Digital Editions
Newsletters
Subscribe
Digital Editions
Newsletters
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Art market
news

Artists would do well to invest in their own work, study says

New research suggests that artists may be better off retaining equity in their own work than investing in the stock market

Sarah P. Hanson
6 February 2018
Share
Robert Rauschenberg's Rebus (1955), which the artist's dealer, Leo Castelli, originally sold for $2,800 The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Partial and promised gift of Jo Carole and Ronald S. Lauder and purchase. ©Robert Rauschenberg Foundation

Robert Rauschenberg's Rebus (1955), which the artist's dealer, Leo Castelli, originally sold for $2,800 The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Partial and promised gift of Jo Carole and Ronald S. Lauder and purchase. ©Robert Rauschenberg Foundation

A new study by Amy Whitaker, an assistant professor in visual arts management at New York University, and Roman Kräussl, a professor of finance at the University of Luxembourg, has found that artists may be better off investing in their own work than in the stock market.

In their paper, titled Democratizing Art Markets: Fractional Ownership and the Securitization of Art, the authors, using historical sales data from the Leo Castelli gallery, have modelled a sample portfolio to determine what would have happened had Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg retained 10% equity in their own works sold by Castelli between 1958 and 1963. For example, they find that if Rauschenberg had retained 10% of Rebus (1955), originally sold for $2,800, the return on that investment would have generated $575,000, based on 10% of the hammer price of its last auction sale, for $5.75m, at Sotheby’s New York in 1988. Johns fares even better, with False Start (1959), originally priced at $1,000, rising to a value of $15.5m (hammer) at its last auction (also Sotheby’s New York in 1988), a return of $1.55m. Comparing with the S&P 500 during that same period, Whitaker and Kräussl find that returns on works by Rauschenberg would have performed up to 140.8 times better and Johns’s up to 986.8 times better than if the artists had invested their money in the financial markets.

While cautioning that these two cases represent optimistic scenarios, the authors extrapolate that artists and even dealers may benefit from a system wherein they forgo cash at the point of a work’s initial sale for fractional equity in that work going forward. Unlike resale royalties, which depend on regulation and enforcement, such fractional shares, enabled by blockchain technology, could be traded independent of the work itself, opening up a path for artists to access market-driven patronage.

Investors, meanwhile, could easily acquire and maintain a diversified portfolio of shares, distributing their risk. The authors theorise that the fractional equity model could extend to any creator whose work is difficult to value in the early stages, but often generates profits later that they then miss out on.

According to Whitaker, artist-­retained fractional equity addresses a “structural misalignment” in the art market. “Our analysis shows that the people most rewarded by a system like this one are those who are the earliest to take a bet on the art,” she says. “What’s exciting is that this is an idea which arises from within the arts, as opposed to being imposed on the arts by financial actors.”

Art marketEconomicsArtistsRobert RauschenbergJasper JohnsBlockchainLeo Castelli
Share
Subscribe to The Art Newspaper’s digital newsletter for your daily digest of essential news, views and analysis from the international art world delivered directly to your inbox.
Newsletter sign-up
Information
About
Contact
Cookie policy
Data protection
Privacy policy
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscription T&Cs
Terms and conditions
Advertise
Sister Papers
Sponsorship policy
Follow us
Instagram
Bluesky
LinkedIn
Facebook
TikTok
YouTube
© The Art Newspaper

Related content

Banksynews
1 November 2023

Scheme to sell fractions of Banksy’s Valentine’s Day Mascara could be illegal, lawyer says

Online company managing the Margate mural, intended as a comment on domestic abuse, has already sold more than £250,000 in shares

Anny Shaw
Art Basel 2018comment
16 June 2018

Rapper pays $18.5m for work at auction but the artist gets nothing—is the system in need of reform?

Anny Shaw asks if auction houses and dealers should pay their dues to the artists from whom they profit

Anny Shaw
May 2001archive
1 May 2001

Interview with economist William N. Goetzmann: 'The financial and the art markets do not crash at the same time'

In 2001, the Yale professor attributed the one- to two-year lag between crashes to the time it takes to liquidate assets

Brook Mason
Economicsnews
10 June 2015

Why should collectors get all the breaks?

Artists seek similar tax incentives for donating works to museums and auctions

Rachel Corbett