Collector’s Choice

I have, of course, written about collecting before, but after reading a couple of articles from Town & Country, which a friend sent me, I thought I would try again to answer the unanswerable.

The first was written over forty-five years ago by Russell Lynes (1910-1991). He was a photographer (though his brother George Platt Lynes was better known as such),  an educator, editor, and, in my world, best known as an art historian. The article I am referring to is called “The Romance of Collecting”. Lynes starts out by saying that a young couple asked him if they should buy a certain painting. They were not satisfied with his response, “Do you love it?” The couple probably wanted to have an affirmation of their taste. Today, I believe, the would-be collector would be calculating if it was worth the price, or worse yet, a good investment.

Everyone collects for different reasons, but the collectors I like best are those who can’t help themselves. That doesn’t mean that their tastes won’t change, just like your favorite food when you are young might not be the same when you are older.

My wife and I have acquired art in fields that we knew were against the market because we loved the objects, not because we believed they would be worth more, but because we wanted to live with them. Yet, over time, our tastes and circumstances changed, and one collection gave way to another.

As a kid, I had friends who collected baseball cards and spoke about their Topps Mickey Mantle card, which has today brought fortunes at auction. I had a Mickey Mantle card too, but it was not a Topps product, but I kept it because it was Mickey Mantle. Unfortunately, I did not take care of it and put it in an album. Condition matters, so my card today is not worth much, if anything at all. As a grown-up, I have not been swayed by others. When I see it, love it, and can afford it, I buy it, but I have learned to take care of it as well.

Lynes makes a distinction between collectors and accumulators. I believe there is a very fine line there, starting with why the work was bought in the first place. The job of the art dealer is often to help place a work in someone’s home after they have said they have no more room. One might suggest that they can put the inferior work away and replace it with their new masterpiece! Thus, the collector becomes an accumulator and has closets full of art. The advantage there is that they will have work that they can give away. In my case, I often enjoy that more than anything, especially if a museum thinks what I owned is worth adding to their collection!

I mentioned another article from Town and Country, and that one was written this month by Laura Neilson about when “Scandal Sells”. It addresses art that Jeffrey Epstein owned, which can bring a premium, not because of the quality of the art, but because of the previous owner. You have probably heard of the collectors who collect drawings and paintings created by Adolf Hitler. I would say, “whatever turns you on,” but that does not change the art. If you appreciate history, I can see the interest in having a token. But if you put it up on your wall and have it there only because of the creator, you, in my opinion, are not an art collector.

Epstein owned a Roman-style statue that was in an FBI auction in Palm Beach. It changed hands a couple of times until a dealer sold it to new buyers who put it in the center of their living room. They were said to have “an appreciation for the emancipation of the piece”. As it was placed front and center of the new owners’ home, not hidden away for salacious private viewing, perhaps the provenance has become just part of the story.

The article, however, makes an interesting distinction. Interviewing auctioneers, the author finds that auctioneers must make valuations of objects not including provenance, since they don’t know what the provenance will add or subtract from the valuation. They also wonder whether there are ethical boundaries that people will not want to cross, and therefore, it might take longer for people to sell a work that belonged to Epstein than Bernie Madoff. The latter’s crimes were of a financial nature, and Americans have a more difficult time with sex. (see last week’s Missive). But you never know, it only takes two bidders to bring a price at auction. The Madoff Mets baseball satin jacket, valued at $720, brought $14,500 at a U.S. Marshals Service auction.

While provenance from a celebrity may add temporary interest to a piece, a history of passage through renowned art collections gives it true pedigree.