David Wildenstein at the Wildenstein & Co. gallery on East 64th Street (Image courtesy of Claudio Papapietro for The Wall Street Journal)
Is it possible that the art and real estate market will finally hit a ceiling? It’s hard to imagine a higher benchmark than the one set by the nation of Qatar, which has broken record after record in what even Phillips de Pury’s business development officer called “mind-boggling” expenditures. Who can top the $1 billion per year spending of Sheikha Al-Mayassa bint Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani of Qatar?
In Qatar’s latest momentous deal, the nation has purchased Wildenstein & Co’s Beaux-Arts headquarters for $90 million. The Wildenstein family has been one of the art world’s most powerful dealers for five generations; Qatar’s Sheikha Al-Mayassa bint Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani topped this year’s Art Review Power 100 list for her annual headline-grabbing art investments estimated at $1 billion per year.
Initially billed as the most expensive residential buy in NYC history, the townhouse is, in fact, a commercial property, and will now be used by Qatar as a consulate and to hold some of its valuable art collection. (To put the news in perspective, the townhouse cost not even half the price of Cezanne’s “Card Players,” on which, in 2011, the Sheikha spent a record-breaking $250 million.) The sale comes after years of legal troubles for the gallery, including at least six lawsuits sparked by a money-laundering investigation into President Guy Wildenstein, which led to at least three police raids seizing works stolen from Jewish families by Nazis.
But even a scandal of such epic proportions hasn’t dealt a fatal blow to Wildenstein & Co. Following the sale, the business will remain intact: Guy Wildenstein will continue on as President and David Wildenstein as Vice President, respectively. The family is also consolidating its three adjacent buildings on East 64th Street and Madison Avenue, as part of a vague new project to be completed in 2015.
Anyway, yesterday the news prompted AFC’s (basement) offices to imagine a future in which we’re all living in tiny holes in Brooklyn, as the rich expand vast, uninhabited luxury spaces down through the boroughs. Oh, wait…
{ 4 comments }
This is inaccurate: “There she will park her money, and her art.”
Sheikha Al-Mayassa heads the Qatar Museums Authority, not the Foreign Ministry, which is the transacting entity here. The foreign minister is Khalid bin Mohammad Al Attiyah, and the building will house a consulate, which has nearly nothing to do with the QMA or Al-Mayassa: as was reported in WSJ two days ago (for some reason not linked to here), the Qatari consul general has been working out of the Ritz-Carlton since last summer. I appreciate the attempt at connecting art spending with diplomacy, but being precise about actors is key to making the broader critique intelligible.
WSJ 1/29/14: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303973704579350641075915588
From the New York Post:
“That’s because [the townhouse] is in turn-key, move in condition — and already set up to display and store art.
“Qatar plans to use the consulate as a place to showcase their own artists,” the source said.”
http://nypost.com/2014/01/29/qatars-ues-townhouse-buy-could-be-nycs-priciest/
If “their own artists” refer to the artists of Qatar, then I think it’s reasonable to link Sheikha Al-Mayassa as a relevant party in this story. She does buy art on behalf of Qatar, she’s often described as a cultural ambassador, and she is the Sheikha of Qatar. We never reported that she’d be purchasing the property herself, but I understand that it could have been misconstrued. And I’ll link up the WSJ piece, that was an oversight on my part.
You should probably link that too then, since what is omnisciently asserted has turned out to be from an anonymous source in the New York Post.
My point is that embassies and consulates very frequently contain art (e.g. the French Embassy cultural services building on 5th). Qatar’s presence in the global art market, as managed by Al-Mayassa, is disproportionately large and has diplomatic ramifications. The narrative in this piece does not delineate between these two things.
Also, Sheikha Mozah is “the” Sheikha of Qatar, not Al-Mayassa. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozah_bint_Nasser_Al_Missned)
If anybody’s reading, Mostafa and I discussed this in more detail over email. He elaborated on a few distinctions which I’ll be keeping in mind and think are worth posting here for the record.
“…the broader critique I was referring to is just the general body of writing about Gulf art as an instrument of diplomacy and statecraft. And I do think there’s something of a political subtext to much of the New York Post’s reporting on Arab affairs (and in general, for that matter), so if their coverage is being used to link a pretty mundane real estate transaction to a more complex argument about art and diplomacy, I feel like that’s something that should be presented upfront too.
…I will grant that a hereditary monarchy is more monolothic in its mechanism of power than a democratic state, but do you really think that it’s fair to basically paint the entire Qatari foreign ministry apparatus as being driven by one young member of the family? The QMA/art acquisitions budget is a minuscule fraction of the state’s activities. It’s symbolically important, sure, but there are a lot of moving parts. And Al-Mayassa should be treated as someone who is part of a broader system and strategy (with many complicit parties, some very close to home) rather than a profligate cartoon villain (she’s barely out of grad school!).”
Point taken.
Comments on this entry are closed.