|
Charles Saatchi
has been reported to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) by Charles
Thomson, Co-founder of the Stuckists, for an alleged breach of
the Competition Act (28.3.04). This has been followed by a number
of other independent complaints (below).
For a breach
to have occurred two conditions must be satisfied: 1) that there
is a trader who is dominant in a particular sector of the market
2) that there has been an abuse of the dominant position wherebye
fair competition by smaller competitors has been harmed. This
abuse does not have to be intentional for it to be a breach of
the act.
That Mr Saatchi
is dominant in the area of new contemporary art in this country
is widely recognised.
The argument
for abuse of that dominant position is as follows. Mr Saatchi
bought Stella Vine's painting of Princess Diana Hi Paul Can
You Come Over and it was promoted worldwide in the media,
along with the artist as a new art star of the future. The impression
given was that Mr Saatchi had 'discovered' this unknown artist:
it was said that she had never sold a painting, that she didn't
think anyone really liked what she was doing and her only training
was a few part-time classes at Hampstead School of Art.
In fact she
was 'discovered' three years ago when she was first exhibited
in Stuckists group show Vote Stuckist at the Fridge Gallery
in Brixton, was one of two nominees for the Stuckists Real
Turner Prize Show 2001, turned down an offer for her work
to be bought on a regular basis by Charles Thomson and her work
was transformed when she received tutoring from him in his studio.
She was also the founder of the Westminster Stuckists.
Mr Saatchi's
dominant market and PR position allowed him to achieve blanket
coverage for a version of events which completely ignored her
background with the Stuckists.
Had this been
known, it would have led to increased interest in the Stuckists
as a group where new talent was fostered, and the likelihood of
increased sales as collectors hoped to find another future star.
Mr Saatchi's
dominant position has led to unfair competition which mitigates
against consumer choice and therefore the interest of the consumer.
Reported
in Independent on Sunday here
,
BBC Radio 4 Front Row,
the LA Times (30.3.04), artdaily.com
(31.3.04) The Times (5.4.04)
Response here
,
Evening
Standard (6.4.05)
Stella
Vine in the Stuckists here.
A critique
of Charles Saatchi by Rita Hatton and John A. Walker: Supercollector
back
to top
COMPLAINTS
SENT TO THE OFT
Letter
sent to OFT by Charles Thomson (Co-founder, Stuckists) 25.3.04.
Full letter here
Email sent to OFT by Elsa Dax (Paris Stuckists) [dual
nationality] 28.3.04
Just a note to let you know that I fully agree by what
Charles Thomson did report about the breach with Saatchi.
From email
received from Ian Wylie (Liverpool Stuckists) 28.3.04
I
have just sent an email to Mr. Griggs offering support to your
criticism of Charles Saatchi's monopolisation of the art market
and his financial ability to buy media time/space. I suggested
that if in the music industry a successful, rich recording artist
produced a record and then himself purchased a sufficient amount
of the same records/cds (eg 30 000) from the shops that it would
almost certainly be a number one hit and generate publicity accordingly
but that this would be immoral as well as illegal and that in
any case there is regulation in the music industry that ensures
such a thing cannot happen.
Email sent
to OFT by Larry Dunstan (Stuckist Photographers) 29.3.04
It has come to my attention that a complaint in connection with
Saatchi's dealings in the world of art, has been made to you.
I would also like to make a formal complaint in respect of Saatchi's
unfair dominance of the art world, and his multiple breaches of
the competition act. I hope this matter will be looked in to by
your office.
Email sent
to OFT by Jeffrey Scott Holland (Kentucky Stuckists) 30.3.04
Although I reside in the United States, I felt it should be noted
that there are many members of the Stuckist movement outside of
the U.K. who are also appalled by Mr. Saatchi's callous actions.
We are all watching this matter closely in hopes that fairness
will prevail.
Letter
sent to OFT by Rita Hatton and John A. Walker (not affiliated
to Stuckists) 31.3.04
Institute of Artology, Studio 1, C 307, Chocolate
Factory, Clarendon Road, London N22 6XJ Email: jw@artology.info
We – the authors of Supercollector: A Critique of Charles Saatchi
(2nd edn, Institute of Artology, 2003) – wish to support the complaint
made by Charles Thomson about Mr Saatchi’s monopolistic position
in the British artworld. We agree that he exercises too much power
and has had a baneful effect on contemporary art. You will find
our book useful because it is the only independent, in-depth history
of his rise to power written from an anti-capitalist standpoint.
