Page History

While the Sotheby's price-fixing scandal led to professional and even emotional damage for particular [individuals|http://nymag.com/arts/art/features/30620/] involved -- [Sotheby's|http://www.sothebys.com/en.html] Alfred [Taubman|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Alfred_Taubman] (who did [wind up going to jail|http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1391957/Taubman-is-jailed-for-Sothebys-price-fixing.html]) and Dede [Brooks|http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/diana_d_brooks/index.html] resigned their positions at the auction house, and Sotheby's employees suffered cuts in their stock options, experienced increased lay-offs, and "reported \[...feeling\] physically ill because of the betrayal" from their superiors (Ashenfelter and Graddy, 12) -- ultimately, it does not appear that the scandal significantly affected the larger perception within the art world of the auction house as a necessary place to do its business. Because the brunt of the direct and immediate burden of the scandal effectively fell on Sotheby's little-known employees, who, as non-integral players in the art world, could be replaced, and because [Christie's|http://www.christies.com/], the other powerful auction house involved, was largely unaffected, it appears all too easy for life to go on as always in the art community -- and this life included using the auction house as a primary forum for selling and buying art. Perhaps this is because the auction house removes some of the "politicking" from art sales, allowing for more inclusive and even "democratic" process, according to some of those Thornton interviewed, and perhaps it is because "an auction is a staggeringly swift way to sell art" (Thornton, 19). Perhaps it is because the auction house serves as a place to see and be seen within the art community in the all-important competition for status. Or because in a recessive economy, art is a wise investment (Thornton, 17), and people can buy art directly at an auction, which "gets rid of \[...\] hierarchical \[waiting\] lists" for art that favor the wealthy and well-positioned (Thornton, 14). But whatever the causes, today's reality is that Sotheby's and Christie's continue to reign as successful and powerful places to do business in the art world. In 2005, the two auction houses made "somewhere in the neighborhood of a half-billion dollars' worth of art over a two-week period" on "Impressionist, modern, and contemporary art in New York," writes Kelly Thomas in [Art News|http://www.artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=1890]. In 2004, Sotheby's out-sold Christie's (Thomas). Christie's continues to exceed Sotheby's in sales, but according to [The Economist|http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15522452], Sotheby's is "creeping up on its rival." What is more, says Marion Maneker of [Art Market Monitor|http://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2009/10/01/how-big-is-the-art-market/], "Auction sales represent 20-25% of all sales." It does not appear, then, that the price-fixing scandal effectively altered the role of the auction as a primary place to do business in the art world.