How the art market is changing: more content, less appearance. Conversation with Caretto&Occhinegro

An art market that looks more at content and less at appearances, much more prepared and attentive to quality. This is the major change that gallery owners Massimiliano Caretto and Francesco Occhinegro, owners of the Caretto&Occhinegro gallery, a specialist in antique Flemish art, have noticed in recent years. This year the gallery of the two young antiquarians from Turin is celebrating its tenth anniversary: it is an opportunity to take stock with them of the market, its transformations, the difficulties it encounters in Italy, and the laws that regulate it. Here’s what they told us, on the sidelines of the Florence Biennale Internazionale dell’Antiquariato, which ends Oct. 6.

FG. Meanwhile, the question begs to be asked: how is this Biennale of Antiques going, in general?

MC. It’s going well. I think everyone is more or less satisfied. Maybe there was a lot of excitement at the beginning because the period is what we know, so many were afraid but, from what we are seeing, some sales they all took home, obviously some more and some less. So in my opinion, for this edition, there is more than promotion.

FO. Someone claimed almost 100 percent sales.... !

MC. Yes, someone sold a lot. But at any rate they all brought something home, so in the end the operation was successful.

FG. What are you alluding to when you say the period is -- what we know?

MC. To the fact that we are now living in a permanent state of crisis, because for at least fifteen years there has always been something, some problem, some market earthquake. So, in truth, maybe today it makes little sense to say “this time there is this problem, this time there is another one” ... because the world has changed. From a macro-historical point of view we are living in a period of instability, and clearly, for everything related to trade (and BIAF anyway is a trade fair), this always creates a certain state of uncertainty. Now for example we have the U.S. elections coming up, and we are seeing what is happening in Israel. Now, without wanting to get into geopolitics, these are still situations that in general (and so not only for antique art fairs) weigh on the trade world.

FO. These crises then produce ambiguous effects. I mean that they determine on the one hand a somewhat more cautious attitude with respect to buying, but on the other hand we also see that less significant works are disappearing from the market and attracting less and less the buyer, who instead seeks a refuge (even a moral one) in Old Masters, because they tend to lend themselves more to this purpose. And in any case, the buyer today is looking for works that are no longer decorative, but can be pregnant with meaning. Then to each his own, everyone looks for meaning in what he wants, but this is the search that drives the market today.

MC. We’ve also had many contemporary art regulars come to us who have really said, “The historical moment is changing.” I think collectors no longer want to see a context that had become a bit of a joke, there’s no longer a desire to see a kind of circus of fairs, so people are looking for things that are a bit different, experiences that are also different, they experience the fair as a more cultural experience, more of content, and less of appearance.

FO. Some of our friends have confessed to us that they arrived tired at the end of the BIAF journey, but this is nice, because art must also get tired. And this in my opinion is a total change of approach from the fairs of a few years ago, from a certain kind of contemporary that besides provocation has little else. It is really a change of approach on the part of the visitor and the collector.

MC. The sense is that today art really has to engage intellectually.

FG. And what you are describing to me already seems like a decidedly important change. But you, despite your young age, have been in the market for exactly ten years: it was 2014 when you started your business. Other than that, which is a recent fact, as I understand it, have you encountered any other changes in the market especially if we compare the current historical moment to that of ten years ago?

MC. I can say for example that today there has been a change in attitude toward religious art, which is usually invisible to the average collector. I am talking about religious art in a broad sense, from Buddhism to ancient divinity to Christian works. Today, however, it is the exact opposite; people look for the metaphysical in the work. The collector is looking for it, the market for objects that have these characteristics has sputtered, and this is definitely a child of that approach we were talking about earlier.

FO. By now, content in a broad sense has become fundamental. We have also seen changes in buyers: before, the buyer was scared, in the sense that he actually had difficulty understanding prices, he had difficulty trusting a price. Today, on the other hand, the buyer is, on the one hand, much better prepared, on the other hand, he is much more relaxed because he knows that if he comes here he is guaranteed in his purchase. And buying at a fair with a good level, or at least with a homogeneous level, helps a lot.

MC. And then, if before one approached the artwork maybe even laughing (but not necessarily in a negative sense, in the sense that the conversation piece was also seen as a funny thing), today, however, art is seen differently. It is aimed, that is, more upward. This is at least from the buyer’s point of view.

FO. In a nutshell, the main change, to use a couple of Englishisms, is that fruition has become slow and the type of works sought elevated.

FG. If, on the other hand, we wanted to delve into the purely economic side, many practitioners complain, for example, of a thinning of the middle range of buyers. Is this a situation that you have also encountered?

MC. There is a premise to be made: we here at the fair have been thinking about the Italian market, which tends to be a market (at least for what is our knowledge of the Italian market) that does not want to, or cannot, get to the prices that can be found for example at TEFAF in Maastricht, except of course for a few cases. Then there is to say that the global economy is changing, the bands, the sectors, the type of buyers, the entrepreneurship are also changing.

FG. Let me stop you for a moment: why do you think the Italian market has the characteristic of not reaching, except exceptionally, Maastricht prices?