We ourselves have felt the impact of his apparent ability to mesmerise
the mass media: while the first edition of our book, published
in 2000, was reviewed by a range of newspapers and art magazines,
the second edition has been ignored by leading art magazines and
by liberal newspapers such as The Guardian and The Observer; the
latter, we note, entered into a sponsorship deal with the Saatchi
Gallery. (When his new gallery opened in the old GLC building
in 2003, the only British newspaper to print an article containing
critical opinions about Saatchi and mentioning our book was The
Independent on Sunday.) A television programme on BBC1 about Saatchi
also failed to cite our book and it was made by one of his friends:
Alan Yentob.
From email
received from Lorden Partial (Wimbledon Stuckists) 1.4.04
Just to say I've filed my own supportive complaint.... his useless
dominance should certainly be called up. I quoted 2/3 lines from
your official complaint: 'I suggest that a closer examination
of the practices in the circles around Mr Saatchi might reveal
not so much a diversity of competition as a caucus of self-interest,
which is far removed from consumer interest and the healthy challenge
of an open market (Charles Thomson)'
Letter
sent to OFT by Remy Noe (Maidstone Stuckists) 1.4.04
I write to and add my support to the complaints made by Charles
Thomson about the monopolization of the contemporary art market
by Charles Saatchi. I represent a group of artists known as "The
Maidstone Stuckists". We have shown work in various Stuckist shows
with the other Stuckist groups, and agree with the points made
by Charles Thomson about Charles Saatchi's monopolization of the
art market. We also feel that, as the Stuckists we were ignored
in the bringing to prominence of the artist Stella Vine and their
part in her artistic development, we as artists of the Stuckist
movement may be overlooked in the future as the groups of Stuckists
were not duly credited for their part in her prominence. If she
had acknowledged (with Saatchi) Stuckism's role in her development,
other Stuckist artists such as ourselves would be of more interest
to other art collectors. We therefore feel that this rewriting
of an artist's history in order to exclude a group of rivals,
commercially and artistically, will lead to a distortion of the
art market to the detriment of ourselves as a part of the movement,
and affect our commercial potential now and in the future.
Remy Noe Representative of the Maidstone Stuckists (Lee Pearson,
Bill Tolput, Cheryl Muniandy, Remy Noe, Matthew Green, James Shoebridge,
Kelly Barber, Melanie Dolhun.)
Letter
sent to OFT by Peter McArdle (Gateshead Stuckists, Director of
Diverse Gallery) 2.4.04
Dear Mr Canavan
I would like to endorse the complaint already made about Charles
Saatchi under the Competition Act. I take this situation very
seriously. I am a self-employed artist and gallery owner, i.e.
a (small) competitor in the same market as Mr Saatchi. In the
sector of contemporary visual art, reputation is a key to success.
I am the
Director of the Diverse Gallery and founder of the independent
Gateshead Stuckist artists. As a Stuckist, I am part of a network
of independent artists who collaborate in using the identity 'Stuckist'
to promote a kind of art and a particular philosophy we hold in
common. It is well-known in the art world that we are in direct
opposition to the 'Britart' through which Mr Saatchi has made
his reputation for over a decade. We have been often derided for
our position and this has undoubtedly put off collectors, who
feel that our art is an uncertain investment.
That Mr Saatchi,
our philosophical and artistic rival, has now chosen as one of
his leading artists someone whose artistic origin was as a member
of the Stuckist group has major implications - or at least it
would do if people knew about it. It would show that the Stuckists
movement, far from being an unreliable outsider in the art world,
is in fact the place where new star talent can be found.
Mr Saatchi
operates in a dominant position in the market not only because
of his wealth, but also because of his prestige. He is seen as
a pioneer who discovers new talent and is ahead of the pack. This
is exactly how he was portrayed yet again by the media, fed by
his professional marketing capability. In this case, this pioneering
reputation was not deserved, but was effectively stolen from our
group. This is a blatant abuse of his dominance to the detriment
of ourselves as smaller competitors.
