arts

Article
Philosophic Money. The Contemporary Art System as
a Market and Cultural Agent
Stefano Baia Curioni *, Marta Equi Pierazzini * and Laura Forti *
ASK—Art, Science & Knowledge Research Centre, Università Commerciale L. Bocconi, 20100 Milan, Italy
* Correspondence: stefano.baia@unibocconi.it (S.B.C.); marta.equipierazzini@unibocconi.it (M.E.P.);
laura.forti@unibocconi.it (L.F.)
!"#!$%&'(!
Received: 25 August 2020; Accepted: 27 October 2020; Published: 2 November 2020 !"#$%&'

Abstract: Within the contemporary art system complex, constantly-changing cultural features coexist
with stratified acts of dealing. The art market operates as a collective mediation structure, developing
a multiple agency: financial and economic, educational, political and social. In this article, we o↵er
the result of an empirical test dedicated to the identification of unseen changes in the informal
organizational pattern of the market. Observing the behavior of selected samples, we focused, firstly,
on the networks of artists and commercial galleries at the Art Basel fair; and, secondly, on the group
and solo shows organized by a relevant sample of international contemporary art museums and
exhibitions spaces. These analyses o↵er an insight into the changes that occurred from 2005 to
2013, encompassing the quantitative growth of the art system infrastructure and the e↵ects of the
crisis of 2008.

Keywords: contemporary art system; informal organization; change

1. Premises
Complexity is a structural predicate of the contemporary art system (Danto 1964; Dickie 2000).1
Its elusive character evades e↵orts to provide a single definition and challenges most attempts to
outline a clear and stable picture.
The contemporary art system is also a market, and since the 1970s2 it has been studied as such by
a large number of scholars. A great many agents operate in this market, encompassing a wide range of
activities that support a fast-growing and progressively globalized trade in artworks. It is a market that
has proved capable of bringing significant flows of capital from the financial market into the art world as
an alternative form of investment (Pesando 1993; Mei and Moses 2002; Renneboog and Spaenjers 2013).
It is a market in which the supply chain currently o↵ers a large and ever-increasing variety of goods:

1 The art system is an institutional environment that encompasses a multiplicity of di↵erent actors in many di↵erent regions
of the planet. This world traditionally includes artists, museums, galleries, fairs, auction houses, exhibition spaces, dealers,
curators, art historians, activists, independent spaces, art magazines, art publishers, press agents, academic and non-academic
art schools, research institutes, and departments of philosophy, economics and management, art, cultural and curatorial
studies in di↵erent faculties. Its boundaries are indistinct and unstable. It is difficult to say what is “in” and what is “out”
and why, but the consequences of being included or excluded are tangible.
2 The art market became a relevant subject matter for research in the 1970s with Raymonde Moulin’s seminal and precious
contribution (Moulin [1967] 1989). We are limited here to mention the framing of the contemporary art system in economic
terms, but of course the relation between the cultural and economic sphere is more articulated, being historically-layered,
complex and multidirectional. Especially during the 1980s, a double-sided process of economization of the arts and culturalization
of the economy took place (Velthuis 2009). This process entailed not only the identification of arts as financial and luxury
assets and of artists as superstars, but also the rising attention of the economic sphere to cultural processes, leveraging on the
symbolic sphere and the construction of imaginaries (Sacco 2009). An example is the rising of culture-led urban regeneration
processes and, in the 1990s, the integration of cultural interventions (urban design and architecture, events, public art) in
“traditional” interventions such as economical and infrastructural redevelopments (Evans 2003; Grodach 2013).

