Georgia O'Keeffe, Pink Tulip, oil on canvas, 91.4 ×76.2 cm, 1926
In 1634, the tulip mania swept through the Netherlands. Leaving behind their work and taking out the cash they had left, people tried to make a lot of money from a tulip. The "tulip bubble," known as the "first financial crisis," began. So, has a similar "bubble economy" happened in the art world? Today, Harper's Bazaar Art takes you on a closer look.
The temptation of tulips
In October 1636, the Black Death ravaged The Netherlands, while the taverns were crowded at dusk. Pushing open the door and looking around, the center of the crowd was a seller holding a tulip futures contract, shouting: "As long as a thousand guilders, the contract belongs to you!" September's tulips have a share of you..."
Hendrik Gerritsz Pot Flora's Wagon of Fools, oil on panel, 61×83cm, 1632-1642
What is the concept of a thousand guilders? At that time, the average annual income of the Dutch was only about 150-300 guilders. That is, the deal is equivalent to spending a few years' salary to buy a few flowers full of unknowns the following year – tulips are planted with great randomness, and if you are lucky, you can grow "Augustus forever"; If you are unlucky, the vulgar red and pink will ruin your family.
Hand-painted "Augustus forever" tulips
At this time, the Dutch were hot-headed and blind, confident that the tulip fever would continue. Almost everyone converts their property for cash, investing in this flower. They will continue to change hands one futures contract after another, eager for speculation once and for all.
By the beginning of 1637, the price of tulips was appalling: a "forever Augustus" had sold for as high as 6,700 guilders, and ten thousand guilders were needed to buy its bulbs. However, in February, the people who bought and sold gradually realized that the delivery time of tulips was coming, and immediately began to worry about whether they could harvest high-priced tulips in September. This momentary wavering of confidence was immediately reflected in the market – futures contracts instantly turned into hot potatoes. Then, the price of tulips suffered a Waterloo.
Satire on Tulip Mania by Jan Brueghel, oil on panel, 31×49cm, 1640
Jean-Léon Gérôme, The Tulip Folly, oil on canvas, 100×65.4 × 12.7 cm, 1882
The bubble burst. The price of tulip bulbs finally fell back to 2%-5% of the frenzied period in the cooling of the market, and then to 0.01%, worthless. Looking back, speculators who aspire to get rich have forgotten the low and practical value of tulips when they are crazy. In the end, the tulip fever that swept the country was like a brainless rush, and after the head was down, only the Dutch were left to face the devastation of the market, scattered and empty-handed.
Hans Bollongier, Still Life of Flowers, oil on canvas, 67.6×53.3 cm, 1639
Does this kind of self-indulgent speculation make you afraid? Seeing the dizzying rate of rise in art prices and the hot works of star artists, countless people think that the art market is a bubble like a "tulip fever"...
Monet, Tulip Fields near The Hague, oil on canvas, 66×81.5cm, 1886
Has there ever been a bubble in the art market?
"My principle is to get what I want, no matter how much it costs." The Japanese businessman who said this, Tsuyoshi Saito, bought Van Gogh's portrait of Dr. Gachet for $82.5 million.
In the 1980s and 1990s, japan's stock market soared, bubbles swelled, and materialism ran rampant, and the eyes of the rich shifted from the stock market and the housing market to the art market. In 1990, Saito bought the pancake mill ball for $78.1 million on the third day of the painting. In just two days, $160 million was spent, and the price of Impressionist works rose sharply.
Vincent van Gogh, Portrait of Dr. Gachet, oil on canvas, 67×56cm, 1890
Pierre-Auguste Renoir, The Ball of the Pancake Mill, oil on canvas, 131×175 cm, 1876
In previous years, Japan's preference for Impressionism had shown signs. In 1987, Japanese businessman Yasuo Goto photographed Van Gogh's work "Sunflowers"; In 1988, Picasso's "Rose Period" masterpiece Acrobats and Young Clowns was included in the Pocket of the Japanese retail giant for $38.46 million. Tsurumaki, on the other hand, spent $51.65 million on his "Blue Period" work Pierrett's Wedding; In 1989, Seibu Department Store bought "Water Lilies" for 1.3 billion yen...
Picasso, Acrobats and Young Clowns, oil on canvas, 191.1×108.6cm, 1905
Picasso' Wedding of Pierrett, oil on canvas, 115×195cm, 1905
In addition to famous masterpieces, Japanese people also have many indiscriminate purchases. Between December 1987 and May 1999, the value of Impressionist works increased by 153%. Van Gogh alone, for example, saw his work peak at $5.72 million in 1980 and rise to $82.5 million in 1990.
La Briqueterie Delafolie à Éragny, Camille Pissarro, oil on canvas, 58×72cm, 1886
Alfred Sisley, Snowy Landscape of Luvitian, oil on canvas, 54×65cm, 1874
You probably don't think these sky-high numbers mean anything, after all, Impressionism is no longer important in today's market. But before the bubble, Japanese purchases at Sotheby's and Christie's were limited to third-rate works by Pissarro, Renoir and Sisley, all priced below $1 million. Like the "tulip fever", Japan also staged an "impressionist fever", and all this was an illusion created by the bubble economy for the art market.