Mr Saatchi
operates closely in collaboration not only with media allies but
also a small circle of galleries and dealers who effectively form
a closed shop. I urge that the complaint against Mr Saatchi is
taken to the stage of investigation to set many matters in the
art world to rights.
The following
quote from The Guardian (29.11.01) illustrates the power Mr Saatchi
wields: "[Sir Nicholas] Serota has admitted that, because of Saatchi's
monopoly, there is a huge gap in the Tate collection."
Letter
sent to OFT by Christopher Fiddes (Movement for Classical Renewal
- not affiliated to Stuckists)) 2.4.04
I write to you on behalf of the above organisation,on the subject
of the disproportionate share of the Art Market enjoyed by Charles
Saatchi and the Saatchi Gallery.We
believe this to be in breach of the Competition Act. We are conscious
that you are already in receipt of an objection lodged by Mr Charles
Thomson of the 'Stuckist' gallery. Although we are not affiliated
to that movement, we are also concerned with the reform of art
institutions. We wish our letter to be seen as supporting his
objection.
Since the
opening of the original gallery in St John's Wood in 1985 , Mr
Saatchi has played what is arguably a more significant role in
the way that art in Britain has evolved than any other person
or agency. In order to understand how this has happened it is
necessary to understand how the development of art in the time
since the beginning of the 20th century has evolved.
At the beginning
of the 20th century artists were , in general, assessed by the
general public according to the degree of skill apparent in their
work. This meant that any intelligent and well intentioned person
could form a reasonable assessment of the quality of a work of
art without the intervention of a third party. The first two decades
of the twentieth century witnessed profound changes in art. For
a variety of reasons, artists, influenced greatly by writers on
art, began to use an increasingly private and personal means of
expression.
By the end
of the 1920s art had become so esoteric in its forms that the
ordinary man in the street was no longer able to judge for himself
the quality of the work confronting him. This change resulted
in the emergence of the 'art expert',-first Roger Fry then his
pupil Herbert Read, whose books and critical essays attempted
to guide the unschooled towards the new criteria of excellence.
The downside of this development was the enormous increase in
power that this placed in the hands of the newly established critical
fraternity. The old direct link that had existed for centuries
between the artist and the public had been shattered,--apparently
permanently.
The new situation,
which has remained fundamentally unchanged until the present day
can be compared to the world of the fairytale, "The Emperor's
New Clothes", with the critical fraternity all too often playing
the role of the two tailors who successfully deluded both the
public and the Emperor .
Perhaps we
should be surprised that it was to take until the latter part
of the 20th century before an individual should emerge who would
be able to see how this situation could be turned to highly profitable
advantage !
Human vanity
is such that very few of us like to admit that ,following the
learned explanation by an expert, we still fail to see the merit
in an alleged 'work of art'. This has allowed a number of rackets
to emerge.
Since graduating
art students are always hard up, it has long been possible for
a wealthy individual to buy up 'degree show' works at rock bottom
prices . If the work is then hyped by the judicious manipulation
of the media, reviews, stunts and Chinese whispers, it can thereafter
be presented before a sensation seeking public at greatly increased
prices. The more so, if the original buyer owns suitable premises
for the impressive display of that work , owns the means for the
publicising of the work., and has sufficient capital to structure
private views for the glitterati fueled by the best quality food
and wine. Alas, the mischief does not end there.
If he is
also on good terms with another dealer, works can change hands
between the two dealers on a regular basis. At each change of
ownership, the price, which always goes into the record books,
is further enhanced. This means that the market price for the
work of an artist becomes artificially inflated, greatly to the
advantage of the original purchaser who has already cornered the
market in the work of that particular individual. If, at the end
of this enhancing process a major museum, like Tate Modern, can
be persuaded to acquire the work, the artist's name becomes immortalised
and thereafter the original stock and all subsequent works painted
by that artist ( under contract to the original buyer by this
time ) become worth their weight in gold.
Of course
it also helps if the dealer also sits on the board that annually
awards The Turner Prize, a promotional device, the purpose of
which is to regularly provide the oxygen of publicity to further
enhance the status of the chosen artists.
The Art World
is ,undeniably, 'big business' (with items associated with the
Saatchi Gallery and the closely allied 'White Cube Gallery changing
hands for five and six figure sums).
