Sky-high pricey artworks may not be flying off the auction block right now, but the art market is actually doing just fine.
That’s a key takeaway from a 190-plus page report written by Art Economics founder Clare McAndrew and published Thursday morning by Art Basel and UBS. The results were based on a survey of more than 3,600 collectors with US$1 million in investable assets located in 14 markets around the world.
That the art market is doing relatively well is backed by several data points from the survey that show collectors are buying plenty of art—just at lower prices—and that they are making more purchases through galleries and art fairs versus auction houses.
It’s also backed by the perception of a “robust art market feeling,” which was evident at Art Basel Paris last week, says Matthew Newton, art advisory specialist with UBS Family Office Solutions in New York.
“It was busy and the galleries were doing well,” Newton says, noting that several dealers offered top-tier works—“the kind of stuff you only bring out to share if you have a decent amount of confidence.”
That optimism is reflected in the survey results, which found 91% of respondents were optimistic about the global art market in the next six months. That’s up from the 77% who expressed optimism at the end of last year.
Moreover, the median expenditure on fine art, decorative art and antiques, and other collectibles in the first half by those surveyed was US$25,555. If that level is maintained for the second half, it would “reflect a stable annual level of spending,” the report said. It would also exceed meet or exceed the median level of spending for the past two years.
The changes in collector behaviour noted in the report—including a decline in average spending, and buying through more diverse channels—“are likely to contribute to the ongoing shift in focus away from the narrow high-end of sales that has dominated in previous years, potentially expanding the market’s base and encouraging growth in more affordable art segments, which could provide greater stability in future,” McAndrew said in a statement.
One reason the art market may appear from the outside to be teetering is the performance of the major auction houses has been pretty dismal since last year. Aggregate sales for the first half of the year at Christie’s, Sotheby’s, Phillips, and Bonhams, reached only US$4.7 billion in the first half, down from US$6.3 billion in the first half a year ago and US$7.4 billion in the same period in 2022, the report said.
Meanwhile, the number of “fully published” sales in the first half reached 951 at the four auction houses, up from 896 in the same period last year and 811 in 2022. Considering the lower overall results in sales value, the figures imply an increase in transactions of lower-priced works.
“They’re basically just working harder for less,” Newton says.
One reason the auction houses are having difficulties is many sellers have been unwilling to part with high-value works out of concern they won’t get the kind of prices they would have at the art market’s recent highs coming out of the pandemic in 2021 and 2022. “You really only get one chance to sell it,” he says.
Also, counterintuitively, art collectors who have benefited from strength in the stock market and the greater economy may be “feeling a positive wealth effect right now,” so they don’t need to sell, Newton says. “They can wait until those ‘animal spirits’ pick back up,” referring to human emotions that can drive the market.
That collectors are focusing on art at more modest price points right now is also evident in data from the Association of Professional Art Advisors that was included in the report. According to APAA survey data of its advisors, if sales they facilitated in the first half continue at the same pace, the total number of works sold this year will be 23% more than 2023.
Most of the works purchased so far were bought for less than US$100,000, with the most common price point between US$25,000 and US$50,000.
The advisors surveyed also said that 80% of the US$500 million in transactions they conducted in the first half of this year involved buying art rather than selling it. If this pattern holds, the proportion of art bought vs. sold will be 17% more than last year and the value of those transactions will be 10% more.
“This suggests that these advisors are much more active in building collections than editing or dismantling them,” the report said.
The collectors surveyed spend most of their art dollars with dealers. Although the percentage of their spending through this channel dipped to 49% in the first half from 52% in all of last year, spending at art fairs (made largely through gallery booths) increased to 11% in the first half from 9% last year.
Collectors also bought slightly more art directly from artists (9% in the first half vs. 7% last year), and they bought more art privately (7% vs. 6%). The percentage spent at auction houses declined to 20% from 23%.
The data also showed a shift in buying trends, as 88% of those polled said they bought art from a new gallery in the past two years, and 52% bought works by new and emerging artists in 2023 and this year.
The latter data point is interesting, since works by many of these artists fall into the ultra contemporary category, where art soared to multiples of original purchase prices in a speculative frenzy from 2021-22. That bubble has burst, but the best of those artists are showing staying power, Newton says.
“You’re seeing that kind of diversion between what’s most interesting and will maintain its value over time, versus maybe what’s a little bit less interesting
and might have had speculative buying behind it,” he says.
Collectors appear better prepared to uncover the best artists, as more of those surveyed are doing background research or are seeking advice before they buy. Less than 1% of those surveyed said they buy on impulse, down from 10% a year earlier, the report said.
Not all collectors are alike so the Art Basel-UBS report goes into considerable detail breaking down preferences and actions by individuals according to the regions where they live and their age range, for instance. The lion’s share of spending on art today is by Gen X, for instance—those who are roughly 45-60 years old.
Despite a predominately optimistic view of the market, of those surveyed only 43% plan to buy more art in the next 12 months, down from more than 50% in the previous two years, the report said. Buyers in mainland China were an exception, with 70% saying they plan to buy.
Overall, more than half of all collectors surveyed across age groups and regions plan to sell, a reversal from past years. That data point could foretell a coming buyer’s market, the report said, or it “could be indicative of more hopeful forecasts on pricing or the perception that there could be better opportunities for sales in some segments in the near future than there are at present.”
In the U.S., where 48% of collectors plan to buy, Newton says he’s seeing a lot of interest in art from wealth management clients.
“They’re looking for ideas. They’re looking for names of artists that can be compelling and have staying power,” Newton says. “That’s definitely happening from an optimistic standpoint.”
What a quarter-million dollars gets you in the western capital.
Alexandre de Betak and his wife are focusing on their most personal project yet.
Growth in size of U.S. market gives him extra leverage in trade negotiations with other countries
Donald Trump will retake office in a global economy substantially transformed from eight years ago—one much more reliant on the U.S.
It means that the president-elect’s plans, including across the board tariffs, could pack an even greater wallop on other countries than the first round of “America First” economic policy. It also gives Trump much more leverage in negotiations over trade policy.
Strong growth since the pandemic has expanded the U.S.’s weight in the global economy. Its share of output among the Group of Seven wealthy nations is higher than at any point since at least the 1980s, International Monetary Fund data shows.
Growth in China, the world’s second-largest economy, has slowed. Germany, the largest European economy, is contracting. Many poorer economies are buckling under the weight of high debt.
U.S. gains in global output partly reflect the strong dollar, which pushes up the value of American output relative to that of foreign economies. But they also result from substantial increases in U.S. productivity compared with the rest of the world.
The changes in the global economy have made America, not China, the premier destination for foreign direct investment, enlarging the exposure that foreign companies have to the U.S. economy and changes in government policy. A booming U.S. stock market has attracted huge flows of investment dollars.
“The fact that much of the rest of the world is now struggling to generate demand on its own provides more reason for countries to try to reach some sort of accommodation with Trump,” said Brad Setser , a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Trump started imposing tariffs in 2018, primarily on China but also on Europe and other allies. Those tariffs fractured global trade, weighing on large exporting economies in Asia and Europe, while not obviously hurting the U.S., which is less reliant on foreign demand than its trading partners. Trump campaigned on a promise to impose at least a 60% tariff on China, and an across the board tariff of 10% to 20% on everywhere else.
America’s superior economic performance has been driven in part by energy independence and massive government spending, said Neil Shearing , chief economist at Capital Economics in London. Since the U.S. now exports more energy than it imports—including millions of barrels of oil each month to China—the nation as a whole benefits when energy prices rise, unlike for net importers such as China and Europe.
The upshot: America’s traditional role as the centre of gravity in the global economy has become even more pronounced in the years after Trump’s first-term tariffs, the pandemic, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
U.S. influence over Europe’s economy is a case in point. The U.S. has cemented its position as Europe’s largest export market as trans-Atlantic trade surged in recent years and China’s imports from Europe stalled. The U.S. has replaced Russia as Europe’s major source of imported energy. Europe runs big trade surpluses with the U.S. but big trade deficits with China.
The result is access to the U.S. market is far more important for Europe than access to European markets for the U.S. That asymmetry will give Trump leverage in trade negotiations with Europe, according to economists.
Germany exports around 7% of its entire manufacturing value-added to the U.S., but Germany imports only around 0.8% of value-added in U.S. manufacturing, according to a September paper by researchers at Germany’s Ifo Institute for Economic Research.
“German business is vulnerable to Trump,” said Marcel Fratzscher , president of the Berlin-based economic research institute DIW Berlin.
Parts of Asia have benefited from the changes in supply chains sparked by Trump’s initial trade war with China. Many manufacturers, including Chinese ones, moved factories to places such as Vietnam and Cambodia. For the past two quarters, Southeast Asia’s exports to the U.S. have exceeded those to China.
But that now leaves them more exposed to across the board tariffs, a policy that Trump advisers say will be necessary to force manufacturing back to the U.S.
To be sure, Trump’s policies could create countervailing forces. Tariffs would decrease imports and potentially weigh on productivity, but tax cuts would drive up household and business spending, including, inevitably, on imports. Other countries could retaliate by placing tariffs on U.S. goods.
Meanwhile, a tight U.S. labor market has pushed up wages, which is good for those workers. But it could pressure employers to raise prices, in turn making them vulnerable to foreign competition.
Many economists are girding for a different type of trade war from Trump 1.0, when trade fell between the U.S. and China but was diverted elsewhere.
“As long as protectionism refers only to one country, China, the world can live with this,” said Joerg Kraemer , chief economist at Commerzbank. “The thing becomes difficult or dangerous if you implement tariffs on all countries. This would be a new era in global trade.”