Commentary on Aspects of Art Collecting

The present economic situation in the United States is one of stagflation — stagnant growth coupled with inflation. In addition, the US economy is in the midst of a financial crisis that threatens the stability of the entire financial system. And, unlike in most recessions, our balance of trade as well as our balance of payments continue to be negative leading to a declining value of the dollar. Currently, the rest of the world is not uniformly in the same position, but we could well find ourselves in a state of global stagflation should the recession in the US deepen.

Personal investment strategies need to adjust to take the current economic outlook into account. During periods of stagflation stocks usually decline. Bonds yield very low nominal returns. In fact, bonds currently yield negative real returns when one factors in present rates of inflation. Financial assets are therefore unattractive as well as unusually risky. This leaves real assets, and, in the short run, foreign currency.

Among real assets, the traditional major form of investment in housing and real estate holdings is unattractive, since their prices are declining precipitously, and there seems to be no end in sight. Indeed, this, together with the collateralization of mortgages and the evolution of derivatives is the basic cause of the current US financial crisis.

So, currently, the best form in which to hold savings is in tangible assets other than housing. These include, but are not limited to, precious metals, natural resources and art.

Art has exhibited a number of trends. During the past several decades, art has escalated in value. In fact, on the average, rates of returns from art have exceeded those from stocks. The biggest price increases have been for contemporary art, followed by impressionist and modern art, and by old masters.

The major names, with long established museum credentials, have withstood the test of time best and yielded the greatest price increases. Buying a nice work by an unknown artist is like going to the gambling tables in Vegas: you never know what will happen in the long run. In contrast, works by known artists of great repute have yielded the largest returns. Picasso, Chagall, Miro, Calder, Warhol, and Vasarely are just a few artists whose works come to mind.

Lastly, on a personal note, art, of course, has another advantage. Art is inspirational, and is the tangible commodity that not only increases in value but also gives visual pleasure and stimulation.

Irma Adelman, FRSA

Thomas Forsyth Hunt Chair
Professor Emerita,
University of California, Berkeley School of Agricultural Economics
Fellow Royal Society of Arts and Commerce, London
Fellow Royal Society of Arts and Commerce
Fellow American Academy of Sciences, Washington, D

Why do we feel collecting lifetime impressions are important?
Several other art dealers and auction houses will inform the buyer of only the state designation for the print (seemingly comparing the state to a badge of authenticity). The critical information is whether the print was produced during the artist’s lifetime. A later state impression may exhibit NONE of artist’s original work, by the artist’s hand; the subtlety, quality, detail, or characteristics that a lifetime impression would possess are lost. I know I am out of sync with many dealers and auction houses on this, but I will explain further why I feel state discrepancies are important to address in Old Masters.

Please note: The study of old master prints is very complex and connoisseurs can spend a lifetime becoming an expert on just one artist. I seek to continually advance my own scholarship of such areas, becoming knowledgeable in all aspects of printmaking and Old Master prints.

Why is Masterworks Fine Art, Inc. concerned about lifetime impressions?
Lifetime impressions (also known as contemporary printings or impressions) are prints that were produced during the artist’s lifetime. This is in contrast to prints produced after the artist died (e.g. re-strikes).

What is so important about lifetime impressions?
An etching plate, for example, lasts maybe 100-150 impressions before it needs to be re-worked or re-etched (leading to secondary or tertiary states or more). Otherwise, the impression from that plate becomes grey because the lines do not hold ink as the plate has been worn from the printing process. As a plate gets re-etched by the printmaker over time, there is less and less of the artist’s hand present.

An etching is made by scratching a sharp object into a copper surface, or plate. When the line is scratched in, it produces raised elements of copper “shavings” that are displaced by the scraping of the line into the plate. This is known as burr. If burr is present, it means the print was made from an early impression of that state of the plate, further implying the artist’s involvement in the creation of the print.

In the case of Rembrandt van Rijn (1606 – 1669) for example, by the time of Jean, a collector of Rembrandt’s plates in the early 19th century, there is, in general, little of Rembrandt’s hand left in the etching…. I personally feel that these works are not very collectible.

What is a state?
The proofs taken while the artist is working on the plate, stone, etc. to check different stages of his progress are known as states; each one showing additional working constitutes a different state. The last one is said to be the definitive state (or proof). [Ref. Melot, M. et. al. (1981) History of an Art: PRINTS, Editions d’Art Albert Skira S.A.: Geneva]

Aren’t all impressions after the 1st state considered late impressions?
I believe this presumption to be incorrect, especially when making global assessments of Rembrandt’s works. Many of the artist’s etchings are found in many states - up to 10 or more. Comparatively, some prints are only found in one state. Rembrandt, and presumably several other printmakers and artists, may have worked and re-worked his plates over time; each time a plate was re-worked, it would create a new state. The expertise used to distinguish these various states has been the subject of many argumentative books and discussions.

Do catalogues of Rembrandt’s works necessarily correspond with one another for etching and state designations?
No, these designations / assessments vary from catalogue to catalogue of Rembrandt’s etchings, depending on the author or scholar. The following list of catalogues are included in the library at Masterworks Fine Art, Inc:

1) Nowell-Usticke, G.W., Rembrandt’s Etchings, 1967 or 1988 re-print.
2) Biörklund, George, Rembrandt’s Etchings: True and False, 1968
3) White, Christopher and Boon, Karel, Rembrandt’s Etchings, Vol. 1 & 2, 1969
4) Hind, Arthur, A Catalogue of Rembrandt’s Etchings, 1967

Some go by Nowell-Usticke’s system, some Hind, some Biörklund, and some Bartsch. Occasionally these catalogues correspond, however there are also some discrepancies. I consider Nowell-Usticke’s catalogue as a good basis to start referencing Rembrandt’s works, but I then compare the other catalogues (especially Biörklund) for more detailed information.

What should I collect?
It is my opinion, that the only collectible Rembrandt prints are those that were produced during Rembrandt’s lifetime, between 1606 and 1669; presumably these were created by his own hand. Almost all of the works by Rembrandt available at Masterworks Fine Art, Inc. are considered to be lifetime impressions, although we have some later editions available (in general, they will be from a 17th century or very early 18th century edition).

Heard about Rembrandt editions being pulled every hundred years?
More than 85 original plates survived Rembrandt’s death (some of these have been deemed copies or student work). These plates have become the reference from which later editions have been made. The concept of producing editions every 100 years is silly. I find Rembrandt prints editioned within the last 100 years are simply not collectible. These late impressions bear little, if any, of Rembrandt’s original work because these plates have been re-worked to allow new editions to be made.

Answers to questions about original and/or unique prints are fairly subjective. There are various levels of originality within the field of printmaking, rendering a print’s classification to be complex; an equally complex explanation is necessary in order for our buyers to discern their tastes and objectives when collecting prints.

I will focus this discussion on the works by Pablo Picasso (1881 – 1973) as I consider him to be one of the most prolific and innovative printmakers of our time.

As mentioned earlier, there are many levels of originality in prints – the works created by Picasso are no exception. Picasso created many different forms of prints in varying mediums. Etchings, aquatints, linocuts, lithographs and ceramics were editioned under his direction and were made to his specifications. His physical involvement varied from work to work, but his creative input was never compromised. I consider any print authorized by Picasso (evidenced by his hand signature or his creation of the plates) to be an original work.

A few prints from the series titled the Barcelona Suite are featured at Masterworks Fine Art, Inc. published by the Museo Picasso in 1966. All works from this edition are offset lithographs, hand signed and authorized by Picasso as evidence of his approval for each print that was produced.

Another printer that Picasso worked with was Guy Spitzer who also helped produce offset lithographs featuring unique, hand-applied stencil coloring. I consider the prints by Spitzer to be quite nice – each have notations on the reverse of the sheet, stating their unique piece number and edition size; this is viewed as one of the earliest examples of official documentation for each print, similar to a certificate of authenticity.

Prints made in collaboration with printmaker Aldo Crommelynck are perhaps the most beautiful works ever created by Picasso (their inherent textural qualities and the depth of color is enhanced when viewed in person). In my opinion, the series by Crommelynck is better than the prints created from plates which Picasso made himself.

I think the major differences should be considered with the artist’s involvement with the printing process, and the level of originality of the process employed.