Subject: Artists’ EstatesProject: ForecastDate: October 2017

Published by Art Institutions of the 21st Century for Alaska Editions

(Title)

The Tipping Point for Artists’ Estates

A Forecast

(Document Type)

02

OCTOBER 2017THE TIPPING POINT FOR ARTISTS’ ESTATES. A FORECAST

03

CONTENTS

04

Foreword 06Introduction 08Legacy 10Professionalisation 14Management 20Authority 24Sustainability 28Conclusion 32Bibliography 36

05

FOREWORD

Research undertaken by the Art Institutions of the 21st Century Foundation highlights an important transition taking place in the area of individual artistic legacies, which is heading to a potential ‘tipping point’. The resulting report attempts to demonstrate the importance of artists’ estates in the present, and to outline the factors that are at play in accelerating important changes. Much of the literature on the subject produced to date is framed by a legal discourse that foregrounds an essentially conservative and pragmatic approach. Though we acknowledge the importance of correct procedure, our approach favours a more artistic and strategic perspective. The concept of artist legacy can be traced back several centuries to the recognition of artists for their individual work rather than as artisans. This continues as a model for contemporary art practice despite momentous shifts in medium and production methods. Today, we are witnessing changes in the institutions that support, trade, collect and preserve works of art, and whose intervention is increasingly instrumental in shaping the future of artists’ legacies. This report wouldn’t have been possible without the lead of the Foundation’s Director Nicolas de Oliveira. From the outset, our trustees Tanya Tikhnenko and Shezad Dawood gave their valuable and unsparing support. Our very special thanks goes to the foundation’s Advisory Board who shared their expert knowledge and generously gave their time through extensive feedback on the text.

Sébastien MontabonelChair of Trustees

06 07

INTRODUCTION

08

The business of an Artist’s Estate is often conflated with that of an Art-ist’s Archive. Such ambiguity is per-haps more common among public institutions and artists concerned with content, than in the more ma-terially-minded commercial sec-tor. The archive contains important documentation in the form of imag-es, texts and artifacts pertaining to the ideas and works of an individ-ual compiled throughout a lifetime, while an estate is a legal and strate-gic entity that seeks to maintain the name and entire oeuvre of an artist in a sustainable manner. While an archive of the work may indeed form part of an estate, it is not syn-onymous with the work, nor can it sustain itself financially or other-wise. An Artist’s Estate is con-ventionally associated with the posthumous administration of an artist’s assets. Rather than empha-sising the career of the living artist, the estate usually comes into force once an artist’s life and career come to an end. In the 21st century the visibility of artistic practice and the concomitant market value of con-temporary artworks have soared, requiring an urgent change in meth-odology to the management of an artistic legacy in the immediate fu-ture. The twin-pronged argu-ment advanced here concerns the relationship with the living artist and an enhanced professional approach to the management of an estate. Artistic output must be seen in the context of a mutable and complex world defined by burgeoning digi-tal technologies, shifts in economic structures and the effects of glob-al art markets. In this framework, it is becoming increasingly clear that the process of institutionalisation - which enshrines certain regular processes and methodologies is an imperative to attain longevity.

By institutions, we refer to cultural agents, which act in an ethical and equitable manner whilst enshrining proven codes of practice without being resistant to positive transfor-mation. Within a shifting cultural landscape, the Artist’s Estate plays a crucial role, since it confers status and economic power to the creative individual. In its fullest definition it embraces numerous features, spanning the legal and the curato-rial, it comprises practices such as governance and inheritance, along-side branding, networking, and market strategy. The terminology employed to define these entities may alter in different geographical jurisdictions or circumstances car-rying specific legal connotations. Terms employed can vary from ‘es-tate’ to ‘archive’, and from ‘trust’ to ‘foundation.’1 We will argue for the strate-gic development of Artists’ Estates to help them become firmly located within an accelerating discourse on culture. The power of the market is progressively driving a trend fo-cusing on artistic legacy, which is reaching its ‘tipping point’2, and will soon turn into a defining, worldwide phenomenon. The Artist’s Estate should in fact denote a legal entity, whose role is rather more substan-tial than providing a mere recepta-cle where assets are placed when an artist dies. It should indeed be free to operate with a degree of au-tonomy in the fulfilment of a broader scope. In addition, it should aspire to become a sustainable organisa-tion, which serves the vision of its founder, enhancing the perception and influence of the artist’s work in the present and the future.

09

[1] The Italian ‘Archivio’ (Archive), for instance, often indicates an institution that not only docu-ments, but also collects, exhibits and programs around the work of an artist – to the advantage of artistic legacy as well as of a wider commu-nity. Think of, for instance, Archivio Luciano e Carla Fabro, Archivo Boetti, Archivio Paolini, Archivio Piero Manzioni and Archivo Gianni Co-lombo. The legal objective of a trust is instead identified with ‘the transfer of specific assets, which consequently constitute an independent body of special purpose assets, (…) beyond the reach of the trustee’s personal creditors’ – Lo-retta Würtenberg, The Artist’s Estate. A Hand-book for Artists, Executors, and Heirs, (Berlin: Hantje Cantz, 2016), 59-60 – whilst an artist-en-dowed foundation is a non-profit entity, whose goal is to expand the view of the artist, by mak-ing a public impact. In some countries, such as the United States, this frequently operates through philanthropic projects.

[2] The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference is the title of a publica-tion by journalist and author Malcolm Gladwell, which describes ‘that magic moment when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a thresh-old, tips, and spreads like wildfire.’ - Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (Little, Brown and Company, 2006)

LEGACY

10

In general, the life of an artwork is longer than that of an artist. This implies that a work of art is seen autonomously from its author. This separation between work and art-ist is exacerbated after the artist’s lifetime, when it is entrusted with representing an aspect of his or her posthumous legacy. In particular, legacy focuses on the continuing presence and reception of an art-ist’s practice. It follows that Artists’ Estates can consider two alterna-tive models, namely the ‘Sunset Model’ and the ‘Eternity Model’. Whilst the former refers to a type of organisation with a defined end, the latter intends to endure in perpetu-ity.3 The responsibility lies with the artist to strategically define whether an estate has a defined lifespan, af-ter which its assets are transferred or dispersed, or whether the estate continues to administer the legacy. In the former, the goals of the estate taper down specifically towards its planned dissolution, whilst the lat-ter model requires more complex planning and may indeed alter its purposes over the course of time. Such changes may be foreseen and planned by the artist to accommo-date strategic alterations. History demonstrates the importance of estate planning. There are notorious cases of artists who either died intestate or who made unfortunate decisions regard-ing the future management of their assets. For example, following his death in 1970, Mark Rothko stipu-lated that his estate should not be left in the hands of the very rich, so he engaged three friends as ex-ecutors and established a founda-tion. These individuals went on to sell a large part of the works to the Marlborough Gallery at extreme-ly favourable prices, and giving Marlborough the right to sell other canvases for higher than normal commission. Rothko’s daughter,

Kate, sued them and won the case but the damage was already done and her father’s desire to provide grants to late-career artists was im-possible to realise. Another case in point is that of Pablo Picasso who died intestate in 1973 ‘having been possessed by the superstition that making a will would hasten his de-mise. He left 45,000 works and sev-en heirs — a settlement that took six years and $30m to negotiate.’4 To a certain extent, such deleteri-ous examples serve to underline the dangers of not making an ap-propriate provision for the future of the estate, whilst entrusting individ-uals with making correct decisions entirely of their own accord. Thus, in order for an estate to have a lasting impact on the art-ist’s legacy a circumspect vision is key. This should be based on strate-gic thinking and foresight that incor-porate both economic and cultural levels. An example of productive prescience can be seen in Robert Rauschenberg’s decision to divide his assets between his heirs and his foundation. This arrangement guar-anteed his descendants a portion of his wealth, whilst also gifting the foundation sufficient funds to oper-ate. At present, the Rauschenberg Foundation is active in enhancing his legacy and the implementa-tion of his will by supporting artists who engage with cross-disciplinary practices and environmental con-cerns.5 Legacy is hence synony-mous with the transfer and dissem-ination of knowledge, but also the maintaining of authority – meaning the degree of influence that an art-ist’s work and action can generate. If no instructions are left on how to deal with a body of work, it will not receive the appropriate recognition in the future, with the additional risk of becoming a financial burden on the inheritors. Contrariwise, appro-priate planning can result in the es-

11

[3] Loretta Würtenberger, The Artist’s Estate. A Handbook for Artists, Executors, and Heirs, (Berlin: Hantje Cantz, 2016), 133.

[4] Harriet Fitch Little, “How an artist’s legacy became big business.” Financial Times, (August 26, 2016). Accessed January 25, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/d77d5e74-69e5-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c

[5] Christy MacLear, “Building the Robert Raus-chenberg Foundation.” In Keeping the Legacy Alive. A conference discussing aspects of artist estate planning and management. (Berlin, 14-15 September 2016).

tate becoming a potential source of income, leading to the transmission of wealth to future generations. If we consider Artists’ Es-tates as valuable institutions of the 21st Century rather than as the private remit of an individual, the need for an institutional model of governance is evident. Institutions aim to build a cohesive vision, com-prising a well-defined mission and methodology, so an Artist’s Estate should be able to operate within a well-governed, transparent entity. In this respect, governance is an indispensable tool to outline the way rules are enshrined and up-held. Thus, all aspects concerning the artist’s work are relevant to the planning of a lasting legacy. They include a pertinent authentication process, the compilation of the catalogue raisonné, conservation, collection, archiving, due diligence, exhibition, research, and productive relationships with both museums and commercial galleries. In oth-er words, to achieve a consistent recognition and understanding, the Artist’s Estate should be seen as an autonomous system that operates within a context of professional practice, and which functions in the interest of the artist and his/her ob-jectives. An example that under-scores the importance of autonomy as a fundamental precondition for an Estate is provided by the prac-tice of artist Luciano Fabro. Over the course of his artistic career, he saved one exemplary work from each seminal series, convinced this would ensure his independence from collectors, galleries and mu-seums alike. Alongside the works, he gathered a wide range of docu-mentary materials – including cata-logues, photographs, manuscripts, drawings and prints – classifying each of his belonging with explan-atory notes, images and accurate

12

[6] From the conference Archivi e Fondazioni (Archives and Foundations) organised by Pro-museo, Associazione Amici Sostenitori Museo Cantonale d’Arte and Museo Cantonale d’Arte. Lugano, 2011.

captions. Today, his daughter Silvia, who oversees the Archivo Luciano e Carla Fabro, holds the key to the correct interpretation of her father’s legacy, whilst exercising the power to control it.6 However, such exem-plary practice raises the question of what will happen to the legacy when supportive members of the family are no longer there to care for and sustain it.

13

PROFESSIONALISATION

14

The concept of professionalisa-tion in art is often associated with the recent past, but actually ex-tends much further back in time7. The artist’s workshop or studio is a well-established historical blueprint of professional activity for European artists from the Middle Ages to the 20th Century. The ateliers of Con-stantin Brancusi or Henry Moore stand as examples of how such spaces gained perpetuity. Andy Warhol’s Factory, which, between 1962 and 1984, functioned as an as-sembly line for new work, but also as the locus for an expanded prac-tice and network of social relations. Undoubtedly, the artist’s studio is the first instance of the evolution of the notion of artistic profession-alisation. Sustainable studios can provide contemporary practitioners with the possibility of turning them-selves into managers of their own businesses, employers of a team of experts and production assistants. Today, professionalisation impacts on the production of art as well as on the range of different relation-ships that sustain the practice. The financial stakes raised by the art market are significantly higher than previously experienced, since the economic value of art has been growing exponentially in the past twenty years. This is in part due to the rise of artworks as commodities or investments, but also owing to the progressive institutionalisation of the artworld. According to gal-lerist Thaddaeus Ropac, speaking at Talking Galleries 2017, the 1980s changed the system in that galleries began to professionalise their ac-tions, implementing more effective strategies of marketing. Collectors became more internationally-ori-ented, travelling to artfairs and gal-leries worldwide, and contributing to the development of the global market as we know it. Currently, commercial galleries are focusing

strongly on the secondary market and, as demonstrated by the most recent evening sales, major auction houses are increasingly seeking consignments of works by older generations of artists – including practitioners such as Lucio Fontana and Agnes Martin. Contrariwise, five to ten years ago, these sales saw a much stronger presence of works by younger and emerging artists. According to a recent arti-cle by Harriet Fitch Little in the Fi-nancial Times an increasing number of galleries have begun to represent artists’ estates. ‘At the international gallery Hauser & Wirth, which has approached the field with particular vigour, almost a third of represent-ed artists are now estates or foun-dations — 21 in total. Seventeen of these were taken on in the past decade.’8 Galleries such as David Zwirner and Gagosian are mov-ing in the same direction. The New York Times stated: ‘Handling artists not only allows for control of their remaining unsold work, but it also offers access to their catalogues raisonnés, a thorough accounting of every piece by the artists and who owns them — which can lead to fu-ture sales.’9

While it is essential that estates cultivate good commercial relation-ships with one or several commer-cial galleries, the tendency is often to aim for a relatively small coterie of major spaces who appear to have the ability to command the best prices. However, as is the case with a living artist’s career, there are several other factors considered when making a choice in regard to representation. Firstly, a contract – if any – should remain in force only for a useful term, allowing it to be revised periodically since artistic and economic needs change over time. Successful artists are not generally represented by a single

15

[7] An interesting case of the correlation be-tween professionalisation and legacy can be dated back to the German Renaissance. Art-ist Lucas Cranach the Elder painted around 500 portraits of Martin Luther, some of which are held in major museum collections. Such a number becomes a more interesting fact when considering that the artist had established the monopoly for it. One day, he went to the Duke of Saxony and negotiated the absolute right to de-pict Martin Luther, and all his enemies. He first created a proper business for himself and, fur-ther, provided that the monopoly passed to his son. This was a marketing decision, which gave him the possibility to ensure that his legacy was preserved for future generations.