Key artworks
are, however, only sold to 'sound' individuals, who can be relied
upon not to offer them for re-sale on the open market. For in
the event of this happening, it can prove very expensive for the
gallery. Usually they have to move in to artificially inflate
the bidding so that the market value of the work is seen to be
compatible with those other examples of the artist's work still
held in the gallery's stock. Clearly, you need to be a dealer
of very considerable means to compete with this sort of financial
manipulation!
From time
to time, works by allegedly 'major artists' fail to sell (or are
withdrawn) at auctions when the difference between the stated
value and the 'market driven' value becomes too apparent.
Nonetheless,
it is widely perceived that it has become highly profitable for
galleries specialising in 'Britart' to work in tandem. The assertion
in a national newspaper recently that, were Mr Saatchi to withdraw
his patronage from the art world, at least another six galleries
would go out of business overnight, may well be true !
It is widely
believed in the art world that some of what has been outlined
above has, for many years, been the policy underlying the success
of both Charles Saatchi and his gallery. We should not be surprised
at this. Who does not remember the poster that purported to show
an unending dole queue (but was actually composed of actors) that
brought Mrs. Thatcher to power in 1979 when the Saatchi brothers
master-minded her election campaign ? And who can forget the astronomical
rise in unemployment that followed the creation of this fiction
?
Clearly, when
an enterprise on the scale of the Saatchi Gallery dominates the
art market it is able to put into practice stratagems which maintain
its pre-eminence, leaving little room for competition from the
smaller dealer or gallery. Smaller enterprises are unable to match
the outlay to acquire works by 'big names' in the first place.
They do not have the same enormous publicity machine working for
them. Their limited capital is insufficient to fund the champagne
and canapes that guarantee the attendance of the heady mix of
critics and celebrities that flock to the Saatchi openings and
private views. It may even be that they lack the highly questionable
ethos that enables a dealer to capture such a lions share of the
market in the first place. Furthermore, the power and income of
the Saatchi organization enables them to employ writers of the
calibre of Sarah Kent to publicise their shows. Since she is also
the art editor of 'Time Out',it is doubtful that her reviews for
that publication would manifest the degree of objectivity that
many of its readers would expect.
Is the system
capable of reform ? In my opening remarks I suggested that the
emergence of such monopolies becomes inevitable once the art buyer
is robbed of his capacity to make judgements for himself, based
on his own observations and convictions. We live in a very 'celebrity
orientated' society. High pressure advertising has become a firmly
-established part of our world. Conspicuous consumption is the
way we persuade the world that we are successful people and 'nice
to know'. Doubtless, it would be a better world without any of
these things. Most of them, alas, are things it will be difficult
to change. But the establishment of something approaching a level
playing field would do much to restore the tarnished face of the
art market in the Britain of today. It is our hope that your investigations
will go a long way towards producing this.
Letter
and email sent to OFT by John Bourne (Wrexham Stuckists) 4.4.04
UNFAIR TRADING IN THE WORLD OF THE CONTEMPORARY VISUAL ARTS
I am writing in support of the recent letter to you concerning
unfair trading in the world of the contemporary visual arts, from
the founder of the Stuckists, Charles Thomson. I am a Stuckist
artist who has recently opened a centre for Stuckism in Wales.
To say that
art is just a thing of the mind is only part of the truth; it
is also a trade, no less than other forms of commerce. Successful
trading is a matter of personal survival for artists and gallery
owners alike. Large amounts of money are invested in art daily,
very often as better alternative to saving. Art is, in fact, a
multi-million pound business. Therefore any unfair trading in
the art market is as serious as unfair trading in any other area
of commerce.
I would like
to refer to three possible levels of unfair trading in the art
market:
The first
level occurs when there is a single Dominant Buyer in the art
market. If such a buyer is a multi-millionaire and collects large
amounts of artwork from many artists, then inevitably, that buyer
will be much talked about and the artists whose work is bought
will become well known and will therefore command high prices.
Artists not patronised will tend to command much lower prices,
and this because of the personal taste of one buyer and not necessarily
because their work is inferior. They and the galleries representing
them will be unfairly disadvantaged and may be unable to compete.
Such a Dominant
Buyer practically has the Midas touch. Any artist they take up
becomes famous and commands high prices, simply by virtue of being
patronised by such a well-known buyer.
