Kobel's
Art Weekly

Kobel's Art Weekly 49 2025

In his detailed analysis of the New York auction week, Zachary Small identifies several trends for the New York Times: "But with some business strategy and a little luck, auction houses sold £2.2 billion worth of art last week. Overall, the major auctions in New York in November achieved a 77 per cent increase over the corresponding sales last year (though still 30 per cent below the market's recent peak of $3.2 billion in 2022). How did they do it? This year, auction houses were more cautious in their estimates and encouraged sellers to lower their expectations. They also guaranteed that 70 per cent of the estimated value of the evening sales was virtually sold before the auction rooms opened. Executives procured rare paintings from the estates of recently deceased individuals [...] The mixed results signalled that while the art market has not yet returned to its recent highs, it may be regaining its footing. Twelve paintings sold for more than $20 million each, compared to seven last November, but fewer than 24 in November 2023.

New York gallery owner Marc Straus paints a largely bleak picture in his insightful assessment of the (US) art market for Hyperallergic – media bashing included: "This declining market is exacerbated by a doubling and tripling of art transport costs and higher rents, especially in NYC. Space on Grand Street, where my gallery has its flagship location, can cost up to $200 per square foot. The worst part is not the closure of Blum in July. It's the 60 or so mostly younger galleries that have gone under in the last three and a half years and that almost no one has written about. Just look at the gallery maps of the Lower East Side from 2020 compared to today. What art market analysts write is factually correct, but the data is not fully representative. Gallery sales are almost always private, and only a small percentage truthfully disclose their turnover and profits. Where this is public, as in the case of the renowned Sadie Coles Gallery in London, we see examples of turnover declines of over 50%. Average gallery turnover is reported to have fallen by 8 or 10%. That would hardly have led to closures. It's far worse than that." But there is light at the end of the tunnel: "As curator Alex Feim recently noted, a whole host of new galleries are opening. The Armory Show in September was packed with people. There is still a sense of caution, but also new enthusiasm. Newer collectors are learning the value of personal viewing, the excitement of seeing a work of art they fall in love with, the exchange of ideas with gallery owners. More experienced collectors are returning."

The FAZ newspaper of 29 November covers the art market in its entirety with previews of auctions in German-speaking countries, all of which are behind a paywall online.

The top results of last week's auction at Grisebach in Berlin prompted Rüdiger Stumpf to discuss the pros and cons of investing in art in the Berliner Zeitung (paywall). He starts off promisingly: ‘We explain how anyone can invest in art, why they shouldn't speculate on high increases in value, and which strategy leads to success.’ The rest, however, is rather arbitrary and not particularly original: "The art market is opaque and highly subjective, Matthias Bohn, CEO of P&S Vermögensberatung in Bayreuth, told the daily newspaper Welt. As a financial product, art is not suitable due to its lack of fungibility. It is neither possible to plan nor predict when art can be resold. The often-claimed low correlation with other asset classes is also misleading. Since there are no observable prices – except for rare auctions – for individual art objects, a theoretical ‘risk smoothing’ does take place in the overall portfolio. ‘However, this is more appearance than reality, as it stems from an insufficient database.’ Despite this sobering realisation, it can still be worthwhile to invest in art. Instead of getting carried away by hype, however, collectors should pursue a well-considered strategy. One option is to focus on smaller works by internationally established artists – for example, drawings, prints or engravings." The text ends at the point where it should actually begin.

Daniel Grant presents a tax-saving model popular in the USA in The Observer: "Called, somewhat inelegantly, a CRUT, a charitable remainder unitrust allows collectors to transfer tangible objects such as art to a trust and authorise a trustee to sell the artwork when the market appears to be at a high point. The proceeds of the sale are tax-deferred, and the money can be reinvested to grow over time within the trust. If collector X owns a painting worth £1 million and sells it directly, he has to pay 41 per cent tax and receives £590,000. However, if collector X puts the painting into a CRUT and then sells it, he has the entire £1 million at his disposal and pays capital gains tax at a later date."

Former gallery owner Orlando Whitfield attempts to explain the customs of the art market, which may seem bizarre to outsiders, in the Financial Times: "There could be several more layers between you and the determination of the price – before the gallery decides whether it wants to sell you anything. If that sounds like snobbery, you're right. The art world thrives on snobbery (although it is often referred to as “taste”) in order to continue to elevate itself above the battle for luxury goods or simply decorative assets. After all, this is not retail, but culture, and nothing underscores this notion more than the need to prove your suitability as a collector to a 25-year-old art history graduate. Just because you are rich does not mean you can simply go out and buy something. This is also reflected in the characteristic language of the art world: ‘acquire’ instead of “buy”, for example. The language is intended to enhance the nature of your purchase – pardon, ‘acquisition’ – so that you don't think too much about it. This stands in stark contrast to how many dealers talk about their wares behind the scenes: It is not uncommon for masterpieces to be referred to as ‘stock’ or simply “kit”. (The art world is a very strictly hierarchical milieu.) "

In an in-depth interview with Cornelius Tittel for WeLT, Ingvild Goetz talks about her life and how she went from being a gallery owner to a collector: "WELT: Back then, you exhibited what you bought – not like today, where galleries work on commission. Goetz: No, I did both. But I often bought the works directly and told the artists that I would exhibit them. I had earned well with my editions – well, not much, but enough. WELT: So the money for all the paintings didn't come from your family? Goetz: Not from my father. But art was so cheap back then – it cost practically nothing." That was possible at the time because, on the one hand, people still went to galleries and, on the other hand, distribution costs – such as participation in trade fairs and room rentals – were relatively manageable.

Frank Kurzhals looks back on a hundred years of the Griffelkunst Association in the Handelsblatt: "Johannes Böse had his school in Hamburg-Langenhorn, a disadvantaged district. His target group was located in a newly built housing estate for war invalids and large families, which was built in 1919. Soon, a large proportion of the settlement's residents were members of his Griffelkunst. During the Nazi era, Griffelkunst survived by keeping a low profile and participating inconspicuously. After the end of the war, the association began to grow throughout Germany and now consists of 90 subgroups. From a small handful of members on Heligoland to many in Düsseldorf and especially many in Hamburg."

Berlin's independent Senator for Culture, Sarah Wedl-Wilson, seems to have just as little control over her department as her CDU predecessor Joe Chialo. According to research by Peter Laudenbach for the SZ on 24 November, she may even have covered up the shady dealings after the fact: "As far as Wedl-Wilson is concerned, [Daniel] Wesener's dossier makes for interesting reading. She is said to have ignored concerns raised by her administration's staff about individual project sponsors who did not appear to be managing their projects properly. The senator is said to have worked to have the negative assessment of external experts removed from the decision memo for some projects, including one that was reportedly classified as ‘not eligible for funding’ by the expert jury. In June 2025, the senator is also said to have made it clear to administrative staff that a certain project application had high priority – despite its obvious incompleteness."

dpa has compiled a short FAQ on the arbitration tribunals for looted art, which will begin their work on 1 December. In this context, Bavaria's Minister of Science and the Arts, Markus Blume, has also reiterated his call for a restitution law, according to dpa. epd reports that Meike Hopp has taken up her post as the new director of the Centre for Lost Cultural Property in Magdeburg.

The Louvre is increasing the ticket price for non-EU foreigners to 32 euros, reports Der Spiegel (with agency material). This is on par with the regular admission price for major institutions in the US, such as the MoMA, the Philadelphia Art Museum and the Art Institute Chicago.