[8] Harriet Fitch Little, “How an artist’s legacy became big business,” Financial Times, August 26, 2016 (Accessed January 25, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/d77d5e74-69e5-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c.)

[9] Robin Pogrebin, “As Top-Tier Artists Age, the Art World Hopes to Cash In,” The New York Times, January 30, 2017 (Accessed January 31, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/arts/design/decision-time-for-aging-artists.html?_r=0.)

gallery, but by several outlets ca-tering for different geographies and markets, a practice which might be continued posthumously, provided that the estate hold a significant body of works that may be traded. Moreover, a lesser gallery may also offer the benefit of more targeted or bespoke attention to the estate, and may indeed have strong work-ing relationships with a number of important museums or publishers which are instrumental to the con-tinued attention given to the artist’s work. The most recent activity in the burgeoning market of artists’ estates concerns the emergence of new outlets. Nate Freeman argues that auction houses are current-ly expanding their activities ‘with all the necessary services on of-fer for…clients and shareholders around the world’.10 Sotheby’s CEO Tad Smith writes that ‘expanding into advisory services for artists and artist-endowed foundations is an exciting new frontier.’ The auc-tion house’s strategy is underlined by their appointment of Christy MacLear, the inaugural CEO of the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation. Sotheby’s press release candidly lists services it is newly confident of providing:

Strategic planning with living art-ists considering all aspects toward legacy goals; financial and organi-zational mapping from a studio to a foundation; advisory management during the estate process to tran-sition assets with a long term view of use and value; and defining and launching programs for foundations to maximise their legacy’s reach and impact.11

Following the recent death of sem-inal artist Vito Acconci, MacLear, who had been working with his stu-dio at Art Agency Partners – now

part of Sotheby’s – suggests that the estate wishes to create a central repository for his work.12 Certainly MacLear’s new position seeks to combine the commercial activity in the area of artists’ estates with the more culturally sensitive approach required by a foundation.

My role, as the leader of the artist’s Foundation, was to support the ex-hibition curators any way we could: through loans of artwork from the Foundation, grant-making for ed-ucational programs, opening up archives, and helping with press coverage. It also gave us the op-portunity to launch new programs, license products, reconsider our broader market strategy and the launch the Rauschenberg cata-logue raisonné.13

The entry of auction houses into the field of artists’ estates rais-es a number of serious concerns since it places further emphasis on the commodity status of individu-al works of art, rather than on the body of work that constitutes the oeuvre of an artist. After all, auc-tion houses are sales outlets for an inventory amassed for a brief peri-od before the sales event. In other words, their remit is the dispersal of isolated artefacts to the highest bidder rather the consolidation of a group of historically or conceptually linked works by an artist. By contrast, an estate seeks to cement an artist’s cultural legacy by concentrating a substan-tive body of work – with occasional, carefully targeted sales of pieces to major institutions and collectors to ensure the enterprise’s sustainabil-ity. The auction house may provide a financial sense of visibility through the achievement of high prices for an artist’s works, but it is doubtful as to whether it would be able to ex-ercise the comprehensive authority

16

[10] http://www.artnews.com/2016/12/14/so-thebys-hires-rauschenberg-foundation-presi-dent-christy-maclear-aiming-to-expand-advi-sory-services-into-artist-estates/

[11] www.artnews.com, ibid.

[12] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/vi-to-acconcis-estate-plans-center-perfor-mance-art-pioneers-archive-work-941954

[13] http://www.sothebys.com/en/news-video/blogs/all-blogs/sotheby-s-at-large/2016/12/champion-artists-christy-maclear-joins-sothe-bys.html

17

[14] Andrea Rosen, quoted in Artforum, Febru-ary 21, 2017 (Accessed March 23, 2017. https://www.artforum.com/news/id=66810.)

[15] Henry Geldzahler, quoted in: James Mey-er, Minimalism: Art and Polemics in the Sixties, (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 22.

required by an artist’s estate.

As the legacy business expands, badly managed estates can become an easy target for a predatory mar-ket. However, not all galleries are fully equipped to deal with sensitive and complex legacy matters or, may in-deed be unprepared to subordinate their economic interest to the pres-ervation and enhancement of an art-ist’s will. In other words, when deal-ing with Artists’ Estates, galleries will necessarily experience a conflict of interest between the achievement of an economic profit and their poten-tial advisory function. Such a potential conflict is brought into sharp focus by aligning the roles of the gallery and an art-ists’ estate. In February 2017, Andrea Rosen announced the closure of her New York gallery, to co-represent the estate of Felix Gonzalez-Torres with David Zwirner. Currently, she is the executor of the estate and pres-ident of the Felix Gonzalez-Torres Foundation Fellows Forum, an entity comprising distinguished individuals who are knowledgeable about the life and work of the artist. Rosen stated that ‘having David Zwirner Gallery share in the responsibility to the work of Felix Gonzalez-Torres or the idea of collaborating with other galleries, freed me to think about what is my true responsibility to our times…[which] requires mobility, flexibility and the willingness to change.’14 The above example under-lines Rosen’s desire to fully support the legacy of the artist, whilst the partnership with David Zwirner Gal-lery -who represent the estate- argu-ably concentrates excessive execu-tive power under a single umbrella. Whilst a commercial gallery is cer-tainly an essential partner for any es-tate, such a convergence of interests ought to be looked at with a degree of scrutiny, since it remains unclear whether the commercial interests

can be squared with the aims of the artist’s estate. The parcelling out of the power of an estate into sep-arate bodies serves to provide the checks and balances that lead to greater transparency and account-ability, along with optimising fiduci-ary gains. In recent years the strength of the market has allowed major galleries to cement their position of influence, and in a climate of un-stable public funding the erstwhile autonomy of the museum field can appear compromised by the large number of shows often supported by the artist’s galleries or patrons. Moreover, galleries are extending their influence by competing to sign the most prominent artists estates. As these contracts are of a tempo-rary nature, estates are actively ex-ercising their mobility by changing galleries – or even working with sev-eral outlets - in the manner of living artists. The professionalisation of artists is then an effect of the pres-sure of the market as well as a re-sponse to the instability of the art system. As critic and curator Henry Geldzahler stated in the 1960s, the ‘good old days when the artist was alienated, misunderstood, unpat-ronised – are gone – (…) People do buy art15.’ Today the practice and standing of an artist is supported by a professional class consisting of collectors, dealers, museums, crit-ics, and auction houses, with their own specific interests and roles. In the 21st century, a professional art-ist needs an ability to operate within such a specialist sphere and to fulfil a broad range of external require-ments and commitments. Artists should therefore think of themselves as business models and brands, mirroring the complex demands of a stratified marketplace. The writer Stephen Bayley points to an early understanding of artistic branding

by Picasso:

