top of page
Search

Good Taste Grossly Underappreciated

  • Martin Sosnoff
  • Apr 17, 2023
  • 4 min read

Updated: Apr 18, 2023

Jay Gatsby worshiped good taste in clothes, women, even swimming pools. But, he was gunned down. F. Scott Fitzgerald, author of the Great Gatsby, fulfilled his theme that good taste ain’t enough. Gatsby‘s life was a romantic fallacy. Hemingway responded, “the rich weren’t different from you or me, they just had more money.”


I read Hemingway and Fitzgerald in my late teens, a poor boy from the Bronx, attending City College. My three-piece gray flannel suit got me through college with a white button down shirt, a red knitted tie.


My buddies were painters, artists without galleries, living and working in $40-a-month walk ups, lower East Side of Manhattan.


Early fifties, New York was the art capital of the world for the Abstract Expressionism movement taking prominence. I’m talking about Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning. Later, Francis Bacon, and Roy Lichtenstein.


The going rate for their canvases was around $1,200. But, who could come up with such money then? David Rockefeller and Peggy Guggenheim. I bought pieces from my friends at the going rate, $300 apiece. You paid out $25 a month for a year.


Betty Parsons begged me to buy a couple of Rothko’s majestic canvases of color field work. But, just back from the Korean War, I stood penniless and unemployable-no skills. Rockefeller and Peggy were taken in hand by Alfred Barr, head of MOMA. When you’re in Venice visit, Peggy’s museum filled with Jackson Pollock's drip paintings.


In the sixties, then renting space in David Rockefeller’s building, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, I had his permission to stroll through his floor there and view his collection. His staff giggled over such “crazy” paintings, which later registered in the 9 figures range.


Early sixties, I had graduated to Wall Street as a player. My speed was $1,200 for a canvas and it bought a lot. Decades later, when I looked at Sotheby’s replacement value estimates, I noted my pieces bought 50 to 60 years ago for peanuts like Soulages. Frank Auerbach. Georg Baselitz. Marc Chagall, Philip Guston, Hans Hoffman, Alex Katz, Anselm Kiefer, Joan Mitchell, Ed Rusha, and Frank Stella had gone to the moon.


For collectors smart enough to tap into the Impressionist movement early 1860’s, the world said this was crazy, worthless junk. It took 40 years for Impressionism to catch on, largely because U.S. tycoons were told to buy this work. They listened to their dealers: Paul Durand-Ruel and later Joseph Duveen. New collectors unlocked the Old Masters too, held by the French and English aristocracy. End of the 19th century, huge surpluses in grain inventories drove down prices and led to disinvestment for Old Masters.



If you need a reference point on how low art prices do plumb, go back to the fifties and take in this table on prices at a 1959 auction by Sotheby’s. Peak price was a Picasso at $55,000 Modigliani fetched $12,000. Gerald Reitlinger then plunged ahead, predicting a return to pictorial realism. (Tell that to Andy Warhol and company).


During the Great Depression, in 1931, at the London auctions, few paintings exceeded 1,400 guineas, the lowest number since the 1870s. Frans Hals “Smuggler” made £3, 600.


Art after the Great Crash turned dull until after our troops invaded Italy in 1943. Feelings of guilt over splurging for canvases ended after our troops secured Omaha Beach.


The best story on “bargain basement” purchases belongs to me. Early seventies, one day, Mary Boone telephoned to say I had to come downtown to see the work of a hop-headed kid just off the streets and subways where he was chalking up subway cars. I subwayed down to see half dozen of the kid’s paintings, huge, multicolored geometrics. “We’ve had him holed up here, painting 14 hours a day,” Mary said. They’re $2,500 apiece. I looked and dismissed such work that 45 years or so later auctioned for $100 million.


“Yes, Mary,” I said. “They’re promising,” but my sole interest is the new wave of German painters, Kiefer, Baselitz, Immendorf. In 1973 this work sold under $100,000 and eventually the low millions.


Think of it! I could’ve checked out of The Street. No more stodgy annual reports to read or music sheets from analysts, economists and corporate headmen. In mitigation, years later I did buy Basquiat’s work.


Postwar, the art market had rested, dormant until 1952, when Abstract Expressionism swept into the Big Apple. Stocks then yielded more than bonds, a phenomenon that resurfaced in 2014.



Currently, the stock market looks at least 20% overvalued. It shouldn’t sell above 15 times expected earnings, not 20 times. Reciprocally, the market at times does sell on the cheap. Look at these prices for signature stocks when they’re disdained. Many growth stocks, spring of 1984 sold at no premium. Microsoft sold at a 10% market discount with minimal premiums for Apple, Google, even Coca-Cola. There was belief that gross profit margins would succumb.


But they held up. As for Art, everyone today seems cautious but interested as they should be.


 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
The Market Sits Like A Heavy Necklace

Magnificence, like the size of a fortune, is a comparative thing. Booth Tarkington in his classic novel “ The Magnificent Ambersons” posed the idea that to make a fortune while others are losing fortu

 
 
 

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
  • LinkedIn

©2021 by Martin Sosnoff

This website and this blog do not provide investing advice.  This website and the blog are for general, informational purposes only and are not to be construed as financial, investment, legal, tax or other advice.   This website and blog contain only the opinions, subjective views, and commentary of Martin T. Sosnoff which are subject to change at any time without notice.  This website and the blog may not be relied on in making an investment or any other decision. Any decision to invest or take any other action may involve risks not discussed herein and no such decisions should be made based on the information contained herein. You agree that Martin T. Sosnoff is not liable for any action you take or decision you make in reliance on any content of this website and/or the blog.   Any decisions based on the content are the sole responsibility of the user.   If you would like financial, investment, legal, tax or other advice, you should consult with your financial advisors, accountants or attorneys regarding your individual circumstances and needs.  None of the information or content presented on the website or the blog should be construed as an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities, financial instruments, investments or other services.  While Martin T. Sosnoff may use reasonable efforts to obtain information from sources believed to be reliable, Martin T. Sosnoff does not independently verify the accuracy of such information and makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of any information or content on the website or the blog.  Certain information on the website and the blog may contain forward-looking statements.  Martin T. Sosnoff undertakes no obligation to publicly update or review any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.   Martin T. Sosnoff makes no guarantee or other promise as to any results that may be obtained from using anything contained on the website or the blog.  While past performance may be discussed, past performance should not be considered indicative of future performance.   The information provided on this website and the blog is of general interest and is not intended as investment advice for any reader.  This website and the blog are not and are not intended to be a solicitation for investment management services.

bottom of page