So, good morning everyone, and thank you Mari, thank you Annelie, thank you Art Basel, thank you.
This is always the test of who the serious art aficionados and art issue aficionados are,
the ones who make it to this early morning session.
This particular conversation started a year ago because we tossed around various ideas
of, you know, what could be an interesting discussion,
and we started talking about the issue of transparency in the art world,
and that it would be interesting to talk about transparency in the art world.
It was actually prompted by our colleagues at the International Art Market Studies Association,
of which Olav is, I think, the president.
And as we talked about it we realized that this topic is in fact much bigger:
what it's really about, this issue of transparency,
is part of a much bigger puzzle, and it's about being a modern industry.
So, what we're here to talk about today is: is the art world a mature professional industry,
and are there some new rules that it should follow, and so forth.
So, I'm going to, sort of, set the stage, and hopefully we'll have a really intense dialogue;
there are certainly plenty of us here this morning to explore it.
So, look, the starting point is clearly that we have evolved from a fairly small,
tradition-bound, person-to-person, quite insular world
into a big, commercially charged, professional industry.
Everybody who lives around the art world has experienced this change
it happened rather suddenly in historical terms.
And we can agree or disagree about whether it's a good or bad thing
but no one can doubt that we're in the midst of some huge transformations.
And let me just point out six pretty obvious, huge, big-changing patterns.
One, we are certainly much larger; so we've gone from a tight-knit conversation
to this big, global, sprawling scene.
We've obviously got much more international; all you have to do is walk around Art Basel to see that.
Prices have absolutely skyrocketed, which is good news to some; and like it or not,
along with that an investment mindset has entered the art world
Also, the increasing prices have reconfigured the relationship
of the commercial and the non-commercial sides of the art world
because non-commercial entities such as museums are more dependent
on private entities than ever to do their work, especially for acquisitions.
Fourth, along with all of these things have come more complex organizations:
lawyers, accountants, experts, PR support, strategy consultancy, and so on.
Fifth, the art world pecking order has shifted
I think it's fair to say; the power is increasingly in the hands of those who have money
and perhaps less in the hands of the expert establishment –
we can talk about this later on. And sixth, and very obviously, technology is changing everything.
So, I'm sure there are other big things you can say
but these are some of the big drivers of change in the art world.
And really, the question for us today is, given this new landscape,
are there some new rules to navigate and to structure behavior in this more complex landscape?
We've got a great cast of people here today:
Lindsay Pollock, a journalist who's been covering the art market and the art world for a long time;
Bob Rennie, the collector from Canada,
also our business man in chief on this panel,
who actually lives in the real world and makes money there;
Adam Sheffer from Cheim & Read Gallery,
also the president of the Art Dealers' Association of America;
Pierre Valentin, art lawyer from London; and, last but not least, just because of the alphabet,
my fellow art sociologist Olav Velthuis.
So please give them a round of applause for their brilliance, insights …
thank you... We'll be performing Stairway to Heaven later on.
So, I need to get out of the way, but just a couple of quick observations;
I promise I won't be long.
One, despite evidence to the contrary— and you'll be hearing about this—
the art world is routinely, as a matter of obvious fact, described as an unregulated industry.
We'll hear from some about to what degree that's true.
Meanwhile I think it's fair to say that governments around the world, often starved for cash
and looking for sources of revenue, are eyeing the art market as a potential source of taxation and regulation.
The art press, of course, obliges us with a fairly steady drip of new stories
about bad behavior in the art market; truth be told,
sometimes there's quite a bit of bad behavior out there.
So, what we often hear are calls to bring more order,
more regulation, more sunlight into the affairs of the art world.
Meanwhile insiders, in this world and frankly in every industry,
say 'self-regulation is the solution; it's not broke, let's not try to fix it, we're doing OK'.
So, part of our discussion today is sort of finding the balance;
how much regulation is good, how much is bad, what would be the rules?
And I've put our panelists on notice to at least ensure that we leave the room today
with a few practical ideas about how we can move forward.
So, with that in mind I'm going to start with Lindsay;
I've already introduced Lindsay a little bit but I think everybody here knows
that she's just ended a wildly successful six-year tenure as the editor of Art in America.
But she started out writing a wonderful book about Edith Halpert, the art dealer,
and has been one of the truly great and — I have to say, objective reporters
for Bloomberg, The Art Newspaper, The New York Times, various places on the art scene.
So, with all of that objective view, what can you say about the art world as a mature or immature industry?
Thanks, András, for that nice introduction and — good morning! Nice to see everybody here.
I know, interestingly enough, having worked on a biography of an art dealer
who was an early 20th-century dealer, opened a gallery in the 1920s in Greenwich Village,
and having read her voluminous archive of hundreds of thousands of documents
at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art
that in some ways the art market has changed very little,
in terms of the fundamental model of the gallery for instance,
and the way that business works.
So, I think that's quite fascinating.
But of course, you know, I've been involved in the art world in the last couple of decades –
I actually worked in Sotheby's in the early years of my career before becoming a journalist –
and have seen how things have changed. I mean, first of all,
the incredible attention paid to contemporary art,
which really was such a non-event 20 years ago—
at Sotheby's it was all about Impressionists and jewelry —
in terms of value and resources and glamour and glitz.
So, this has been kind of remarkable to watch in the last decade.
The attention paid to the field, which has been really exciting,
partly because of the fairs like the one we're at,
and also auction prices and all these things.
People are curious, and of course that's interesting.
One of the things, though, on the flipside, on the dark side —
and, you know, I was one of the people in New York watching very carefully
as something like the Salander-O'Reilly case unfolded, where a dealer who was, you know,
selling predominantly Old Master paintings ended up running into a lot of financial trouble
and not paying sellers, not doing a lot of things, and ended up in jail.
And when I was covering that case —
I sat in the courtroom when he was being sentenced,
in tears he was, and his family was there
but really no one else from the art world was there —
I thought it would be such a good lesson if everybody had to sit in this courtroom
and see the end result of what can happen.
I don't think people always intend in the beginning to wind up in that kind of situation,
but because there is this kind of Wild West in the art market,
because there are very few, kind of, guidelines and rules,
this is what, in the worst case scenario, can happen.
I mean, again, this was extremely rare,
and I've written about the art world for so long
and there aren't that many dramatic cases quite like this
although of course Knoedler was relatively recently of the same kind of level, potentially.
