Why That Warhol Was Worth It : Open Thread

In an effort to justify my claim on CNBC that I didn't think the $71+ million recently paid for Andy Warhol's Green Car Crash was such a bad price, I've been doing some soul searching on the parameters of the question (including the reality that, when put on the spot, it doesn't behoove any art dealer to suggest, without conclusive evidence, on live TV, that a particular work of art was overvalued) and have concluded that, yes, for a number of reasons, I'll stick by my assessment that that painting is indeed worth that much money.

This opinion is not without its dissenters, however, including Paddy Johnson, who notes on Art Fag City:

I don’t think that the 71 million dollar Warhol painting is a good price. As was stated several times during the interview, a work is worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay for it, but these really aren’t the answers people are looking for when they ask whether a painting is “worth” it. All we really want to know is whether the painting will maintain or increase in value. In short, my answer to this is no, though I don’t have more insight than anyone else on when these prices will level/drop off. Warhol was expensive last year, and the year before that, and the year before that. In fact, it was only three years ago that I worked at a blue chip gallery that got out of the Warhol market due to the believe that the work was over valued, so I can tell you I’m not the only one in the city who thinks these prices aren’t sustainable. If the business practice of at least a couple galleries in this city reflects this belief, my advice to buyers can only be to proceed with caution.

I agree that the essence of that question is whether or not the painting will maintain or increase in value. Had the work in question been from another series, I'd argue that perhaps that's debatable. However, I'm confident history will confirm that the Death and Disaster pieces comprise one of the most important series of the 20th century*, and even if the market crashes tomorrow and all artwork feels the pull of gravity, that piece will remain important and begin to appreciate again (quickly I would guess) with the next rebound. In other words, when considering the question of whether it's worth it, and whether I would buy it at that price (and, yes, whether or not it will increase in value), I took what an eventual sale from my estate would likely mean into account. Assuming I'd keep the piece until my death (hopefully at least 40 years from now), would it appreciate beyond the 71 million when it then was sold? I'm sure it would.

Two things convince me of this. First is the evidence provided via the market. The low estimate of the piece was already a record price for Warhol, suggesting intense interest in the work, from more than one buyer, before it began. Also part of the market evidence was Gagosian's willingness to jump in at $65million. Other secondary market galleries may be questioning the value of Warhols at the moment, but I'm fairly convinced Larry's take is a fair indicator of what they're worth. At the very most, if overvalued at all, it's only over by a million or two, based on Larry's interest. (Yes, all kinds of alternatives to that theory are possible [Gagosian wanted to drive up the price, he knew what the buyers' limits were, etc. etc.], but that's speculation, not evidence.)

The second factor that convinces me that Warhol will appreciate within 40 years is the fact that, as I noted in the interview, the best Picassos are already picked over and collectors who want to build a serious collection of high-quality work need to move on to the post-war / contemporary market. The relevant question, then, is who is Picasso's heir in the market? Whose work will set the standard moving forward? It seems pretty clear to me that it must be Warhol. Yes, contributing to nervousness about his prices going that high is the fact that there are plenty of Warhols out there, and many of them not all that good, but the same can be said of Picassos. There's no question in my mind, however, that Green Car Crash is from a very important series and if Warhol does prove to be the heir to Picasso, then it's potentially on its way toward that rarefied realm we call "priceless."

What Bill Griffeth alluded to in the interview that still serves as conventional wisdom about some overvalued art never really rebounding is the height of auction madness we witnessed in the late 80s/early 90s (symbolized perhaps by no sale as much as the 1990 price of $82.5 million for van Gogh's Portrait of Dr. Gachet Dr. Gachet). The difference here is that "Dr. Gachet" is far from one of van Gogh's best paintings, whereas, despite not being among his most popular (yet), I can't see how the Death and Disaster paintings will not prove to be among Warhol's most valued.

I could be wrong, of course. But those are my reasons for sticking by my assessment that the Warhol was worth it. Have at it...

*This series represents to my mind the pinnacle of Warhol's insight. It wasn't just that he saw how popular culture was infiltrating our lives to the point that we were becoming culturally trivial, in this series he warns that commercialization and the cheapening of imagery (via mass production and irreverent treatment) had begun to trivialize the least trivial aspect of existence: death. The repetition of the images, the mass production process, the mundanely fashionable colors: they add up to a brilliant but biting indictment of how callously we had begun to sell (and buy) death. Reportedly Warhol began the series in response to a headline in the Daily News that Henry Geldzahler pointed out to him: "129 Die in Jet." So many lives lost in such a senseless, meaningless tragedy, reduced to a catchy bite-sized message. By magnifying the absurdity of this growing ambivalence, Warhol meant to held up a mirror, a warning, if you will. I feel we're still just beginning to understand what he was trying to tell us. I think as it becomes clearer, the works in this series will become even more important to us.