A second
level of unfair Trading can occur where the Dominant Buyer's wealth
and circumstances are such that they are able to promote their
artists and the artists' work on a big scale. Promotion is especially
effective in the case of art; this is because art is an elusive
thing and not easy to evaluate by means of aesthetic analysis.
In the case of traditional academic art at least, criteria of
correct drawing etc can be appealed to. An expressionist painting
on the other hand, may be dismissed as the work of an incompetent
dauber, until it has been expertly promoted and thereby transformed
into the work of a newly discovered major talent.
Some degree
of promotion is permissible but if the Dominant Buyer has the
resources to promote their acquisitions worldwide, and practically
overnight, those artists and galleries who have no promotional
resources are severely disadvantaged. In this case there is gross
inequality in promotional power, which amounts to unfair trading.
The third
level of unfair trading, as I see it, occurs where the Dominant
Buyer promotes their acquisitions in a misleading way, such that
other artists or gallery owners are unfairly disadvantaged. The
Stuckist movement has been responsible for many innovations in
recent years and if a former Stuckist artist and their work is
highly promoted as if they were newly discovered and without previous
connection with the Stuckist movement, the credit for innovation
will go to them and not also to the Stuckists, who cannot afford
such promotion, and the credit for the discovery of the artist
will go to the Dominant Buyer. The effect of this is serious,
because innovation is highly prized today. The result is that
Stuckists will have less prominence and less selling power than
is their due. The Stuckist movement is a large one, so this amounts
to unfair trading on a large scale.
It is to my
mind very unfair that the Dominant Buyer is able to benefit overnight
from innovations, which have taken others years of struggle to
achieve. Such a situation would not be tolerated in industry,
where there are patent laws to protect businesses from such abuse.
The unfair
trading outlined above may not be intended by the Dominant Buyer
and the Dominant Buyer may not even be aware of its existence,
but this makes it no less harmful to those who are commercially
disadvantaged.
Letter
sent to OFT by Brian Taylor (not affiliated to Stuckists) 5.4.04
I
have long been concerned as to what Mr Saatchi's agenda is with
his self aggrandising 'hyped-up' purchases of works by controversial
new artists.
I recently
read an item in The Independent on Sunday that suggests he finds
his artists by exploiting the efforts of underfunded members of
the new art movement and enthusiasm of young galleries who receive
no financial benefit, or thanks, for their efforts in the process.
Maybe these
galleries in question are gauche, maybe they are too trusting
of the artists concerned. Possibly it is the artist who is gauche
selling their art for a pittance to a hugely rich patron who is
capable of snapping up anything and everything that takes his
fancy. Certainly, from my point of view, there is a major greed
element involved here. I wonder if there is any aesthetic factor
involved here in Mr Saatchi's judgement; or is it purely quantity
over quality where he exploits the undoubted efforts of the inspired
original finders sucking in the gullible artists and works attracted
by his well oiled publicity machine, in turn preventing institutions
like The Tate form having a chance to acquire these works for
the Nation.
Is Mr Saatchi
attempting to subvert The Tate's standing through his own collection?
Has he some other long term intention? Is he about to do a Henry
Tate all over again? Is he holding the art community and the nation
to ransom? I can foresee a time where he can mortgage his collection
to further his world-dominating ambitions.
Sir Henry
Tate of Tate & Lyle constructed the Millbank building, and contributed
his collection of 60 Millais', to the Nation over 100 years ago.
Is Charles Saatchi going sweeten the bitter pill of his covetous
ambitions to develop what is, presently, nothing more than an
advertisement for himself by making a contribution to the Nation
in the manner of the philanthopic Tate?. I sincerely doubt it
unless there is some sort of significant financial inducement
involved. I believe Saatchi, with his parsimonious donations,
posing as a 'patron' of the arts should be prevented from acquiring
any more works from unrepresented and financially challenged artists
who may have little or no idea of their own ultimate worth or,
more importantly, that of the enduring significance of their art.
Saatchi's
monopolistic attitude to the British Art market needs to be curtailed,
and constrained, in order that our national institutions be allowed
to compete with his domineering publicity-fuelled presence. Submitted
as a concerned member of the art-loving public.
back
to top
|