But, you know, and just using an example from this week, you know, in The New York Times
they reported that Aggie Gund sold a Lichtenstein painting for $165,000,000—she was quoted, clarifying:
'I sold it for $165,000,000', she's setting up a non-profit — to Steve Cohen.
And it just really struck me, 'Wow, to have that information just so clearly articulated,
from the seller, naming the buyer, naming the price — wow!'
You know, it was just very refreshing, because I remember having to
chase people down aisles in auction rooms and whatever to get, sort of,
'no comment' for all those years. So that was really a nice moment.
But, I understand, look, and I think between the Wild West
and an overly regulated, let's say, finance industry,
where it's all compliance-driven, where, you know,
business is really stifled and it's very difficult to do things,
there's got to be some middle ground for the art world fundamentally.
I don't know what the answers are, but where there are such conflicts of interest,
I mean just to point out a couple, if I may.
One, you know, the auction houses, when I was working in that industry,
you know, it was a neutral platform; it was agnostic,
they did not go into artists' studios and get work to be consigned.
They did not operate as dealers.
And these days, you know, if you're buying an apartment, you get the broker who gives you a form
that they and you have to sign, which says, 'I am representing you'
or 'I am representing the buyer'. It's clear who is being represented.
When a new person, or, you know, a smart who hasn't been around in the art world for long
walks into, let's say an auction house now, I'm not sure how clear it is who's being represented,
because they're doing so many things. And it's in an effort to make profits,
because that's a very tough business, I get it.
But at the same time, you know, let's have some clarity.
The other thing I would say, and again I don't want to — I know this is being taped in perpetuity —
but anyway, I'll just say, François Pinault is a very interesting figure
and a polemical figure because he's a collector,
he's someone who owns one of the major auction-houses,
he also has these private museums that are very high-profile.
He's doing this show which I'm going to see next week,
I guess, in Venice, this Damien Hirst show; is that work for sale or is it not for sale?
I mean, what's happening? It's just very confusing.
And there used to be, in terms of self-regulation, a bit more of a sense of boundaries.
And I think the fluidity today has upsides, but it also has potential for concern.
So, on the one hand things aren't changing much, but they're actually changing quite a lot.
Before we move on, and we do have to move on,
and not to put you on the spot as speaking for all the press:
do you think the press provides an objective sense of the art world's affairs?
Oh, I think, you know, it's first of all very difficult trying to find out what's happening.
I often felt, when I would runaround an art fair,
let's say to report for The Art Newspaper's Fair Daily;
this is going to sound very cynical, but I wish I had a lie detector test.
Because who is going, when I say, 'How is it, did you make any sales, how was your sale?'
it's not in the self-interest of the gallerist to say,
'Oh, this was a terrible fair, I didn't sell anything!'
I'm sure Art Basel would be delighted to invite that person back next year,
or whatever the case may be.
Imagine going around the stock exchange going to a broker, 'How did it go?' you know,
'did you sell the IBM stock?'
Yeah, so I think — I mean, look, there's a diminishing in the number of journalists that are out there,
publications are not particularly strong, media's not very strong, for many systemic reasons.
This is not the pinnacle of art journalism in terms of this period,
I'd say, that we're in right now. So — I mean I'd like to hear my fellow panellists,
because I'm going to get emotional in a minute.
OK, so, we'll bring Lindsay back but we'll move on to someone,
Bob Rennie, who as I said is our token 'real world' businessman as well,
but more importantly for us is one of the great collectors,
who began his collection about 30 years ago
in 1974, I think, when you were 18
and bought a Norman Rockwell —
and now has an extraordinary museum in Vancouver
and a collection of close to 400 objects, many artists that you collect in depth.
Your very successful real estate business helps you do this;
you're also quite involved in a number of institutions, from the Tate
to the Art Institute of Chicago. So, as a collector, but also as an active businessman
in the real world, what is your view of the art world as a, kind of, business?
With the question, even the words 'mature industry'; industry brings in commerce.
Well, commerce is a part of what we're…
It just keeps coming in to it.
So, this is only the second time I've done this;
I was a speaker at the Armory for Deloittes, and there was a hedge fund guy, there was a syndicator,
there was an art lawyer, and I was the collector. And I spoke—
and there were two journalists that spoke together;
quickly their conversation turned into Oscar Murillo's prices
as opposed to speaking about art —
and as we left I said to my son,
'Based on what we've seen this afternoon we've gotta get out.'
This isn't where we belong because we're trying to collect artists in depth;
we spend a lot of time trying to have access, so guys like Adam will return my call.
But it's not where we belong on this commerce side. But as we walked out I said —
I didn't use the word mature then, but 'seeing as it's not mature'.
I think the access to information — Lindsay was going down that path
is the really big change that's happened since the internet.
You know, we're all carrying our iPhones
but we want old-world practices back. It's gone.
We have to admit where things have changed.
But I said to my son, 'Now that we see what's happening today —
you see syndicates and you see the legalese involved,
and you see all the positioning — this is an emerging market.
So, what we've done over the last 30 years putting a collection together is safe.'
What we want to be, as collectors, is a very safe custodian for artists, so that when we collect,
it's not going to be at auction next week, the speculation is out.
I can't lie: the long-term, of course, is there; it's family, it's money,
and of course you're looking for a safe place.
But it is secondary because my view of the art world is that one-third
of the artwork you purchase — and we're gonna go down the business and commerce end —
one-third of the art you purchase will make more than any financial instrument you could ever touch;
one-third may keep up with the cost of living, and one-third will just sit there and burn money.
But you won't know for 15 years which silo that art went into.
How does the whole portfolio do for you?
You invited me here.
So, we've been very fortunate that we were following artists in the 1990s —
I'll use Kerry James Marshall — that no one was looking at, and we spanned his career,
built relationships with the dealer, we built relationships with the artist.
One thing — we were talking, I think, with Adam, back in…
I claimed that we do not have any curators, we do all of this with our own eyes,
but it is the relationships with curators,
with museums, with gallerists, that educate us. We can pretend we're doing it ourselves,
and I'm always very critical of the difference
between collecting with your ear and collecting with your eye.
You do collect with your eye but your ear is involved because you want information,
and that transparency that was available in the Agnes Gund sale
that you relate is really important for all of us.
But then when you talk about Mr Pinault,
and I'm sorry I don't know him, but that art is for sale;
it is a different commercial gallery space under the pretense of a museum.
And we're often very critical of that practice
but we just have to say that it exists. It's a parallel universe.