Claude Monet, Nymphéas en fleur, oil on canvas, 160.9×180.8cm, 1914
In just four years, the bubble of the Japanese economy burst. At this time, Japan held tens of thousands of Impressionist works, most of which had to be reduced to collateral for non-performing loans in banks. The confidence of the rich is no longer there, and the market immediately "plummets". Banks failed when they sent art to the international auction market for sale. In 1991, 41% of sotheby's Impressionist specials were auctioned.
Camille Pissarro, Le relais de poste sur la route de Versailles, Louveciennes, oil on canvas, 43.2×54.6cm, 1871
The transaction prices we see now in Monet, Van Gogh and Cézanne are the result of the recovery. But not all artists and paintings have been able to return to their earlier levels, and many of the painters that Japanese people once loved are now only one-third to one-quarter of the highest prices in the 1980s. Just as the market after the "tulip fever" has cooled, the collectors who once spent millions of dollars and blindly followed the trend have become the traces of the wheel of history.
Eduard Manet, Spring, oil on canvas, 74× 51.5 cm, 1881
Admittedly, not all strong rises in the price of art mean a "bubble", just as Van Gogh may be affected economically, but its value will not be depreciated, while other artists are not. Leaving aside the "bubble", this is also a warning to the blind obedience for speculators: only good art can withstand the big waves.
Verres et Pommes by Paul Cézanne, oil on canvas, 31.5×40cm, 1879-1880
La Corbeille de Pommes by Paul Cézanne, oil on canvas, 65×80cm, 1890-1894
A warning of speculation
Also spending money on Impressionism, it's clear that David Rockefeller, a New York financial magnate, is much smarter than Saito. In 1956, Rockefeller bought Cézanne's Boy in a Red Vest for $180,000, announcing his attitude toward Impressionism.
Cézanne, "The Boy in the Red Vest", oil on canvas, 95.5×64cm, 1895
"Rockefeller's price was a tribute to art, but the motivation was not." Godfrey Barker wrote in his book Vanity Fair. Rockefeller's family has been collecting works by Cézanne, Edgar Degas, and Renoir for 30 years. Thus, the Impressionist market had a stake in them. And his move has indeed changed the "direction of the wind", and many of the works in his hands have appreciated as a result, which can be described as the basic operation of "fighting big with small".
This is clearly not a speculation for short-term profits only. Economist Stephen Hill once said, "Investing is essentially a long-term business; Only speculation is short-term business. While this motivation to invest in the pursuit of returns drives the development of civilization, speculation is the satisfaction of greedy desires. "Japanese collectors who reflect Saito and many who have lost their money have to sigh: if you want to succeed in prosperity, the consequences are often worrying.
Edgar Degas, Dancers Practicing at the Barre, oil on canvas, 75.6 ×81.3 cm, 1877
Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Femmes Dans Un Jardin, oil on canvas, 55×65.5cm, 1873
Of course, it is difficult for ordinary investors to compare with the deep-pocketed Rockefeller family, nor can they compare with the inflated Saito in the "bubble economy"... Finally, let's turn our attention back to the contemporary era and recall a "bubble" that has been experienced in the field of vision, "Zombie Formalism".
Does this set of works look inexplicably familiar and similar? Its similar products are hung in countless modern apartments, as seemingly "rational" decorations, extremely stylish, but with no connotation. As artist Seth Price says of them: "The tepid composition, the minimalist but hesitant appearance, the beautiful look but the lack of attitude, there are many stories behind them." ”
Lucien Smith, Two Sides of the Coin, Acrylic on Canvas, 243.8×182.8cm, 2012
Lucien Smith, "You will be beautiful to Me and I Will Be True to You," Acrylic on Canvas, 243.8×182.8cm, 2012
After the brief glory of zombie formalism passed, the artists concerned were also "pulled off the altar". Take, for example, lucien Smith, a painter who has twice been named to forebes' "30 Under 30s" in the art category – in 2012, his work "Two Sides of the Coin" was sold at Sotheby's London for $372,000, a much higher than the most undervalued $66,000. However, in the second year, he directly faced the doom of falling prices and the flow of his works.
Monet, Tulip Fields at Sassenheim, oil on canvas, 1886
Vase of Tulips, oil on canvas, 1885
This is the "tulip bubble" of contemporary art. During this period, the temptations, frenzies, chaos and panic experienced by the market and collectors need not be repeated, you must be able to imagine. As before, many people profited, and more people lost everything. Only because the undertone of speculation is the greed of human nature. But obviously, most of the valuable things in the world require us to suppress our nature. Just like investing in an artist, it is not a momentary brain fever, but at least a detailed understanding of art history and a long-term and diligent observation of the market.
History has warned enough about speculation, but it will continue. After all, who knows if the art market we spend so much money today will be another exquisite bubble?
Editor, Wen Yu Mingyi
This article is original by Harper's Bazaar Art Department and may not be reproduced without permission