Arts 2020, 9, 110; doi:10.3390/arts9040110 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts

Arts 2020, 9, 110 2 of 18

paintings, sculptures, drawings, writings, books, prints, photos, videos, performances, memories and
archives, relics, and objects of various kinds. As in many other markets, its trade activities respond to
di↵erent needs and consumer behaviors: symbolic capital acquisition, financial risk hedging, cultural
or aesthetic passion, pleasure, and political activism (Bourdieu [1979] 1984).
A quick glance at the last two decades clearly indicates that one of the most impressive features of
the contemporary art system is its quantitative growth. This dynamic can be easily detected looking at
the market dimension of the system. In 2000, there were approximately 55 established international art
fairs while in 2018 there were close to 300 of them (Baia Curioni 2012; McAndrews 2018, 2019). In the
same year, the overall value of sales was estimated to have reached 16.5 billion dollars.
Auction sales tripled from 2000 to 2007, reaching 33 billion dollars before the reduction in activity
following the 2008 crisis. In 2018, the overall volume was 29 billion dollars, driven in particular by the
high end of the market featuring works priced at over 10 million. The fast-growing online market
reached an estimated 6 billion dollars and an average 11% growth in six years. The global exchanges
recorded in 2018 amounted to 67.4 billion dollars, with an advanced sales value of 9% in 10 years and
40 million in transactions. An impressive 310,000 businesses are estimated to operate in the art market,
employing close to 3 million people, with a 20 billion turnover and 375,000 additional jobs in external
support (McAndrews 2019) but this expansion is not only happening in the market infrastructure.
The large number of Contemporary Art Museums that have been built and opened since the beginning
of the 1990s—a number that strongly increased in the early 2000s3 —shows how the growth involved
the overall structures of the contemporary art world. Quantity is not quality, but a quantitative shift
of this size needs to be understood not only as a mere infrastructural transformation but also as a
cultural challenge. This seems particularly true considering that the art market is a peculiar kind
of market: a market that participates in a system that transforms the very nature and function of
the object being traded. We are not referring here to the Marxian notion of use value as opposed to
exchange value, which is the transformative function of every market even if very narrowly defined
(Adorno [1938] 2002), but rather to the art market’s capacity to change the intimate cultural nature
of goods altogether through the acts of selling and appreciating them (Moulin [1967] 1989, p. 12).4
The relation is bidirectional: the late 20th-century art history shows that everything, every good and
every tangible formal representation can be considered an artwork if placed in the right context of
narrative and institutions.
Symmetrically, anthropologists tell us that every artwork, even the holiest and most representative, can
potentially acquire the status of a mere commodity, whether temporarily or permanently (Appadurai 1986).
The results of many different top-end auctions offer a clear example of this trajectory: the artworks,
even the rarest and the most celebrated become commodities traded for sound and often—though
not always—legitimate speculative reasons, without necessarily losing their auratic dimension
(Benjamin 2013).5 Beyond the rhetoric of the so-called “genius”6 and even beyond the significance

3 See for example Guerzoni (2014) for an investigation upon museum opening and extensions between 1995 and 2012. Yet are
no standard statistics on the number of contemporary art museums at the global level. There is strong evidence that a large
number of new contemporary art museums have been created in emerging countries (China, Russia in particular) in the last
couple of decades, in the same years many institutions moved into new landmark buildings or were created in di↵erent
western cities pulled by the di↵usion of cultural policies aimed at fostering the attractiveness and the creative scene of
the cities.
4 In her early work on the French art market, Raymonde Moulin noted that: “La haute dignité reconnue à l’art par notre
société constitue l’endroit d’un systeme dont l’envers est la commercialisation de l’art: le marché des tableaux est le lien de
cette secrète alchimie que opère la transmutation d’un bien de culture en merchandise”.
5 Here we use the notion of “aura” in the sense suggested by Walter Benjamin: an irreducible distance that induces worship.
6 Regarding this issue, see De Nora (1995). A critique of the rhetoric of genius along with the discourse on greatness and its
implication has of course been developed by feminist art history and criticism; notably one of the first endeavors in this
direction is represented by the seminal work by (Nochlin [1971] 1988). Evidently, the field had developed greatly and with
many nuances since the 1970s; we just mention here some more recent works that build upon and recognize the centrality
of Nochlin’s work, for example Armstrong and De Zegher (2006) and Heartney et al. (2013), in terms of scholarship,
and Butler and Mark (2007); Morineau (2009), in terms of curating and exhibitions practices. Although the American realm
has been particularly active, especially in the dawning moment of feminist art criticism, and has been a context where
Arts 2020, 9, 110 3 of 18