And is that a kind of price we pay for evolving and becoming bigger?
I mean, in many other industries you see roles shifting around.
Or is there a value judgement attached to what you just said?
I think his signature on it does something, something for it, but if we look at museum practice —
looking at myself, we want to be a good custodian, making sure that these artists
end up in safe places in museums — the private collector has taken on a larger and a larger role.
I think private collectors have to be careful that they don't become the dictators of taste.
But on the Damien Hirst — we love to complain about it, but sort of… my analogy is,
I tell you I'm looking for a new car and you tell me to go look at a Bugatti.
It's not a car, it's a parallel universe, it has four wheels
but it has nothing to do with what you're maybe doing in the art world.
We're so quick to criticize it, but I don't care what happens at a Bugatti dealership,
I don't belong there.
But I might be worried about the BMW dealer,
because I think they're the sponsor of this.
Before we go on, just one last question, because we'll get back to this issue later:
how is life different as a collector now for you than 25 years ago when you were unknown?
You now walk into a gallery and you're a big deal.
How's that different from a transaction and access standpoint for you?
First of all, I'm Canadian, so we're extremely passive-aggressive:
we will not admit that we have that clout.
You know, it changed in 1999 for us, very clearly.
We acquired Mike Kelley's 'Detroit Reclamation' project
and I found that when I mentioned that, I got in to the club.
That was such a big, obvious shift, that all of a sudden,
when you said that you were willing to take on not only an amazing artist but a very challenging work
by an amazing artist, that the conversations changed completely; that we all of a sudden
got access to works that maybe other collectors couldn't become custodians of.
So that was the game-changer — you know,
the world got better for us financially so we were able to make better moves —
but we're not trophy hunters and we never have been, so none of that changed.
But I think the dissemination of information combined with —
I'll be boastful— a respected collection gives you access.
You know, I'd say to anyone in this room,
it doesn't matter how much money you have —
try and get a Mark Bradford.
Just try and get one. Money won't do it.
You have to have a museum relationship,
you have to have a collection that has shoulders that speak to this work,
you know it may be a minor player or a large player in your collection,
but there are going to be qualifiers.
Whether we like that or not, it just exists.
OK. So it's only logical that we now go to Adam, who's our practicing art dealer.
He's been in this role in some way around the art world for 25 years; as I said,
he's now the head of the Art Dealers' Association back in New York;
at Cheim & Read since 2003.
Before that you were at Robert Miller, with Mary Boone, so you've seen a lot.
I'm going to also… he actually studied archaeology.
You're working on a film, you're working on a book, you're a man of many skills.
First of all, how's the fair going for you?
Terrific, actually. One of our best fairs yet.
And how's it different from the past?
Well, first of all, thank you András for inviting me…
Pleasure.
…this year, even though I said no a lot.
You did.
The fact that my friends Lindsay and Bob Rennie were going to be here in particular,
because I like the directness and sincerity with which they speak, had a lot to do with it, so thank you.
I feel this year that, as every year at Art Basel, people bring their A-game;
this is the chance to show off really what you're made of. We have had fewer sales this year
but, sort of, more ambitious sales, at higher price levels, and all to new people.
Right. Amazing. So, that tells you that there are new people coming into this world? Or is it just you?
I think it's the quality of the material that we brought, and our ability as a gallery
to be articulate promoters and defenders of our program;
and for people to understand where they fit in with art history
and how it may speak to them personally;
and their relationship to that work. I mean, presumably anyone who comes to Art Basel
wants to have, in some form, a life in art.
Whether as a collector, a journalist, a patron, an art lover, a curator et cetera.
And you have to understand that.
It gets back to this very notion that the entire art world
is about relationships and it's built on relationships.
And one of the reasons I said no to this panel so many times
is because I wasn't sure about the title.
You know, when you say mature,
do you mean mature in terms of time or in terms of behaviour?
Because in terms of time we could say that we are among
one of the world's oldest professions —
and that has certain... analogies to it —
and at the same time you could say mature in terms of behavior
The other thing is, when I started working in galleries,
sweeping floors and painting walls, which I still do, there was no industry,
there was no 'art business'. There was the 'art world',
and that 'art world' consisted of a group of people
who had some sort of foundation of interest
in being a part of something
that was both emotional and visual and intellectual.
And I will never forget in, I think it was January of 1990 or thereabouts,
Art in America came out with an issue,
and it had a Joseph Beuys on the cover, and it said 'Kunst = Kapital'.
And it was like a very defining moment, that the game had changed.
All of these romantic notions that I'd had about the art world sort of snapped into position,
and I had to think about things differently.
I think also when you're learning about art,
when you're studying art history and you're a student,
and then you go sort of behind the front desk
and you start to learn that this is a business,
that there are machinations by which things operate,
and you support artists and make a profit, that it is much more — there are
many more requirements to fulfilling that role than simply loving art and talking about it.
Actually, that was my question;
I would like to focus on the other side of the title, which is the 'new rules'.
You are somebody who… let's acknowledge that life has changed —
it is a very different world, mature or whatever label you want to put on it.
You're also the head of this association, so you spend a lot of time talking to your colleagues
in New York, I assume, and not just across America. Do you feel, as many journalists would claim,
for example, that there needs to be some new rules of the road,
some new regulations brought into this?
How would that work? What's your take on that?
Well, I think this is the beauty and the importance of having associations of the best art dealers,
in whatever geographical area we're talking about.
I mean, the ADAA, the Art Dealers' Association of America,
was founded in 1962,
and it was founded by a group of dealers
in order to promote the interests and best practices of art gallery owners.
We have a code of ethics; we have a code of standards and practices;
we inform our dealers on important changes in taxation
and important codes that are going on,
on a state-wide and a federal level.
We advocate on behalf of art dealers and artists in Washington DC.
We keep them constantly informed of changes that are going on, or potential changes,
such as in the case of the National Endowment for the Arts
and the rulings of the new President.
I'm also on the board of a wonderful organization that's called Talking Galleries.
It's a global organization that's based in Barcelona.
And it's probably what one would consider the Davos of the art world.
Talking Galleries, which has had meetings internationally
but Barcelona is the forum,
meets and talks about these really important issues.
We went to Korea, and I spoke to the Korean Art Dealers' Association in Seoul last November
about the fact that having an association
is more than just having a gallery weekend or a gallery night.
It means having a code of ethics, making sure that people abide by them,
making sure that you keep people updated about changes —
and this was all new information to them.
