In the Dark, All Art Dealers Are Grey: Discretion and Rationalisation in the Munch Art Market

Siv Rebekka Runhovde

doi:10.5204/ijcjsd.1619

Abstract

In high demand among collectors worldwide, the art of expressionist painter Edvard Munch has been the object of numerous criminal incidents. This article examines to what extent these crimes have had any regulatory effect on contemporary trade in Munch’s work and what precautionary measures Norwegian dealers take to prevent illicit art from entering the market. Consistent with a grey market paradigm, interviews with art dealers indicate that the trade in Munch has become tainted with risk due to the presence of many unprovenanced works in the market, yet most art dealers have narrow, preconceived ideas of the ‘typical’ art crime offender. Interested parties would not expect questions of provenance to be answered, so they do not ask, and social relationships are used to excuse a lack of due diligence, conveniently allowing the industry to thrive.

Highlights

In 2012, when Edvard Munch’s pastel on cardboard version of Scream (1895) was sold by the New Yorkbased auction house Sotheby’s (2012) for USD$119.5 million, it became the most expensive painting ever sold at auction at the time
Munch is a Challenging Market All interviewed art dealers conduct trade in art by Munch and some have specialised in this market
While there are major Munch collectors in Norway, Art Dealer 2 highlighted the international demand for his work, resulting in a greater number of wealthy buyers

Summary

Introduction

In 2012, when Edvard Munch’s pastel on cardboard version of Scream (1895) was sold by the New Yorkbased auction house Sotheby’s (2012) for USD$119.5 million, it became the most expensive painting ever sold at auction at the time. In 2016, the same auction house sold Munch’s Girls on the Bridge (1902) for USD$54.5 million (Sotheby’s 2016). On this occasion, no information was revealed about the seller, but that the painting was ‘property from a distinguished collection’. The clandestine nature of the fine arts market distinguishes it from other marketplaces since much of the art trade remains confidential, allowing buyers and sellers to transact both indirectly and anonymously (Brodie 2014a; Coslor 2016). The primary driver for art theft and forgery is the commercialisation of cultural objects as economic commodities (Burnham 1975; Durney and Proulx 2011; Kerr 2016)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion