This week, a collection of stories about settling somewhere in the middle––for better or worse...

As an idiotic, teen-age me once learned at a desolate southside Chicago bus stop, nothing should put you on red alert faster than the assurance, "We're not going to hurt you." Some of the world's leading galleries seem to be applying this lesson to the Big Three entertainment agencies' recent, allegedly non-competitive forays into contemporary art. But are they justified in sounding the alarm? And if so, why?

This week, a bundle of stories about fresh starts, new pursuits, and next chapters...

Picture this: A highly in-demand blue-chip artist inclined toward maximalism announces an exhibition of new work in a New York gallery––only it's not the powerhouse mega-gallery that has helped propel him to international art-industry stardom. Instead, it's a single critically respected yet micro-sized space on the Lower East Side. Even stranger, the show becomes only the most recent in a series of occasional one-offs that the artist has done with other for-profit galleries right in his main representation's backyard––all with no apparent pushback whatsoever. 

From a business standpoint, what the hell is going on here? 

This week, the industry news cycle was ruled by big names making big moves––some forward, some backward...

Another week in spring, another art-market report to cringe through. On Tuesday, insurance carrier Hiscox (in conjunction with analytics firm ArtTactic) released their annual Online Art Trade Report for 2016. As the name implies, the study is meant to provide a sweeping view of e-commerce development across the industry's various market sectors. But remarkably, it also managed to produce an actual data point that made me even queasier than the methodology behind it. 

This week, a lineup of stories dominated by media outlets that rarely, if ever, appear in this space...

Throughout art history, creative progress has been something of a high-wire act. Forward-thinking artists stretch their ideas ahead to a new anchor point in the distance. Meanwhile, much of the art market holds back, clutching onto familiar content with all their strength, afraid or unsure of whether to move forward. Then a few brave souls––usually led by curators, gallerists, and private collectors––step onto the line tensed between those two terminals and tiptoe across to the new territory. Once enough of them complete the journey and call back about the wonders waiting on the other side, more conservative parties eventually work up the courage to follow. The great unknown thus becomes the next home base... and soon enough, the process repeats.

While this sequence of progress through tension is inevitable in the general sense, the specifics are often unpredictable. How long will it take for a sustainable amount of money to flow to the boundary-pushing artists? How many risk-takers and taste-makers have to buy in before the tentative patrons start to follow suit? And as art continues to evolve beyond traditional object-based media, the most crucial question of all becomes this: How does the process change when the new thing just isn't as "collectible" as the older ones?

This week, a set of stories that dig into the past and the passed-by... 
 

During my many years as a writer, I've learned that nothing is more effective at draining the sorcery out of a story than deconstructing it piece by piece. Just like a magic trick, once you start digging into the minutiae of what it is and how it's done, the thing itself tends to go from awe-inspiring to earthbound very quickly. Practicality caves in the mystery that made the narrative so powerful.

Strange as it sounds, this idea also relates to an overlooked reason that so many businesses in the art industry remain private––with Sotheby's being the exception that proves the rule.