So, I think it's up to us as art dealers
to make sure that this becomes a more and more mature industry
by doing the work to inform people about what the good things are that we do.
Great, and we'll get back to this question of self-regulation in a minute, but I want to move on —
thank you Adam – to Pierre,
who is with Constantine Cannon running their law practice out of London.
You work with galleries, museums, collectors, art funds, auction houses — you name it,
you were associate general counsel at Sotheby's, so you've also seen a lot.
So now, you've heard all these fine people describe the situation,
but with your lawyer's head on, I'm wondering:
first of all, do you consider it an unregulated industry,
and where do you see the need for change?
I think to say that the art market is an unregulated market is nonsense.
Two, three years ago my firm was asked by the British Art Market Federation
to list all the laws and regulations applying in the United Kingdom.
And we listed 167, that is just for the United Kingdom.
Some of these laws and regulations come from Brussels;
some are Westminster-made;
some are international treaties like Unesco and Unidroit.
A few apply or are aimed directly at the art market:
export of cultural goods or antiquities;
the vast majority are laws that apply to all businesses,
including galleries and auction houses.
So, to say the art market is not regulated is not true.
What is true though is that there isn't a regulatory body
overseeing the workings of the art market
like there is in the financial sector, in the insurance market.
And I think the key question, perhaps, is
'would that be a good idea, to have a regulatory body?'.
Now I have my own view on regulatory bodies,
which is not particularly favorable.
That comes from personal experience; the legal profession is regulated
and my experience of that has not been good.
Look at what's happened in the financial sector;
you know, there isn't a week when there isn't a banking-related scandal,
yet the banking industry, the financial sector,
is probably one of the most regulated. The only, to my knowledge…
We're nicer people.
…we're nicer people. True, true.
Which doesn't say a great deal about French auctioneers
because French auctioneers are regulated, it's probably the one — to my knowledge,
the only — part of the art market that is regulated.
The Conseil des Ventes, which is the regulatory body in France,
was set up in 2000, I think,
and for about seven, eight years they presided over the greatest scandal
that ever happened in the auction market,
which was that the porters at the Hotel Drouot auction house in Paris
were stealing in open daylight,
some of whom were convicted and are now in prison.
So, you wonder what was the Conseil des Ventes doing while this was going on.
I mean there are many reasons I would say why
a regulator is not always the right answer.
I mean certainly lack of compliance monitoring is an issue,
because a lot of people working for these regulators are box-tickers and paper-pushers
and they don't always, you know, they are very rigid in their approach.
They don't keep up with the pace of change; I mean, the business models we see in the art world
evolve all the time, and in my experience
by the time the regulator catches up they are five years behind.
Plus, perhaps most importantly,
I think it's very difficult to regulate a market that is as international as the art market.
Because the minute you start regulating on a national level,
you make those who operate in that market
less competitive vis-a-vis other markets.
And yes, international standards can be agreed,
but that takes years and years.
And so I would be very concerned if the United Kingdom, for example,
were talking about introducing a regulator for the British art market.
I don't think it's going to happen, by the way; I don't think there's any appetite for that.
There's currently a plan to do that?
No. Thank God for that.
So, we're going to keep moving on because this is a subject that we'll return to.
But it's interesting, we've now had a kind of very beautiful statement
about self-regulation and associations;
we've had a very skeptical legal statement about regulation;
and now on to our sociologist-in-residence,
that's Olav, who I know has a take on this.
I also am a sociologist and one of the few people who wrote a dissertation on art dealers, actually,
so we've known each other's work very well over the years.
You're at the University of Amsterdam, many books and articles to your name.
My favorite, which I've also taught a lot, is
Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art.
And, as any sociologist would be, you're interested in the sort of symbolic meanings of all this,
and you have a different take on regulation. I think I heard you once say
that it's precisely the unregulated nature of this world that attracts people to it.
So, what's your take on everything you've heard so far?
Well — I have to switch this on, or is it working…?
Hold it, yes, that's good.
To begin with, I think it would be good to put things a bit in perspective.
And maybe the size of the market: the question for me would be is it worth regulating to begin with?
I mean, we tend to think that the art market is almost the center of the universe
and has been expanding so much,
but still if you look at the total revenue of the market globally —
it depends a bit on which report you read because there are several now —
but it will be somewhere between 40 and 60 billion US dollars.
I just looked at the turnover of Wal-Mart, only in the United States — one firm —
and it is 500 billion US dollars.
So — let alone if you compared it to any financial market —
the art market is just tiny.
The question really is, is it worth regulating?
The other thing is, I think we have a tendency to think —
or you, I like to take the outsider's perspective —
you have a tendency to think in the art market that everything is new.
That it has become so financialized, that it has become so globalized that —
what you mentioned in your introductory statement —
technology has completely reshaped the market.
I think that's quite exaggerated. If you compare it with other creative industries —
compare Art Basel here, this show, to Art Basel 20 years ago,
and then compare the music industry nowadays to 20 years ago.
I don't think really that much has changed, and there I would sympathize with how you started;
the way art dealers work, and the way you talk to collectors,
I think it's actually quite similar to the way you talked to them 20 years ago
and the way you made a sale 20 years ago.
You wouldn't say that in other creative industries;
you wouldn't say that in the music industry or in the movie industry or in the book industry.
So change has not been all that great.
Globalization is the same;
yes it is a much more global market than it used to be,
but hey, it is still also very local.
I talk to a lot of dealers
who still have a very small group of clients that they talk to regularly,
that very often are in their vicinity.
They may run into some people from around the world at the fairs,
but still it's a very local market.
Don't overestimate how global it is.
And the same goes for financialization;
I think what the art market has in common with the financial markets
is an extremely short memory.
The art market has been financialized in many periods before.
In the early 1900s there were investment firms —
Picasso's biggest buyer in the beginning, in his early years,
was an investment firm, La Peau del'Ours,
a group of investors who pooled money together and bought works by Picasso and Braque,
and then 10 years later sold them off for a handsome profit.
Same in the 1960s. There was a huge investment in art in those days;
it was the first time that there was an art index,
a financial index like the Dow Jones of the art market,
which was established in the 1960s.
Or take the 1980s, another moment of financialization.
So, the art market, it's not like it's going in one direction
going more global, more financialized, more technologized.
So how are things different?
I don't think they are that different. And one of the things — and that is how you introduced me —
one of the things is that I'd like to look at it not as a sociologist but like an anthropologist.
For me it's a group of people that has a very strong professional ethos
and a very — well, how would I call it —
a very unregulated ethos in the sense that business is done in a not-so-formal way,
with a handshake, with gentlemen's agreements,
maybe a little bit less than it used to be, but it still it is.
It's that part of the market that makes it attractive to people;
the whole spiel about waiting lists and about
getting access and not getting access — which, by the way, functions for me, as a sociologist,
as a kind of status mechanism. That is part of where the worth of the art market is:
that people who are newly wealthy,
who are not just in need of hanging something on their walls or putting together a collection,
but also want to understand where they are in this global cultural elite,
that is what the art market is doing,
and that is why it also needs to partially keep this unregulated character...
would I say, in a rather provocative way.
It's always great to have an academic in any conversation
because your fundamental assumptions will be challenged,
and I welcome that.
But Adam, I saw you; I couldn't tell if you were nodding or shaking your head.
I was merely reacting because I have a thought about what was being said;
and it was not necessarily an aggressive thought, it was a realistic thought,
and it sort of takes this conversation a step further.
I wish I could say that I was some genius that came up with this concept
but that's not the case I'm afraid.
At Talking Galleries two years ago our keynote speaker was Mark Spiegler.
And he gave this wonderful presentation
about 10 things every gallerist should be asking themselves right now.
One of the things that came up, which I agreed wholeheartedly with,
was this idea that, with very few exceptions —
and maybe Bob is one of them — we have a very different kind of collector these days
to, say, the Havemeyers
when they were going around with Mary Cassatt to buy paintings.
We have people for whom art collecting is no longer a leisure class activity.
I'm not saying that they're treating it as a business, but these people are busy.
Their lives are amped up. They have a lot of technology. The stimulation is going.
They are making their money and spending their money at the same time.
The advent of the art fair is something that,
even as someone who is involved in the gallery process —
I actually really like art fairs because in our gallery
John Cheim uses the gallery and fairs as sort of a platform
to curate another group show.
We're not a multi-venue gallery,
we're a single-venue gallery and very proud of it, it's a family affair.
But we can use an art fair to curate something so that there are trends —
it's quite beautiful that way, there are relationships between the artists.
People can come in, people who are working, who can't take every Saturday to go and look at art;
who can't spend in the way they did in the 1990s or their parents may have done,
a whole afternoon in Soho to come in, sit down, order in a sandwich
and look at 10 Joan Mitchell paintings.
You know, things have sped up. And for them, people who are making money, earning money —
often in the financial sector where they're dealing with markets around the world —
this allows them the opportunity to see the maximum amount of merchandise,
see the most amount of things in a condensed period of time.
So, I feel like the market has gone with
the kind of person that exists as an art collector today.
I don't necessarily think it's a fault of the gallery,
or the fault of the collector, or something that's more epidemic.
I think it's merely organic;
we live in times of cellphones and iPhones and all of this wi-fi technology,
and we're just kind of keeping up with our times.
Well, I think, fair enough, and I think, you know, it's interesting to see these viewpoints.
You had a comment?
On your comment about Wal-Mart and the art market:
the art market today uses social media, uses technology — thinking's changed.
But it takes up a lot of space.
So when the Giacometti or the $110 million Basquiat sale takes place
it becomes water-cooler conversation.
When there's a sale on at Wal-Mart and Tide is a dollar off, nobody talks about it.
And so it is very disproportionate for the amount of space it takes up culturally.
I do think that technology has changed it. You know, you're the sociologist,
but the conversations that go with it,
and the qualifiers, and the getting into those conversations,
the media is pumping out that information to you,
that it's really only like Wal-Mart if you're invested in the stock play.
So I do disagree with you a bit—
the technology has changed where the art market has gone to.
I still think that there's a lot of parallel universes
and we just have to understand them and understand which lane you're in.
It's always good to have disagreement — and in fact there's a great deal of disagreement
because several of you have started out saying that the world has changed profoundly, some disagree—
and that's all good, because it is in fact a moment of transformation.
It's a confusing world, you know, we've heard, maybe we could benefit from more rules
but we sort of don't want to have more rules.
We sort of desire transparency but we also value the privacy of the business.
We sort of can be a bit nostalgic about the intimacy of the old art world
but at the same time we clearly benefit from the bigness of the current art market.
So, I want to move on — we have about a half an hour to go a little deeper
and I want to make sure there are some questions.
And yes, let's focus on the commercial side of things.
I want to ask about two things, and I'm going to ask you a very simple question;
maybe we could even rate the art world on this.
First of all: is the current system fair?
One of the precepts of modern, mature industries is that there should be a fairly level playing field.
One market participant shouldn't enjoy special privileges over other market participants.
One consumer shouldn't be excluded from another.
That is the topic when you're talking about, let's say, communication issues, right?
It's a question of fairness. Do we have this in the art world?
Anyone? Is it a fair industry?
I've never had this conversation with Adam, but Mary Boone, who is a god of the art world—
you may have worked there then, but this was in the early 1990s
and I had bought a work off a transparency.
I'd never been to New York, came out there, and walked into Mary Boone's gallery
and two very handsome men, I think you were one of them, stood behind the desk
while a lady was at a typewriter — a typewriter back then — and I said, 'Is Mary Boone in?'
And both gentlemen shook their head 'no'. They could see my hesitation —
I'm there in my bulky ski jacket — and they said, 'Was she expecting you?'
And I said, 'No, I just told her that if I was ever in town I'd drop in. My name's Bob —
I didn't even get out Rennie —
and the lady jumped up from the typewriter and said, 'Hi Bob, I'm Mary Boone.'
So that is the part of the art world that is not an equalizer.
You know, when Oprah Winfrey can't buy a bag in Hermès it makes the news,
but these things happen every single day,
and that's the part, as a collector,
to which we've always wanted access, you earn that right and you get access.
I'm not saying it's fair, it just exists,
and the Mary Boone story I think is rampant within the industry,
and does that get people in who want to compete more,
or does it push people out of the market? But it certainly exists.
So, what does the art world get? Is that a D? Or where would you…
I think on that it's a fail. But if you want to look after the artist's career,
and you want the work to go to safe places, that deserves a discussion,
and Mary Boone wasn't going to have that discussion with some guy in a torn ski jacket who's come in.
Anyone else on this? How fair, how unfair?
You know, I totally agree with you Bob, I see that all the time as well.