FO. Let’s say that business in Italy has always been accustomed to crisis long before the rest of the world. I mean, Italy has been living in a permanent state of crisis -- practically since 1992. So probably this always in the balance situation leads the Italian comparator to be a little more careful. It tends to: let’s not talk about everybody. Then, to come back to the question of the middle class, Italy, unlike other countries, still manages to have a middle class that I think is capable of buying even entry-level paintings, at least based on our experience. And we here in Florence also brought something more affordable (which in fact went well), so in my opinion Italy in this is a peculiarity: there is a slightly different market and it still manages to have even a middle class collector. Internationally, on the other hand, this phenomenon is waning, while very high-level collecting is expanding. In Italy, on the other hand, mid-level collecting still manages to be had. As in France, for that matter.

MC. Let me add one more aspect: looking up a bit, that is, without focusing only on the work of art, or the art market itself, we are dealing with a global discourse of spending capacity that in the world, as we said at the beginning, is changing, in the sense that wealth is shifting and concentrating in the hands of fewer people. The real estate market is also becoming more complex, the same goes for boating, and other examples could be given for other markets. This is not just related to the art market, but we are talking in general about a transformation of the Western economy, and in this respect gallery owners can do little. It is something bigger, something macro-historical. And that has to be accepted.

FG. You were talking earlier about entry level pieces: who is your collector who starts looking around this way and buys from you in the gallery, what is he buying, what is he interested in?

FO. In general, this type of collector, I premise, varies from gallery to gallery. For us, it is first of all the new collector, who we usually go to because it is always nice to meet a new collector, maybe a young person, or a new customer who is approaching something totally new to him, or even an old customer who maybe has been with us from the beginning and so we always try to buy something for him, to always think of something for him and to continue to accompany him on his collecting path. Then let’s say that, for us, we tend to have the entry level start at about 30,000 euros. Then it can be something more or something less, however, for us this is the entry level range to have a good painting. Then it is clear that you can find something even for less, but to have a painting at the same time beautiful, sure, with a good provenance, good studies, of an important author as those are that we tend to have, let’s say that in my opinion it is a very good price, the price from which to start doing important collecting and in a serious way. Then it is clear that you can also buy for less but in my opinion it tends to become more complicated. At least on what we do.

FG. At the fairs then we often tend to take stock of the “limitations,” let’s call them that, that the Italian market often faces. In Italy, in particular, merchants face situations that are perhaps a bit more rigid than in other countries. Is this a problem for you? What is your position?

MC. The premise that we must always make is that we, not dealing with Italian painting, may have (indeed: we have) a vision, if you like, a bit particular compared to others, because we have been less likely to encounter these problems (which are then under everyone’s eyes: we also read about them and participate in this debate), which nonetheless produce a difficult situation.

FO. Let’s say that one of the reasons why the Italian system tends to be more careful is also because most of the time we do not know, whether a work has the certificate of free movement or not, what will happen tomorrow. And so that clearly is a brake. Then, and we all know this, it is a necessary brake, in the sense that the constraint is also protection, and so it carries with it the negative side but also the positive side. Clear, though, that probably on the part of everyone, so on both sides, a more transparent attitude would help all parties involved.

MC. Then it is useless to go around it: in recent years there has been a dialectic between private and public institutions on the issue, a dialectic that was absolutely necessary to find common ground between extreme cases. Because there have been some very questionable cases of works that have come out and should not have come out, and on the other hand, however, also some objective difficulties in understanding some of the constraint decrees that have been there. So there is a situation that somehow has to be addressed and a synthesis between the parties has to be kept, otherwise it is to the detriment of everyone, including the superintendencies that need the cooperation, inevitable and also knowledge, of private individuals, and it is to the detriment of the private individuals themselves, who should not be afraid to do anything with their objects.

FO. We, however, have always found a very balanced attitude on the part of the superintendencies.

MC. Yes, we can only speak well of it. But we are making a general point. I mean: even you in Finestre Sull’Arte have dealt with some cases and you have seen how complicated it is, and that the truth is not black and white (otherwise we would end up in bar talk). What is important is for these situations to be discussed by competent people in the appropriate venues, because there are no easy solutions. Now, for example, the Antiquarian Association of Italy, for the past couple of years, has been really dealing with this issue very well, and in our opinion some good results have also been obtained, because laws are being perfected: it is necessary to find, by means of debate and circulars, a meeting point. Then for the future perhaps we need to start thinking in a more European perspective and not just Italian, French and so on.

FO. This is perhaps a political opinion, but there should be a general move toward more openness in this sense: to approach the situation as Europeans more than as Italians and to think about the European market instead of the national market. So maybe the constraints should also be reviewed from this perspective: after all, it is all of Europe, and not just Italy, where art has been produced by Western man, at least in the past centuries, and it is the place where actually that art can be enjoyed in a full and all-embracing and all-encompassing way. Also because at the present time we have such different legislation in European countries that it becomes really complicated even to understand the meaning of it. At the very least, harmonization of the protection mechanism would be needed. Then the truth is that every country has laws that were enacted in different periods, the Italian one we know is a law that has its roots in other historical moments, but perhaps we should reconsider them in light of market changes, political changes and all that is simply progress.