established by art historians, the hammered prices of artworks may rise on the basis of perfectly cynical
and narrow financial strategies (Thompson 2008), or as the result of calculated strategies of symbolic
capital acquisition (Bourdieu [1979] 1984). In this game, the prices themselves and their dynamics are
part of the prestige and symbolic life of the artwork and thereby acquire specific cultural meanings
(Velthuis 2003).
These figures and their implications have been scrutinized and discussed quite often. The tension
between the fragile meaningfulness of individual art practices and the “arbitrariness” of a volatile,
powerful, and collective market represents a conundrum to be debated over the last 50 years and a
challenging topic for art historians.
The work of an artist cannot be conceived as a “standard” market-oriented practice (Bourdieu 1996).7
At the same time, the market dimension of the art system seems to maintain a specific cultural role
which is not only due to its significant influence on the artists’ careers and on their capacity to sustain
their professional choices. The market dimension produces specific narratives and may also influence
the behavior of art institutions (like museums and art schools).
In this article, we assume that this tension—and the way in which it has been conceptualized—o↵ers
a fertile point of view for interpreting the history of the so-called contemporary art system: a history of
the ideological and organizational way in which the hyper-mobilized civilization of the 20th century
included, and somehow also neutralized, the “revolutionary” independence of poetic knowledge.
We decided to focus our attention on a specific, globalized, segment of the market dimension
of the system, in order to o↵er an evidence-based contribution on its behaviors. At the same time,
we considered the “art market” in a perspective that encompasses the economic and the cultural
dimension of the exchanges.
A multiplicity of imaginaries and functions coexisting within the same act of dealing is nothing new
for art historians and social scientists, and it is certainly not a characteristic exclusive to contemporary
art markets.8 The linguistic and symbolic dimension of human agency gives rise to the possibility that
any act of mediation implies representation and interpretation and, therefore, the transformation of
the object, with the latter potentially acquiring di↵erent meanings in di↵erent contexts and formats
of perception.
What is interesting from our perspective is the process through which this cultural and
transformative function of the contemporary art system and market is institutionalized, and how its
trajectory may be changing. The art system’s agency, unfolding as a mediating practice9 enforced by
specific institutional frameworks, exceeds the traditional economic definition of markets10 and paves
the way for extending the very concept and function of markets beyond their agency centered on
dealing and the efficient allocation of resources.

some experiences connected to the visual arts were crucial to the subsequent unfolding of the feminist reflection in art
at a global level (Butler and Mark 2007), other geopolitical contexts have had their own stories of engagement with the
problematic issue of marginalization of women in the art field. For example, In Italy a crucial thinker on these matters has
been Carla Lonzi, an art historian and feminist theorist devoted to staking out critical practices of engagement with artists as
individuals stripped of their aura as autonomous and creative geniuses (Lonzi 1969; Iamurri 2016; Zapperi 2017), and to
debunking the cultural myth of the artist also in daily life practices (Lonzi 1980).
7 The relationship between the contemporary art system as a whole and the art market has been traditionally complex and,
often, also oppositional.
8 The notion of “imaginary” is intended as a social force within global cultural processes, able to create collective meaning
(Appadurai 1996; Castoriadis 1987).
9 In this text we use the expression “mediating practice” to refer to processes of circulation and translation of ideas, meanings,
resources and values in the art system. We are inspired here by the tradition of works in organization and management
studies that—building on the sociology of Latour (1984)—mobilize the concept of translation to account for a process of
spreading institutional elements Czarniawska and Joerges (1996); Czarniawska and Sevón (1996), with translation in this
case referring to a type of reciprocal, non-unidirectional work in which what is translated is transformed and modified
according to the new context and settings (Sahlin-Andersson 1996).
10 North (1990) has defined markets as institutionally defined “baskets of rules” aimed at creating the most efficient (least
expensive and most accessible) conditions for bringing together the demand and supply of any merchandise.
Arts 2020, 9, 110 4 of 18

The art system can be studied as a market, cultural engine, and civilizational attractor.11
The coexistence of these dimensions is a core feature that is reflected in the social agency of art
practices and in the overall social relevance of the arts.