There's also the fact that, because there is a lack of transparency,
you know the power is with those who have the information.
And that's also unfair in a way,
because, you know, information is carefully guarded,
and yes, technology has opened that up, but only in my opinion a little bit.
What will happen in the next 20 years I don't know,
but I suspect more and more information will become available.
Whether this information will be voluntarily disclosed
or there may be regulations regarding — regulations imposing…
And that will create greater fairness?
…yeah, a more level playing field, I would say.
Now Olav, is this — what Bob said, he just gave the art world a fail—
for you is this a beautiful kind of anthropological feature of our world?
I only think you can fail that aspect of it. There's a lot of passes out there.
Right, OK good. Maybe even as in certain areas. But Olav, where do you come in?
So, I definitely agree that it is not a level playing field,
I mean, it's an extremely hierarchical market.
It's a market that is all about making distinctions all the time.
Between different people, between, of course, different artists but especially, like these types of things.
And it's everywhere — it's also here at Art Basel. Who gets the attention of the dealer and who doesn't?
What kind of VIP access do you get to the fair?
It's all about making distinctions but, I mean,
it's not just personally as an outsider why this makes for an extremely fascinating market.
And probably I wouldn't have been studying this market for so long had it not had those aspects.
But I think seriously that this is also the dynamics of the market.
So you can give it a fail for it, but if you took it away,
you would take a lot of the dynamics of the art market away.
And that goes for transparency as well.
I mean, if you all like transparency so much,
well then just start putting up price tags everywhere.
And nobody wants to do that, and if you did do it, it would change the game completely.
So it's the price we pay for where we are?
It is. Yeah.
So you're sort of agnostic on this issue, actually?
No I'm not agnostic; I like it as an academic and I think it is important —
it is an important part of the dynamics of the market.
This — the fact that it is not a level playing field —
is part of what gets the market going and what attracts people to the market,
because they want to make sure that the next time, Mary Boone jumps from her chair right away.
But it's not a cause for concern?
I'll leave that to others.
OK, so let's… does anyone want to give a… OK, you.
Just very briefly. Bob, I remember that very event.
Thank you for your wildly inaccurate description of me, but I appreciate it.
Actually, he was at the typewriter.
Yeah, that's right! I just want to make sure that we're not talking about generalizations,
because I really think it comes from the top down in individual galleries.
That is not the culture at Cheim & Read. It's a very friendly, very user-friendly environment.
Our people at the front desk are informative, they are highly educated,
they are kind and very engaging.
And that's because that's the kind of culture for our business that we want to create,
and it's been a secret of our success.
Other galleries choose to work in another, sort of, mode of operation.
And because we are privately owned and we don't have shareholders
we can make these decisions.
Not every gallery operates this way but I certainly know that quite a few do.
OK. Next question, because I rather like the dynamic here. So just a simple question,
which I think is something one asks of other industries,
or whatever we want to call this:
is the system working optimally? That is to say, in economic terms,
or however you measure its effectiveness,
is it delivering the best results for its participants?
You know, however you define the optimum of the art world,
is this world, sort of, firing on all spark plugs,
is it delivering the maximum benefits that it could deliver?
Just very briefly, I think there's never been a better time to be an artist
and to have the potential to have a thriving career,
and I think that's because there are so many supportive galleries out there.
I'm not saying it's optimal, but I'm saying
that the opportunities are bigger than they have ever been before
for artists and estates and foundations, and that's really at the core of what we do.
So is that an A-minus?
B-plus.
B-plus. Anyone else? Lindsay?
I mean, I don't know, there's a million things running through my head
because on all of these fronts it depends what perspective you're looking at.
Well yes. Obviously that was my hidden question.
So, for some it's good, for some it's bad. I mean, here's an example:
I was at the auction previews in May in New York, which I hadn't been to for years,
and I just went up as a… almost as an anthropologist.
There was this collection from a couple who were in the fashion industry,
I don't know why it was being sold. There were glamorous photos of their house;
there were, name-checked, every contemporary artist—
the collection looked like it had been put together in the last five years. Each example was not good.
And I wondered: 'Who is advising them?'
They're paying top dollar, this collection looks not great,
and I bet they did not recoup whatever they had spent.
So I just wonder…
on the one hand you can be very cynical, and some say people get the collection they deserve,
depending on how much effort one puts in, and research and so forth,
which is a very cynical thing to say.
And, you know, if you're going to phone it in, Adam,
and you're not going to sit in the gallery and have a sandwich at least,
maybe you're going to get the worst out of the 10 examples
that the artist might have produced in the past couple of years.
But, you know, at the same time maybe there's a kind of evening out,
and maybe it all balances out.
But optimalization? No. I mean this issue of the ethos of customer service.
First of all, is there fairness anywhere right now?
I mean, I — I'm mortified about it — buy most of my stuff from Amazon.
I feel terrible for every store in New York City that is closing:
they predict 20% or 30% of retail's going to close
in New York City, in the United States, in the near future.
That's a real seismic shift. So, is anything fair?
No, not right now. Is the art world fair? Certainly not.
It's based on this sort of, you know,
closed-door mentality, and that's the way it operates.
And, you know, someone — although I will say I don't know who —
someone alluded to this,
and Bob, this has shifted since you've gone into collecting.
I hear about collectors and I was at a party the other night,
and someone with sort of five-year timeframe,
by being creative, attractive and extremely rich, can become a real persona in the art world.
You can really self-invent and become a figure.
Maybe you open a private museum when five years ago you didn't go to art museums.
I think part of this has created a culture
where people become trustees at museums quickly,
who then make decisions that aren't healthy for institutions:
we've seen a lot of turmoil, I think, in museums,
because board trustees who used to have a lot of…
I mean this could go on to a different panel perhaps, but you know where I'm headed.
Let me just keep us going with some questions.
So, first of all, I just note the fact
that our panel seems to feel that it's not a very fair system
but it's actually doing OK.
That's kind of what I'm hearing. So, that leads me to my next simple question.
Pierre, you mentioned — I think you counted, if I remember the number, 167 regulations.
Is that enough? Not enough? Too many? How do you all feel?
Well, I think it's not about quantity, it's about quality. And I think what we need,
not just for the art market, by the way, but, you know, in other sectors as well, is better regulation.
That's one, and the second thing is I think we have plenty of regulations;
we don't need more, we need better enforcement.
And I'm thinking particularly in areas such as competition,
anti-trust, and consumer protection.