The painter soon realised that the given name of Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nep-omuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso might be helpful-ly abbreviated. Thus, he became the brand ‘Picasso’.[…] The artist scrupulously managed production and distribution, holding back many works so as not to dilute his curren-cy…[keeping] collectors alert and hungry with a bewildering proces-sion of new styles. He understood the media and cultivated influen-tial contacts…[controlling] his own image, allowing only personally anointed photographers, Robert Doisneau and Irving Penn for exam-ple, to take his picture.16

Picasso’s prescience re-mains relevant today, since he un-derstood the importance of main-taining complex relationships whilst applying strategic thinking to every aspect of his practice in the pursuit of a highly visible brand-identity. In this way, lucid decisions during an artist’s lifetime lead to the imple-mentation of professional struc-tures that can be implemented and sustained in the artist’s absence. By professional structures we mean the following: a solid estate and a coherent communication narrative; an engagement with key national and international outcomes; a clear and up-to-date archive. The latter should comprise exhaustive infor-mation about each exhibition and produced work, as well as instruc-tions for display and care. On the other end of the visibility spectrum, an organisation such as New York-based VoCA – Voices of Contempo-rary Art seeks to engage in ‘critical dialogue and interdisciplinary pro-gramming to address the produc-tion, presentation, and preservation

of contemporary art’.17 Their novel approach focuses on the intentions of artists concerning their oeuvre to be preserved through their own words, and recorded through spe-cially devised interviews. The art-ist’s voice, once curated appropri-ately is seen as a key document in keeping a legacy alive. Furthermore, profession-ally run estates should be able to maintain active relationships with relevant commercial galleries, re-sulting in dialogue and projects that inform, embed, and sustain the estate. In addition to developing a fruitful relationship with the art mar-ket, it is equally desirable to har-ness opportunities with both public and private institutions - museums and collections - with a view to positioning the artist’s work in key exhibitions and collections, accom-panied by significant publications. Such activities will evolve in a com-plementary way to those performed by the representative galleries, as their objective is not to interfere with sales, but to enhance the vis-ibility of the work from a curatorial and historical point of view.

18

[16] Stephen Bayley, “The squalid afterlife of artists’ estates,” The Spectator, September 17, 2016 (Accessed January 27, 2017. http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/estate-agent/.)

[17] http://www.voca.network/mission/

19

MANAGEMENT

20

Setting up a management board is one of the most basic, yet also cru-cial aspects of an artist’s estate. If artists are to operate in a professionalised manner, their es-tates should reflect this ambition in their choice of management. It is of-ten common practice for an estate’s managing team to be mainly pop-ulated by the artist’s family mem-bers, occasionally supported by a legal representative. Whilst the lat-ter can bring the benefit of applying the correct procedures, in matters such as governance or inheritance, a legal advisor is not able to offer guidance in matters of a curatorial, marketing, sales, or art historical nature. Likewise, a relative or heir is not always the most reliable ex-pert on the work of an artist; their emotional involvement and also the potential demand of a financial re-turn can render the impartiality of their judgment questionable. Suc-cessors, in fact, do not need to run the organisation by themselves to inherit the wealth of an artist. With the right legal structure in place, they will, however, benefit from the estate, without being engaged in its daily administration. Arguably, a comprehensive understanding of the work in question, aligned with a demonstrable comprehension of the wider art ecosystem with its many competencies should be a prerequisite for any individual se-lected for the board. If we aim for a manage-ment team to function within an institutional framework, its correct composition is key. It ought to en-list specialists to represent the dif-ferent core activities of the estate; spanning the academic, the archival and curatorial, to also include the market, legal and financial areas. In this way the artistic, content-driven aspects of the legacy can be looked after, whilst also ensuring the ap-propriate support for the economic

side of the estate work. As a result the management would be able to make positive strategic decisions and prevent controversies. Such controversies are possible even during the lifetime of an artist. Jon-athan Sobel, one of the main collec-tors of works by William Eggleston, sued the artist in 2012 for depreci-ating the value of a print he owned by selling an enlarged version of the same work. In particular, ‘three doz-en of the larger-format prints – 40 by 66 inches instead of the original format of 16 by 20 inches – sold for $5.9 million in an auction at Chris-tie’s to benefit the Eggleston Artistic Trust, an organisation dedicated to the preservation of Mr. Eggleston’s work.’18 The artist replied by invok-ing his creative licence in printing vintage works in new formats. How-ever, this event could have been en-tirely circumvented with a series of clearly established parameters and specifications of the work in order to protect the rights of both artist and collector. With this in mind, the es-tablishment of an advisory board would appear to bring a range of benefits. An advisory board should not be confused with a board of directors, since advisory members have no authority over the estate. Its role is to offer expert advice. A board could cover those areas of specialist knowledge that are not specifically represented in the man-agement team, offering the benefit of an additional perspective in the decision-making processes. An example in this regard is Fondazi-one Merz, which was established in 2005 to house the collection of works by artist Mario Merz. It was set up by the artist and his daugh-ter Beatrice, who had a background in curating and publishing and was the director of Castello di Rivoli Mu-seo d’Arte Contemporanea, Turin. The foundation ‘alternates shows

21

[18] Randy Kennedy, “Collector Sues William Eggleston Over New Prints of Old Photos,” The New York Times, April 5, 2012 (Accessed Feb-ruary 27, 2017. https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/collector-sues-william-eggle-ston-over-new-prints-of-old-photos/.)

dedicated to Mario and Marisa Merz, to discover and contem-plate their work, with other major site-specific projects by national and international artists, who are invited to interact with the space of the Fondazione and its collections. It also cultivates research, explor-ing the new generations of artists with regular temporary shows.’19 The present director Mariano Bog-gia (a long-time assistant of Mario Merz) and his team are supported by a ‘Scientific Committee’ which includes Richard Flood, Director of Special Projects & Curator at Large at the New Museum of Contempo-rary Art, New York, Frances Morris, Director of Tate Modern, London, and Vincente Todolì, Artistic Advisor HangarBicocca, Milano. This group of museum professionals provides the foundation with assistance, based on authoritative experience of the art field at an international level. Another relevant example of such an advisory board is that of Fondazione Emilio Vedova, whose members have professional knowl-edge in disciplines including art and curating, but also philosophy, thea-tre and architecture.20 With this in mind, inviting appropriate individuals to join the advisory board will help to support diverse specialisms and gain inter-national recognition. In addition, it can strengthen the affiliation be-tween the estate and public insti-tutions, enriching the level of ex-pertise and professional standing of the former. Likewise, selecting the right professionals for the core managing team will ensure that the estate is administered correctly and possible risks are minimised.

22

[19] Fondazione Mario Merz, (Accessed Janu-ary 25, 2017. http://fondazionemerz.org/en/.)

[20] The advisory board is composed of: Alfredo Bianchini, Massimo Cacciari, Germano Celant, Fabrizio Gazzarri, Bruno Giampaoli and Maur-izio Milan.

23

AUTHORITY

24

The title of ‘author’ confers the po-sition as arbiter in all aspects con-cerning his/her work to the artist. Authority is then the right to exer-cise power and, when applied to an artist’s oeuvre, it outlines the full ex-tent of decisions that can be made around the work, spanning prov-enance, interpretation, economic value and, not least, authenticity. The latter in particular has been the cause of many disputes for Artists Estates. In 2012, for instance, the authentication committees of three different artists, i.e. Keith Haring, Jean-Michel Basquiat and Andy Warhol were dissolved, ceasing to accept applications.21 Eileen Kin-sella wrote in ArtNews at the time: ‘As the art market resurgence con-tinues and contemporary art pric-es keep booming, the stakes have never been higher when it comes to rendering an opinion on the au-thenticity of an artwork.’22 The motivation behind the simultane-ous decisions was to cut exces-sive costs and instead to focus on maximizing grant-making and other forms of charitable support for art-ists. Furthermore, the committees had accumulated numerous court cases due to a lack of transparen-cy in their judgment, or to the con-flict of interest in trying to keep the market alive. The determination of authenticity of a Warhol work is not straightforward since the artist did not always sign his works and did not track their destination. Similarly, when artist Piero Manzoni died in 1963, his mother took on the task of authenticating his work. She was originally ad-vised by one of the artist’s main dealers, who was clearly moved by economic interests. By the 1980s, a substantial market of fake Man-zoni works had developed, which was given a degree of credence through the publication of a false catalogue raisonné. This parlous

state of affairs was only resolved once the Fondazione Piero Manzoni was set up in 1992 and the appro-priate authentication procedures were put in place.23 Cases such as that of Manzoni or Picasso (whose market of fakes also proliferated af-ter his death) show how important it is for an estate to act as the pri-mary source of authority regarding an artist’s work. In fact, whether the authentication committee operates under the estate’s legal structure or as an independent entity, its ac-tions will always affect the overall reception of the legacy. The Head of Legal Affairs at the Picasso Ad-ministration, Claudia Andrieu, refers to authenticity as an ‘act of pow-er,’24 where no legal or curatorial expertise is needed. This highlights the degree of influence retained by individuals in charge of the authen-tication procedures as a potential danger. One might argue that au-thentication can then cease to be a function of scholarly or expert knowledge, simply becoming an expression of the amount of power given over to an individual, or in-deed a special interest organisation such as the commercial gallery that represents the estate through post-humous sales. Today estates tend to ex-ercise a great deal of reticence in dealing with authenticity issues as these lead to significant costs and conflict of interests. Therefore au-thentication committees should exist as separate entities, i.e. lim-ited companies, which are direct-ly managed by the estate. Their function should be to regulate the market, whilst certifying the appro-priate validation of works. Hence, the specific power to authenticate should be exclusively conferred to one individual, chosen by the artist or the estate’s managing team with careful consideration. In the case of Picasso, this power is currently ex-

25

[21] The foundations announced their decision via statements published on their websites: Keith Haring, http://www.haring.com/kh_foun-dation/authentication; Jean-Michel Basquiat, http://www.basquiat.com/faq.htm; and Andy Warhol, http://warholfoundation.org/legacy/authentication_procedure.html. (Accessed Feb-ruary 10, 2017.)

[22] Eileen Kinsella, “Basquiat Committee to cease authenticating works,” ArtNews, January 24, 2012 (Accessed February 13, 2017. http://www.artnews.com/2012/01/24/basquiat-com-mittee-to-cease-authenticating-works/.)

[23] From the conference Archivi e Fondazioni (Archives and Foundations) organised by Pro-museo, Associazione Amici Sostenitori Museo Cantonale d’Arte and Museo Cantonale d’Arte. Lugano, 2011.

[24] From the Conference Keeping the Legacy Alive, organised by The Institute for Artists’ Es-tates, Berlin 2016.

ercised by his son Claude, the only person who can certify whether or not a work should carry his father’s name. In order to guarantee the implementation of correct proce-dures, it is essential for artists to ensure the presence of a stringent methodology concerning authenti-cation. The increasing complexity of media and constant evolution of technology in contemporary art appears to ramp up the difficulties involved in authentication. Perhaps authenticity will be viewed from a different perspective in the future – mitigated by the role of technol-ogy and the enhanced capacity of storing, recording and managing information, which has drastical-ly changed the reception of art in the 21st Century. More than ever, a carefully prepared set of instruc-tions, regulations and certificates regarding the works is required to present artists and their collectors, dealers, curators and others with the advantage of a clear mandate intended to safeguard the legitima-cy of their works. Authority is defined by the control of assets. These can take different forms, including real es-tate investments, company shares or artworks. In particular, the pos-session of a significant collection of works by the artist will reinforce the estate’s influence. Such a col-lection should contain a consistent number of pieces for each seminal body of works, and not be limit-ed to a representative sample. A strong collection is indeed a power-ful instrument for the estate. Picas-so’s estate serves as an example of how authority was derived from the number of works that were left with it – i.e. 45,000 out of the esti-mated total of 50,000 artworks the artist produced.25 A comprehensive collection within the assets will also strengthen the estate’s legitimacy

to categorise the work and prepare the catalogue raisonné. By listing each work individually, the cata-logue raisonné will represent the most reliable source of information on the artist’s oeuvre from an art historical perspective. It follows that the degree of authority held by the estate is directly linked to the works held in its collection, and the knowl-edge-base it has accrued, allowing it to lead the cultural field through astute program development. Such knowledge has the advantage that it can then be disseminated through academic scholarship, major exhi-bitions and the like. Authorship, scholarship and exhibition-making are indeed co-dependent activities within the ambit of an artistic legacy. A useful example is provided by the Eduardo Paolozzi Foundation, which was es-tablished in 1994 as a charity, nine years before Paolozzi’s death, al-lowing the artist to control and test its constitution and running. The foundation is chaired by business-man David Hiscox a former Lloyds underwriter, with members such as Professor Christopher Frayling, a noted figure in the artworld. Copy-right issues are handled by DACS, and Jonathan Clark has represent-ed the estate commercially. It is noteworthy that the estate holds a significant body of work, which it may lend to major institutions, or sell, from time to time, in order to sustain its activities such as the organising of major exhibitions. A collection of his sculptural Head series sold at Frieze masters for a substantial sum used subsequently to support the 2017 retrospective of the artist at Whitechapel Gallery, London. Such a prestigious public exhibition in turn helps to enhance and further contextualise the ar-tistic output, whilst valorizing the stock of work kept by estate. This example seems to

26

[25] The total number of artworks he produced has been estimated at 50,000, comprising 1,885 paintings; 1,228 sculptures; 2,880 ceram-ics, roughly 12,000 drawings, many thousands of prints, and numerous tapestries and rugs. (John Selfridge, Pablo Picasso / John W. Sel-fridge, New York: Chelsea House, 1994.)

support the argument that an es-tate’s authority is not a given, but that it is a position that requires constant striving and investment. With this in mind, it is essential that the estate be an instigator of important historical and curatorial discourse. At a time when muse-ums are under increasing financial pressure Allan Schwartzman, the co-founder of AAP and chairman of Global Fine Arts at Sotheby’s saw an opportunity to intervene:

It seems increasingly the case that museum exhibitions which attempt to rethink art history—whether by staging shows of a thematic na-ture or retrospectives devoted to key figures who have flown under the market’s radar—are becoming more and more rare. These kinds of exhibitions are expensive to pro-duce but difficult to fund, and tend not to attract the size of audience that would generate substantial in-come or provide the record-break-ing statistics by which most major funders measure the value of an exhibition.26

The Sotheby’s Prize launched in 2017 with a maximum value of $250,000 is an annual award avail-able to museums and curators to support and encourage arguably the kinds of complex exhibitions and career retrospectives that may reshape an artist’s public percep-tion referred to by Schwartzman. This apparently philanthropic activi-ty allows Sotheby’s to be framed as a ‘tastemaker’ active on the fore-front of curatorial discourse, whilst providing the auction house with a possible means of influencing in-stitutional selection policy; after all, the inclusion of undervalued or forgotten artists and estates in im-portant displays revitalises a strug-gling practitioner and grants access to potential ‘new’ inventory and

27

knowledge. Accordingly, authority and authorship are closely interwoven concerns for the business of an Artist’s Estate. The perception of all cultural artifacts is subject to change in the long run. Their mean-ing may be established and fixed at a certain point of time, but their in-terpretation continues to evolve. In-deed, it is a crucial aspect of every important work of art that it sustains the interest of subsequent genera-tions of viewers, and that such en-gagement invariably produces new readings and interpretations. To put it another way, the practice of an artist is continually re-evaluated in the light of the shifting mores of a perpetual present. If works are to have sustained authority, they must be inserted into evolving contexts by being included in exhibitions and collections, as well as traded by the gallery and auction sectors. The role of exhibition curators and his-torians in particular is central here, since they are instrumental in pro-moting new interpretations for the work. In a carefully planned legacy the authority of the artist is never in question, but is enhanced by sub-sequent external acts of authorship.

[26] Allan Schwartzman, An Appetite for Risk, In other Words, 31 August 2017, http://www.art-agencypartners.com/allans-intro/charity/

SUSTAINBILITY

28

The sustainability agenda performs a critical role in the vision of many institutions. Regardless of what form or structure is in place, an Art-ist’s Estate can accrue substantive costs. While it is obvious that the scale of the entity is a crucial fac-tor in planning for its longevity, the question of location is equally per-tinent. In a digital age one might be led to consider that geography is less important, yet the place where an Artist’s Estate is located has le-gal, cultural and financial implica-tions. Firstly, it is subject to local laws and customs of practice that will frame its scope and activities. Secondly, location has an important bearing on costs, especially when buildings and salaries are consid-ered. It is for this reason that an es-tate housed in a major centre faces different financial implications to one located in the periphery. An estate can only fulfil its aims if it is financially and structur-ally sustainable. Economic viabili-ty is the consequence of thorough planning and the prudent manage-ment of assets. Indeed, the cor-rect administration of these assets should not be overlooked, since they represent the most tangible means of solvency. In this respect, estates commonly opt for sales of artworks and gifts to institutions to optimise tax efficiency. In 2006, for instance, the Donald Judd Founda-tion sold 25 works of the artist for $24,468,800, following an exhibition curated by the artist’s son Flavin. According to the foundation, this gave added visibility to Judd’s work and also helped the organisation to hire more staff and pursue addi-tional projects.27 On the one hand, selling works by the artist at auc-tion helps to raise money quickly, but it can also weaken the estate’s collection and, consequently, its au-thority. In other words, sales should be always made in a judicious and

astute manner. It is essential that the estate have well-developed and trusted contacts in the art market since sales of works are the most reliable source of income to run its business. In this regard, the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation followed a carefully calibrated strategy. The organisation inherited real estate properties, company shares and a collection of artworks from the art-ist. After selling a number of these assets, the foundation separated the remaining artworks into two categories: works by Rauschenberg and works by other artists. The first category was, in turn, divided into groups of works deemed as the most relevant and that should nev-er be sold, and works that could be considered for sale at some point in the future. The second category was partially sold and partly gift-ed to institutions, with the specific aim of creating an endowment to operate the foundation’s costs and philanthropic activities. This choice shows a clear predisposition for in-depth planning to ensure the long-term sustainability of the estate and the artist’s legacy. However, even the best-laid plans do not guaran-tee immunity from infighting and legal challenges, as the Rauschen-berg Foundation was sued in the courts by three former trustees over fees due for their services totalling in the region of $50 million in 2014, an allegation which the foundation appealed. Other options for a finan-cial development can be found in activities such as the sale of image copyright, ticketed exhibitions (in the case of estates with buildings open to the public), or the produc-tion of posthumous works. If an art-ist intends to allow for such produc-tion in the future, it is imperative to devise specific instructions to avert misinterpretation or misappropria-

29

[27] Judd Tully, “The New Players: How Artist Foundations Influence the Art World,” Bloui-nartinfo, October 15, 2013 (Accessed January 25, 2017. http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/971071/the-new-players-how-artist-foun-dations-influence-the-art-world.)

tion by others. Artist Henry Moore can be seen as one of the British pi-oneers in this matter. By the end of his career he was the world’s most successful artist at auction, so he decided to create a foundation with charitable status to reduce his size-able income tax. As his daughter Mary recalls, ‘he thought about oth-er sculptors like Rodin and Maillol who didn’t limit the editions of their sculptures, or various estates where the widows went on to create posthumous casts.’28 He therefore decreed that fabrication of works after his death would be possible, but only in the case of pieces that were unfinished but already pres-ent in the factory. He did not want works to be created under any other circumstances. This was a strategic decision, which aimed to prevent the proliferation of fakes, whilst al-lowing for a controlled mechanism of posthumous production. An Artist’s Estate should operate as an efficient profession-al entity with a clear agenda and a defined set of aims and objectives to be achieved in the short, middle and long term. Indeed, it is essential that those setting up and managing an estate make an accurate assess-ment of the lifespan of the organisa-tion and of the means employed to sustain it. Further opportunities for sustainability can be found in strat-egies such as the establishing of a board of patrons and the sharing of assets and expertise. In particu-lar, such a board would guarantee economic support from a group of individuals who are directly con-cerned with the artist’s work and who believe in the importance of his/her legacy. Collaboration be-tween different estates can also enhance sustainability through the pooling of resources and knowl-edge (e.g. members of the advisory board), and funding (e.g. properties

30

or company shares). By combining professional skills or services, Art-ists’ Estates can augment knowl-edge whilst minimising outlay. However, the hybrid mod-el described here is clearly not intended to extend to or in any way endorse financial schemes or products such as artists’ pension trusts;29 there are indeed many or-ganisations specialising in services to practitioners, and artists need to critically assess what is available, and to choose alliances carefully. For instance, Art-Nachlassstiftung, a foundation in Bern, looks after the archives and selected works of a number of Swiss artists and provides sales through recently es-tablished gallery partnerships. On an institutional level the SIK-ISEA (Swiss Institute for Art Research) holds the country’s art archives and incorporates a branch that offers advice on estates through work-shops and education. Elsewhere, the Flanders Centre for Art Archives at the recently reopened Museum of Contemporary Art (M HKA) in Ant-werp will function as both an exhibi-tion space and a hub of knowledge for archivists and administrators of artists’ estates, when fully opera-tional in 2019. Such examples show that there is a growing interest in supporting artistic legacies through archives, displays and targeted ed-ucation. Though the endeavours of such organisations are essential in helping the work of estates, they cannot offer sustainability, which requires dedicated personnel and tailor-made financial support. When examining the broad range of Artists’ Estates, one is struck by their diversity; estates are of course defined by the oeuvre of each artist, but also by their scale and by their often vastly different aims. The discussion often rests with salient, highly visible examples of large estates, be they well-man-

[28] Harriet Fitch Little, “How an artist’s legacy became big business,” Financial Times, August 26, 2016 (Accessed January 25, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/d77d5e74-69e5-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c.

[29] Artist Pension Trust (APT) holds the works their artists ‘donate’ to the scheme at the rate of one per annum over 20 years. These are held in a series of regional pools to be stored, lent, and sold, supposedly providing an income to artists at a later date. In April 2017 news of the with-drawal of auction lots from Sothebys and the subsequent request for artists’ storage fees in July of the same year appear to undermine the long-term stability of the fund. https://news.artnet.com/market/artist-pension-trust-storage-fee-1035569

31

aged or badly run. Their visibility is often typified by the fame of the art-ist in question, along with the scale of the estate’s wealth. However, much less attention is given to the growing numbers of smaller estates whose relatively modest means pre-clude them from having the same impact. Indeed, it is this broad group of younger artists whose practice is already professionalised that will require assistance in the near future. Unlike previous gener-ations of mid-ranking artists whose practice all but disappeared after their death, these contemporary artists’ current visibility will not be relinquished in the same manner when the time comes. This is partly due to the augmented professional-ization of artists’ careers, the power of the market, and the individual’s expectations of perpetual presence so endemic in a digital age that fa-cilitates total recall. While there are a series of schemes in place to ar-chive artists’ works, or to provide pension income later in life, little in the way of structure appears to be in place regarding the sustain-ability of their actual legacies. For these artists, planning ahead for a sustainable future and eventual legacy is essential; though a living artist’s career is strongly focused on its present visibility, it must be con-sidered in the long-term if it is to be turned into a financially viable and authoritative estate.

CONCLUSION

32

The task of this paper was to high-light a series of issues concerning the establishment of present-day Artists’ Estates; we addressed the long-term benefits that can be pro-vided to artists and heirs, whilst outlining the risks arising from bad management and lack of planning. In particular, we wanted to em-phasise the necessity for artists to consider the benefits of institution-alising their practice beyond pro-fessionalization – a given in today’s artistic and economic climate – by enshrining and sustaining it through the implementation of an estate. What in the past concerned mostly late-career practitioners or the boards of deceased Artists’ Estates has become a concern for all those who intend to secure a significant degree of authority and longevity for their practice in an in-creasingly complex and networked artworld. We believe that art insti-tutions of the 21st century should embrace the characteristics of a hybrid model, which combines the professional standards of the pub-lic sector and the business-oriented approach of the private sector. Ac-cordingly, an Artist’s Estate should be an organisation based on strate-gic thinking and forward planning. Its structure should be guided by individuals with a high level of rel-evant expertise and unimpeachable credentials of impartiality – in oth-er words, experts from the fields of museums, academia and the mar-ket, alongside legal and financial specialists, who can act positively and decisively in the artist’s inter-ests. Their role will be to ensure that the major concerns of the artist are respected, acting as trusted repre-sentatives that guard against mar-ket fluctuations or adverse specula-tion. In addition, we have main-tained that the lifespan of an art-work will often outlast that of its

maker; this should inform the deci-sions artists make concerning the future of their material work, as well as the brand qualities they wish to perpetuate. Professional artists should thus ensure their estate re-tains the authority as regards their oeuvre, concerning legal issues as well as curatorial decisions and scholarship. More specifically, au-thentication committees should be established as separate entities that hold the final decision-making power over accreditation of works. This function can be counterbal-anced by the advisory function of a professional board. The estate’s au-thority should then be reinforced by the presence of a solid collection of artworks by the artist, upon which the catalogue raisonné – an impor-tant function of every legacy – may be compiled.Only by gathering comprehen-sive information on the artist’s ob-jectives and putting appropriate structures in place can an estate act with the prerequisite authori-ty. It must administer assets with a business-minded approach, whilst conforming to a clear artistic vision. Accordingly, sensible management of its properties – be they build-ings, company shares or artworks – can represent a source of income, alongside other remunerative ac-tivities such as the selling of image copyright, ticketed exhibitions or posthumous production of works. Future sustainability can also be achieved by sharing expertise and assets with other estates, creating a collaborative network between diverse institutions whose interests coincide. We have argued that in the 21st Century unprecedented num-bers of artists are active, many of whom have seen the benefits of an increase in professionalisation, and who expect to benefit from enhanced visibility, as well as fi-

33

nancially gaining from gallery rep-resentation, public commissions and sales. There is today a legiti-mate desire for living artists to ex-tend their visibility beyond their life-time in the form of a lasting legacy. Nevertheless, artists should careful-ly consider different possible time-frames – the Sunset and Eternity models – to ensure that their wish-es coincide with the estate’s pros-pects and financing. Thus, while it would seem reasonable to expect that a significant number of these artists would want to deal with a lasting legacy, this realisation takes place against the background of a market that has lost its appetite for risk, as it promulgates a model of art as an asset-class and privileges a small range of so-called blue chip artists over the growing number of emerging or mid-career artists. It is the latter category of practitioners that will be especially affected by the questions raised in this paper regarding the legacy, professional-isation, authority and sustainability of their estates, since they will find it more difficult to fund such enter-prises. Indeed commercial galleries increasingly turn to either purchas-ing or representing artists’ estates instead of solely developing their living practitioners’ careers. As the larger estates begin to become scarce or too expensive, galleries look to resurrect the posthumous legacies of less visible artists. For galleries an estate bestows recog-nition, whilst attracting the attention of museums and public institutions looking for the seal of a mature ca-reer. Arguably a ‘tipping point’ is approaching for Artists’ Estates whereby ‘ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread like viruses.’30 Therefore, Artists’ Estates should guard against the burgeoning trend of galleries ma-nipulating the estate market and

34

[30] Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (Little, Brown and Company, 2006), 7.

potentially emptying out valuable estate holdings. Equally, the art ecosystem may be adversely af-fected by such a quasi-Darwinian approach based on the survival of the fittest. According to this model, the majority of mid-ranging artists who belong to a large professional-ly active class of practitioners and who do not cement their legacy will likely be cast off by a stratified es-tate market and lose their expect-ed place in history. It is doubtful if their interests will be best served by this market-driven tendency, unless they develop a cogent and entirely sustainable strategy regarding their legacy during their lifetime whilst their visibility and careers are thriv-ing. By advocating a progressive approach to an evolving strategic plan, culminating – in due course – in the establishment of a well-man-aged Artists Estate, we hope to mitigate the market’s more negative tendencies, whilst ensuring a long-lived and sustainable practice.

35

BIBLIOGRAPHY

36 37

Anderes, Caroline et al, Vom Um-gang mit Künstlernachlässen – Ein Ratgeber, SIK-ISEA, Zürich und Lausanne, 2017.

Bayley, Stephen. “The squalid after-life of artists’ estates.” The Spec-tator, September 17, 2016. Ac-cessed January 27, 2017. url: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/es-tate-agent/

Fitch Little, Harriet. “How an art-ist’s legacy became big busi-ness.” Financial Times, August 26, 2016. Accessed January 25, 2017. url: https://www.ft.com/content/d77d5e74-69e5-11e6-ae5b-a7c-c5dd5a28c.

Geldzahler, Henry. Quoted in: Mey-er, James. Minimalism: Art and Po-lemics in the Sixties, London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown and Company, 2006.

Kennedy, Randy. “Collector Sues William Eggleston Over New Prints of Old Photos.” The New York Times, April 5, 2012. Accessed Feb-ruary 27, 2017. url: https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/col-lector-sues-william-eggleston-over-new-prints-of-old-photos/.

Kinsella, Eileen. “Basquiat Commit-tee to cease authenticating works,” ArtNews, January 24, 2012. Ac-cessed February 13, 2017. url: http://www.artnews.com/2012/01/24/basquiat-committee-to-cease-au-thenticating-works/.

Pogrebin, Robin. “As Top-Tier Art-ists Age, the Art World Hopes to Cash In.” The New York Times, Jan-uary 30, 2017. Accessed January

31, 2017. url: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/arts/design/deci-sion-time-for-aging-artists.html?_r=0.

Rosen, Andrea. Quoted in Artforum, February 21, 2017. Accessed March 23, 2017. url: https://www.artforum.com/news/id=66810.

Selfridge, John. Pablo Picasso / John W. Selfridge, New York: Chel-sea House, 1994.

Tully, Judd. “The New Players: How Artist Foundations Influence the Art World.” Blouinartinfo, October 15, 2013. Accessed January 25, 2017. url: http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/971071/the-new-play-ers-how-artist-foundations-influ-ence-the-art-world

Würtenberger, Loretta. The Artist’s Estate. A Handbook for Artists, Ex-ecutors, and Heirs, Berlin: Hantje Cantz, 2016.

Andy Warhol Foundation: http://warholfoundation.org/legacy/au-thentication_procedure.html (Ac-cessed February 10, 2017).

Donald Judd Foundation: http://juddfoundation.org (Accessed: Jan-uary 27, 2017).

Fondazione Mario Merz: http://fon-dazionemerz.org/en/ (Accessed: January 25, 2017).

Fondazione Piero Manzoni: http://www.pieromanzoni.org/EN/archive.htm (Accessed: January 25, 2017).

Jean-Michel Basquiat Foundation: http://www.basquiat.com/faq.htm; and Andy Warhol (Accessed: Feb-ruary 10, 2017).

Keith Haring Foundation: http://www.haring.com/kh_foundation/

authentication (Accessed: February 10, 2017).

Robert Rauschenberg Foundation: http://www.rauschenbergfounda-tion.org (Accessed: January 27, 2017).

The Henry Moore Foundation: http://henry-moore.foundation (Ac-cessed: January 27, 2017).

The Institute for Artists’ Estates: http://www.artists-estates.com/en/ (Accessed: January 25, 2017).

38 39

40

THE FOUNDATIONArt Institutions of the 21st Century seeks to support and promote the importance of institutions specialising in the making, displaying, collecting and dissemination of contemporary art and culture, both locally and internationally. By the term ‘institutions’, we refer to cultural agents which are both instigators of change and recipients of transformation. In particular, we focus on those organisations trusted with the preservation and enhancement of culture at large, such as public and private museums, public and private galleries, archives, not-for-profit project spaces, artists’ studios and estates, art education organisations, biennials, art fairs and festivals. Our mission is to promote dialogue and knowledge exchange between the public and private art sectors, by organising projects, publications, events and educational activities, and supporting initiatives that are beneficial to the progress of art institutions. These undertakings aim to benefit art professionals in the development of their skills, whilst improving the access of the general public to important institutions.The foundation develops extensive areas of research to nurture the production of knowledge, leading to enhanced understanding and collaboration between the diverse areas of the art field.

41

42

TRUSTEES & ADVISORY BOARD

43

TRUSTEES

SÉBASTIEN MONTABONEL, Chair of the Board of Trustees. TANYA TIKHNENKO, Trustee. SHEZAD DAWOOD, Trustee.

NICOLAS DE OLIVEIRA, Director

ADVISORY BOARD

MARIANNE BURKI, Head of Visual Arts at Pro Helvetia, Switzerland. ALFREDO CRAMEROTTI, Director of MOSTYN Visual Arts Centre, Wales – and Head Curator of APT Global, Artist Pension Trust. DORIS KRYSTOF, Curator at K20K21 Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany. MICHAEL LININGTON, Head of Major Giving at the Victoria and Albert Museum, UK. LI ZHENHUA, Curator, China. GOSHKA MACUGA, Artist, UK. ELIZABETH NEILSON, Director at Zabludowicz Collection, UK. TAMIKO O’BRIEN, Principal of City & Guilds of London Art School, UK. NICOLA OXLEY, Curator and Writer, UK. THOMAS RIEGER, Director of Konrad Fisher, Germany. JILL STERRETT, Director of Collections at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, USA. RANDALL WILLETTE, Founder and Managing Director of Fine Art Wealth Management, UK. DR NAYIA YIAKOUMAKI, Curator at the Whitechapel Gallery and co-director at the Athens Biennale, UK.

© 2017 by Art Institutions of the 21st Century for Alaska Editions

ISBN: 978-1-64008-227-4

Revised Edition

Series Editor: Sébastien MontabonelWritten by: Nicolas de OliveiraResearch and Production: Tanya Tikhnenko, Miriam La RosaEditor: Diana VivesPublisher: Sébastien MontabonelDesign: Alaska Editions

Special Thanks: We are grateful to our advi-sory board for their expert advice and guid-ance in this report.

Art Institutions of the 21st Century for Alaska Editions, 22 Hoffman Square, Chart Street, London N1 6DH. Registered Charity Number: 1173044

All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations in any forms or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, re-cording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publishers.