FG. However, you confirm to me that, compared to even just a few years ago, let’s take the pre-pandemic period as a reference, a discussion between the industry and the institutions, in this sense, has been initiated.

MC. Yes, and that’s right: this line will be continued. And we are very happy with the work that the Antiquarian Association of Italy is doing.

FG. Regarding the fair scene, in your view, how has it changed in recent years? Because again, making a comparison between pre-pandemic and post-pandemic, we have seen remarkable transformations. For example, there is much more focus on quality. Is that the case?

MC. There were too many fairs, often very expensive and perhaps unnecessary. You who go around them, you see them: there is such a calendar of fairs that if one were to go around them all, one would do absolutely nothing else. We have never been frequenters of too many fairs: we want to do a few and do them very well, also because then, in the end, the art community is always the same, so they end up going around so many fairs and seeing maybe always the same things. And that leads to a lowering of quality and also of attention, but that’s not what a fair is supposed to be. So yes, there is a change in that sense, there is a raising of quality and there is also a thinning of fairs, but we don’t see that as a negative event, in fact maybe there should be even fewer fairs, because it would mean raising the quality.

FO. After all, to prepare a fair well, and we know this since we deal with it, it takes a lot of time: you have to have the certificates of free circulation (or at least a definite situation on a painting), you have to have all the guarantees so that for the buyer there are no problems, so you need the appraisals, the studies, the reflectographs and all that pertains to it. And then in the end doing so many fairs means presenting the same objects. At that point, though, I wonder what the point is. Then we are going, we were saying before, to a stage where the market is becoming more and more careful, rightly so.

MC. Works of art are a delicate, culturally dense commodity, and everyone is calling for slow enjoyment: this whole fast food approach, this constant stress on both the people who come to the fairs and the people who sell, this is all coming to an end. It’s like in the food world, where we’re moving toward organic. The concept is the same.

FO. And it also applies to trade shows. In my opinion, BIAF is an ideal fair, with 80 or so galleries and a more or less homogeneous offer. Fairs with so many galleries and a very diverse offer confuse the buyer so much and also make it difficult to visit. On this point we have often been confronted with clients and collectors who have noted precisely this problem. Here, already the fact of having a fair that for example has a modern section and an antique section helps a lot, because the buyer can aim toward what interests him even in a more complicated landscape with so many galleries, because he goes to focus on what he wants. Think about TEFAF, which even has separate zones with the different specialties, and that helps the buyer so much and allows for a much more conscious crossover, it’s not a continuous passage that just tires the eye and the mind but becomes a much more reasoned approach.

FG. To conclude, going back to BIAF: one aspect that Secretary General Fabrizio Moretti insisted on a lot, both in his interview with me and on other occasions (for example, at the press conference for the presentation of this 33rd edition) is the value of the fair as a profoundly cultural moment. But how do we convince the public that this fair, a market exhibition where works are sold, and from which therefore many might be inclined to keep away, also has a cultural soul? How do you reconcile, in essence, the commercial soul of this fair with the cultural one?

MC. Fabrizio, from this point of view, has done a masterpiece, between conferences, statements, presentations, personalities involved. Then already only the context of the city, of Florence, favors this fair over any other event. However, it is a challenge that is won from time to time: you have to find the right balance, because on the one hand the idea remains that this is an event is for collectors. So collectors come for what? To buy. And we are here to sell. But then, just like at TEFAF, there is in fact a whole architecture dedicated to the events we have discussed so far. And what does that prove? It shows that today you cannot think of separating private reality from public interest: there is a breaking down of barriers and everything becomes more fluid, more interpenetrated. The one followed by this BIAF is a right path, then it has to be followed with class and balance, and here I think class and balance are there.

FO. Then, I would add, to make the commercial soul and the cultural soul of a fair marry, the first principle is always quality. If quality is objective, in fact the two souls already meet. The biannual cadence of the fair in this sense is a big advantage, because it allows merchants to be able to offer something actually thought out. And already the fact of having a homogeneity of offer anyway (here then we are all gallery owners who are members of the Associazione Antiquari d’Italia, which is in itself a guarantee) helps to have an offer that is important not only from a collecting point of view, but also from a cultural point of view. So how do you marry the two souls? With a thought-out offer, and this has to come first of all from the person who organizes a fair, who has to think about who has to sell, how they have to do it, and who are the subjects that have to do it, because maybe there are galleries that are less inclined to such a discourse, so the choice at the origin is important. And it’s important for the quality of the proposal and the way of exhibiting.

MC. For example, when do you ever get to see the latest Ceruti from the Padernello cycle in a fair? Presenting this work, our colleague Matteo Salamon did something that, culturally speaking, is extraordinary: everyone rushed to see that painting, which is not usually visible. And then in this exhibition there are Bronzino, Michelangelo, Bernini....

FO. There are works like Ceruti’s, which has never been questioned in any way: a work that is here, but could easily be a few meters further on, inside a museum. This is objective. And what is this if not the meeting of commercial and cultural?

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.