The problem is, today, not enough resources are invested in enforcement.
And that includes the criminal justice system.
I think if the laws and regulations we have today were better enforced,
then, you know, the sort of shadier areas of the art market may recede.
Do you all? Anyone, on that topic? Olav?
Well, maybe one comment about what type of regulation we don't need,
as far as I'm concerned, and that is talked about a lot —
some kind of insider trading equivalent for the art market.
The idea would be that some collectors would have access to, for instance,
information about a solo show in a museum coming up,
and then buy the work beforehand.
To get rid of that type of speculation, regulation would be necessary.
And I think that it's something that… it's a couple of cases where that may have happened.
In the art market it's not at all clear what the impact is,
and when the impact is, of such a museum show on prices.
Yes, it has an impact, but it's part of a much bigger picture
of other signals that other museums or institutions are sending.
So I really… I don't think that is the way we should be going.
I should mention at this point that I once had a graduate student who tested that proposition
by actually looking at prices of artists who have recently had museum shows,
and he found that there was actually no correlation.
In fact, the artists who did not have museum shows had more price growth,
because the ones who had the museum shows already had their success priced in.
So, another one of those areas where I think we need the question to be better chosen.
Bob, you work in the real estate business, which is quite regulated, I think.
How would you compare the two industries in this respect?
Our view is that, for all our businesses — I'll swear here — 4% of the world are assholes,
and we spend 96% of our time trying to deal with them.
And it is unfortunate that it exists in the art world, it exists in the real estate world.
I just told you my sad story, here's a positive story:
probably with Cheim & Read I spent $25,000 in the last 30 years.
I bought one work.
But I looked at a very important work with Howard Read, who I think is here.
We don't have a deep relationship but Howard spent hours with us.
And I had to offer a payment scheme
because we're always collecting way ahead of our abilities,
and they weren't able to do it.
I saw Howard in the elevator the other day
and we talked about it like we were best friends.
And there was no fall-out — there was no 'you wasted hours of my time',
it was 'we're building a relationship'. So that side exists out there.
I told the Mary Boone story because I always think it's very funny
and I always want to know 'was it Adam?'
Could I just see a show of hands: how many people have questions,
because I want to manage our time efficiently.
OK, only one? OK. Good.
So we'll just move right on and then we'll go to the questions very shortly.
You talked about enforcement.
That brings up, to me, the question of the highly touted 'self-regulation'.
Does self-regulation really work when it comes to highly contentious issues?
And how do you self-regulate without a stick? Or do you have a stick?
No, I think some of these things are best left to the court system. The really serious issues.
The ADAA, for instance, is not a policing organization,
We don't do that;
we have a code of ethics,
and by signing on the dotted line you agree to work by those rules.
I think there are a lot of things also for which there are no legal precedents,
and we are still figuring that out.
I think, in terms of regulation, we need to decide what it is that we want to regulate.
Because otherwise we're going to be figuring it out on the job,
and it's going to become cumbersome and take forever.
Do you want to regulate whether someone is buying for investment value,
for personal enjoyment, or for speculation?
I mean, these are things that the Internal Revenue Service determines;
these are the things that maybe could be determined by the legal realm.
Do you want to regulate if somebody buys a horizontal painting
and decides that they prefer to hang it vertically?
I mean, I think it takes a big, I mean, there are…
Bob, fess up!
…I mean, there are a lot of issues here. And that has been done.
So, where Lindsay was going a little bit, because you can go either side with all these things,
I think we're often confusing regulations with morals.
It's very hard to regulate morality, but I think that tends to be the…
I keep going to the moral side as opposed to the regulation side,
but that's the side we look for in any business.
I'm just goanna say that because you were brought up in real estate,
you know if you're buying a piece of real estate
you're going to pay a 6% broker fee or whatever it is.
You know it's sort of very transparent.
Point five.
Six point five. I'm wondering because I,
as a reporter over the years, have seen the lawsuits emerge,
and then you see these sometimes gigantic commissions on these transactions,
sometimes almost equal to the purchase price.
You know, because there are so many parties involved,
sometimes — maybe it's an exception.
But I just do think, you know, with regulations, horizontal, vertical — not so much;
but there are a lot of things that could benefit.
Ethics: where someone's pressed and where someone has an opportunity, they just take advantage.
Pierre, quickly, because I want to ask questions.
I was just still thinking about secret commissions as Lindsay was speaking.
I mean that, to my mind, is an area where, you know, a little bit more regulation would be helpful.
Education, I would say, is a starting point, because many people don't really get it—
that if they act as agent for a collector, and sell their work,
it's not right to take money from other parties and not disclose that.
For some people that's kind of a surprise and, you know, that may be understandable.
So education first. But there are people for whom, you know, education is not enough.
'Caveat emptor', they say.
A question from the gentleman. Please state your name;
we are being taped. Name and affiliation, if you like.
Alain S, collector.
Oh wait, we know who you are!
We can't see you, we can only hear you— we recognize your voice.
Of course. I think we agree that the art market
has been working very well as a club, because
if anything you did was outside of the line—
we spoke about Mary Boone — you would be excluded.
The thing that has changed is the amount of money that has been involved.
And in fact, what happens is that saying
the art market is rotten and needs urgent regulation is certainly not right.
But there are enough bad people on one side, and you've been mentioning that.
At the end of your mentions you said, 'more regulation';
at the beginning you said, 'regulation is no good'.
You spoke about the example of Mary Boone—
it's very nice, but the Alec Baldwin case is less, let's say, shining in terms of attitude.
So, we have enough examples of things that are not working.
Starting even from me buying a work here at Art Basel,
we know the problem of non-payment of acquisition —
you know, is there a rule to protect the gallerists, even?
Is there a possibility to improve the protection of artists,
because it happens that the gallery will pay the art fair a fee before paying the artist.
You know, in New York there is a regulation which forces a separate account,
we don't have it in any other countries. So there are many, many reasons —
let's not talk about the art advisors, the scandals, and all the Lévy, Hoffman lawsuits, Perry Rubenstein —
I mean, so many of them right now.
And Adam was mentioning that we should let courts go,
and I would love to let courts go,
but what happened in the Knoedler case is that it was settled out of court.
I would have loved to have had some element of jurisprudence to help us in the future,
but we were even deprived of that. Oh, you know, why were —
because everybody says 'no, we don't need any regulation' — why were there regulations,
you know self-regulation, in other areas, and I guess that would be my question.
Why is there self-regulation in other professions?
It's not to clean up on the 90%,
to make the life harder of the 90% who are working well.
It's about cleaning up the 10% who are tainting the whole profession.
And right now I think we are reaching a point where it is counterproductive
to let those leeches and sharks and, you know, piranhas,
go around and eat bits and pieces of the whole thing.
It's counterproductive because a new buyer would be so scared to go into that jungle
that he could maybe move out.
You know, there's been self-regulation of every other profession,
whether it's real estate, stockbrokers, you know,
schoolteachers, actors and whatever. Why?
It's to make the difference between the ones who are following the rules
and dictating the rules and applying the rules,
vis-à-vis the ones who are not trustworthy. I think it's time to do it.
Response?
Well, I was going to say, as an add-on to this,
there is a weakening of journalism in the art world, I think.
There's a diminishment of resources there, and they would provide a check sometimes,
and illuminate some of these problems, and at the moment you don't have that.
I mean, the reason I discovered that Salander-O'Reilly was even having issues
was that he got thrown out of an art fair and then the association,
and I thought, 'Hmm, what's happening?'
and just started sniffing around, you know, and eventually lawsuits happened.
But yeah, it's true, I mean I would agree with you that there does need to be some kind of oversight.
But it's a question of how do you not mess things up for the 90%?
Self-regulation has positives, definitely — peer pressure and things like that.
I find that the problem comes when you start wondering 'who is going to enforce self-regulation?'
And it's particularly difficult in the dealers' market I think, because so many dealers buy together,
and so they have common interests, financial interests.
I can't really see how a dealer who has a common interest with another dealer
would stand as a judge to that dealer.
I mean, there are so many—that would create some unbearable tension.
So, I think self-regulation, yes, but it is quite limited,
and that's why I was talking about enforcement of regulation through the courts.
Well, speaking of self-regulation, it's my job to regulate our time.
We're coming to the end but I do see that two hands have gone up,
but we're going to do this quickly.
Just very quickly here, because we are, you know, close to our time.
OK. My name is Chris and I'm from Warsaw, Poland. I have a question for Bob and Olav.
There was plenty of talk about 'closed doors', and my question is,
to what extent do you see positive spillovers from the art world towards other industries,
opening the doors to societies,
and positive spillovers maybe also on the side of the commercial side towards other industries?
So, first of all, I consider Mary Boone a friend and I would deal with Mary today,
and I think the story is exaggerated.
What I learned from my Mary Boone thing is 'don't wear a ripped ski jacket'.
But on the closed doors— if you go in to a Rolex dealer,
anybody can buy the Rolexes in the store,
but the limited-edition, that ends up getting sold
to the person who has 42 watches
because it's going to a safe place.
I don't know how you change the closed doors,
but I think how we changed it is by building relationships.
The Howard story I told.
I started doing that in the 1980s and into the 1990s: building relationships.
Mary began to trust me and we could carry on that relationship.
I told this story because I think it's sort of a very obvious one that stands out,
but it wasn't meant to hurt Mary as much because we built a relationship.
I feel really bad but I'm getting a signal to finish up, so I'm going to ask our last question,
which may allow you to say what you would have said.
I'm sorry for the gentleman, but maybe afterwards you could ask.
So, first of all, just to conclude,
I think there's a variety of viewpoints that have been expressed,
and certainly, I think, the headline reads: 'great deal of skepticism about regulation'.
But not necessarily a lack of recognition of what Alain said —
although then he immediately departed —
which is that there are some bad eggs and, a little bit,
that there are areas that need to be tweaked and sorted out.
I promised at the beginning that we would not end
without giving you something concrete and specific.
So, I'm going to put everyone on the spot and ask the last question.
I'm going to start with Adam and I'm going to finish with Bob,
and could you please answer succinctly.
Is there one practical step, whether it's a regulation or some new kind of entity or data,
one specific innovation or improvement that could make our industry work better —
what would you propose to the people here and to everybody else listening?
Let's start with Adam.
I'll be succinct.
One of the best ways for these decisions to come about
is when the art world comes together
in the best way it possibly can.
How does that happen? How do we get everybody under one roof?
I think a starting point would be, as we do in the ADAA with The Art Show,
for each of the art fairs to take a position on this subject
and come up with a code of ethics or a code of conduct
that they require all of their participants to abide by,
both as exhibitors and as business people independently.
So art fairs could take a bigger role in also helping to create these codes of ethics?
Yeah, they're an important part of the cultural ecosystem,
and if they want to step up to being more than just a commercial entity
they could have educational platforms — they do all of these things,
this might be an interesting direction for them to go in.
Lindsay — use the mic, you can sigh into the mic!
My heavens! No, my fantasy is that there would be an index created
where all art sales would be recorded in total detail
and available on public record for journalists to analyse.
And other market participants?
Yeah, and other market participants. But that is like utopian — never goanna happen.
We believe. OK. Pierre?
Well, as I said, I'm not a firm believer in more regulation, I'm a believer in better regulation,
and also in, well, more enforcement and looking at existing regulations.
And perhaps looking at certain areas where we see, you know, court cases again and again,
like secret commissions and certain practices in the auction room
that I think would benefit from more regulation.
I'm not sure that was a real answer, but that of a lawyer
who knows how to answer a question without actually giving a specific answer.
Thank you very much. Olav?
A very simple wish: pay your artists well and pay them promptly.
I still hear too many stories of artists who don't get paid,
or have to beg endlessly to get their part of the commission.
And let's not forget that in the end it's the artist that makes all of this possible.
I don't care too much about a collector every now and then getting a bad deal
but I do care a lot about an artist getting cut out of the financial part.
OK. So, Bob, the last word is yours.
I think if we always put the artist first it all becomes very easy to put it all together —
I'm agreeing with part of what you said.
But I really think that as humans we can take the bad news;
we just want to know the lines we have to color within.
And I think there are a lot of areas within the art world
where we're afraid to break the news
that 'no that's not available because we're going to hold it for two years for a museum'.
Let everybody know the lines they're coloring within and then they may walk away unhappy
but at least they know why they are unhappy, or if they walk away, why they're happy.
I think we just have to get much more conversational — and that takes engagement.
Well, I think we've been conversational today, so thank you very much for all your thoughts,
thank you, all of you, for staying, and enjoy the show.
For more infomation >> The End Is Near - Duration: 3:25. 
For more infomation >> This is war - Duration: 2:51. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét