemporary art and principal auctioneer. He gave a mellifluous, seductive, and thoroughly intelligent tour through selected pieces included in the sale. The length and quality of the video, downloadable to your iPod, was impressive, and as insightful and illuminating as the best museum docent tour.

Many gallery websites now include sections on the gallery’s history and what read uncannily like museum    mission statements.  Marian Goodman’s front page reads: “Since 1977, the Marian Goodman Gallery has played an important role in introducing European artists to American audiences and helping to establish a vital dialogue among artists and institutions working internationally.”  A section on history traces the origins of the gallery back to 1965. Andrea Rosen Gallery, on the occasion of its tenth anniversary, shares with us its “ideals” and “responsibility,” which include making the gallery “an accessible public space.”

David Zwirner now issues a seasonal newsletter that opens “Dear Friend” and informs patrons about recent and upcoming happenings at the gallery – exhibitions and acquisitions, special events, where to find the booth in Miami or Basel, and so on. Signed by Zwirner, the letters seem to be a way to build loyalty or affinity with clients, past and potential. As a former development officer, I recognize this type of letter, and, weirdly, instead of being put off by it I found it rather engaging. For a moment it made me wonder how long it will be before galleries start charging entrance fees and establishing members programs – until I remembered that Zwirner doesn’t need the marginal earned income.

Trawling through Chelsea recently underscored the unsettling paradox: as museums continue to commercialize, galleries are institutionalizing, and it could be argued that the best of them are becoming better spaces for the serious viewing of art. Notwithstanding the mission statements, they are in the business of selling art, yet this reality is suppressed beautifully and effectively in service to the works on view. The lack of knee-deep crowds (in contrast to a toe-crunching experience seeing the Velasquez show at the National Gallery on a recent Saturday), sponsor clutter, named spaces, tschatshkes, and tuna salads is refreshing. And so is the simple, white box architecture that doesn’t detract and distract.

Both the mega-galleries and the auction houses will no doubt continue to push deeper into traditional mission-critical, non-revenue-generating museum activities such as curation, education, scholarship, and artists’ commissions and residencies. As for why, it may be a genuine and logical expansion of their role or a savvy marketing strategy. But whatever else, in this strange new market that sees Christie’s move half a billion dollars worth of art in one night, it is because they are the only ones who can afford to.

Elizabeth Casale | ecasale@aeaconsulting.com

1  Anthony Haden-Guest, “Mr. Contemporary Comes to Town,” Financial Times, December 2-3, 2006.

2 Kate Taylor, “A New Species of Gallery,” The New York Sun, October 2, 2006.

3 Linda Sandler, “Jopling Opens $20 Million Gallery in London West End,” Bloomberg.com, September 27, 2006. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aMk_60scZKtY&refer=muse

4 Roberta Smith, “Christie’s Presale Show: Light and Space Enough to Really See Judd,” The New York Times, April 24, 2006.