2. The Art Market and Its Multiple Agencies

To understand an extremely large and complex social phenomenon such as the art system, it proves
useful to adopt a practice-based perspective (Nicolini 2012) in which social phenomena are conceived as
routinized performances mobilizing the bodily, social, discursive, and material dimensions (Nicolini 2017).
By approaching it as a constellation of practices, defined as “regimes of a mediated object-oriented
performance of organized sets of sayings and doings” (Nicolini 2017, p. 21), it is possible to assess
and describe its features in a processual and multi-layered way and, in the same vein, to advocate
for a processual and performative understanding of institutional and organizational phenomena
(Czarniawska 2014). Keeping with this perspective, we observed the patterns of forms of agency that
make up the art system, o↵ering a possible and emergent description of it rather than proposing an
ex ante definition based on the above-mentioned traditional dualism between market-oriented and
cultural-oriented views of the system.
The type of work enacted through this agency, producing and reproducing the system, could be
conceptualized as a part of the cultural public sphere, as a component of the educational sphere, or as
a part of the economic and financial sphere (See Figure 1).
Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

Figure 1. Forms of art system agencies.

Figure 1. Forms of art system agencies.
3. Is the Role of Art Market Changing?
The overall contemporary dimensions of the art world and its relatively fast growth since the
11 The evidence of the cultural function of market is established also since the fundamental works
early 2000s represent an unprecedented historic innovation. Some scholars see this of Sapori (1982) and later of
quantitative
Braudel (1993) on theasrelevance
dynamic the frameofinthe Mediterranean
which mercantile
an organizational exchanges
transition inplace,
is taking the early
withEuropean Renaissance. This feature
the dealer–collector
today is common to di↵erent
relationship luxurythe
displacing or symbolic good
dealer–critic markets
one as the (fashion
prevailingandform
design in particular).
evaluating contemporary
artworks and artists.12
The consequences of this transition seem to be significant in that the dealers/collectors pairing
suggests the image of an art world essentially dominated by market-driven choices that take the place
of theoretical, curatorial, and art historical appraisals of artworks.13

12 The role of the dealer–critic relationship as a key and innovative feature of the Avantgarde-based art system
Arts 2020, 9, 110 5 of 18

The coexistence of these di↵erent layers is crucial for the reproduction of contemporary art in
modern societies. Although the various stakeholders may perceive only a limited number of these
facets, their entanglement defines and frames the legitimacy of the experience and practice of art in
contemporary societies.
Keeping with this perspective, we introduce here the idea of viewing the system as a bundle of
agencies and practices. We o↵er a possible preliminary classification of the system, that is, we approach
it with a view to scaling down its complexity.
Secondly, we present in the following part of the essay the results of a longitudinal study
exploring some of the microstructures—conceived as repeated organizational patterns—that support
the reproduction of this multi-layered set of features focusing on the relationships between market
institutions and museums.

3. Is the Role of Art Market Changing?

The overall contemporary dimensions of the art world and its relatively fast growth since the early
2000s represent an unprecedented historic innovation. Some scholars see this quantitative dynamic as
the frame in which an organizational transition is taking place, with the dealer–collector relationship
displacing the dealer–critic one as the prevailing form evaluating contemporary artworks and artists.12
The consequences of this transition seem to be significant in that the dealers/collectors pairing
suggests the image of an art world essentially dominated by market-driven choices that take the place
of theoretical, curatorial, and art historical appraisals of artworks.13
Significantly enough, Seth Siegelaub, one of the most relevant and creative representatives of art
marketing practices in the New York scene during the 1970s, organized his last provocation at Art
Basel 2013 by vigorously questioning the integrity of the art system as a field of cultural production.14
In this paper, considering the complexity and stratification of the art system, we develop the
hypothesis that over the past few years the system has operated through dealer–critic and dealer–collector
relationships simultaneously, without being dominated by a specific pattern.
The informative “smallness” of the art system implies continuous contact and information flows
among actors operating at di↵erent levels. At the same time, the hierarchical structure of the system
implies that there are deep informational asymmetries between actors.
What we try to show is that the main line of tension is therefore between insiders and outsiders—as
defined by Kindleberger (1991)—or, more precisely, between di↵erent categories of insiders and
outsiders operating in the system. Each of these categories includes collectors, artists, gallerists, dealers,
and institutions with both dealing and cultural roles.
Their game is informal; it is comprised of professional credibility, financial interests, friendships,
alliances, marriages, tacit knowledge, social status, tastes, and habitus that together give rise to a
multidimensional network of volatile and interconnected practices. Within this loose-knit network,
a few stable relational and organizational forms can be identified. Their function is to o↵er stability

12 The role of the dealer–critic relationship as a key and innovative feature of the Avantgarde-based art system has been
suggested by White and White (1965); the idea of dealer–collector dominance has been suggested by Graw (2012),
among others.
13 One initial consequence is the convergence of the art and luxury markets and the subsequent evidence that a painting, even
a renowned piece of world art history (not to mention an average good work), constitutes a fungible asset (Graw 2012). Such
artwork is personal property, not di↵erent from a Ferrari or a luxury home, eventually privatized and made inaccessible to
the public until the next sale. This idea powerfully fuels some stellar auction prices for modern-contemporary art pieces,
privatizing the very making of art history as a supreme form of lux.
14 “What makes a great artist? What makes a great artwork? Beauty? Emotion? Content? Originality? Novelty? Chance?
Sensitivity? Genius? Rarity? Price? Who defines this value and how are these judgements made? Curators? Art Historians?
Critics? Artists? Art dealers? Collectors? Museums? How is Art History made? What are the underlying mechanisms and
roles? Are they the same everywhere in all times, in all societies, in all periods? How do you think Art History is made?”
These were the questions raised by Seth Siegelaub in Art Basel Conversations in 2013.
Arts 2020, 9, 110 6 of 18

and resilience to the system as a whole while at the same time regulating and exploiting the di↵erences
among actors and between sets of available information.15
However, these informal organizational patterns do not necessarily remain the same over time.
Exogenous shocks—such as the dimensional growth of the system or the consequences of a global
financial crisis—might produce unforeseen changes, eventually transforming not only the system’s
market practices but its overall forms of agency and, therefore, the ultimate meaning of art practices in
our societies.

4. Materials and Methods

The research presented in this article is designed in an attempt to address some of these questions
by constructing and assembling di↵erent databases. The first such database charts the galleries and
artists that showed at Art Basel in the eight years from 2005 to 201316 ; the second includes the activities
(collective and solo exhibits) of 35 contemporary international art museums and exhibition spaces in
the same span of years17 ; and a third outlines the auction prices of a selected set of artists from 2005 to
2019.18
These sets of information allow us to take an initial empirical and descriptive look at some common,
stable organizational structures, focusing in particular on the behaviors of galleries and museums.
More precisely, we decided to follow up on some of the choices made by a specific set of world
galleries—the ones included in the Art Basel fair from 2005 to 2013—and to use the choices made by a
sample of contemporary international art museums during the same time period as a control group.
Using the information o↵ered by the Art Basel fair, we collected the names and demographic data of
all the artists that exhibited at the fair. Through the websites, we collected information about all the
group and solo exhibitions curated by each museum included in the sample.
We focused on the behaviors of galleries and museums in order to understand if and how the
quantitative shock of the last 20 years has produced a detectable change in the art system’s informal
but stable constituencies, and in what direction.
The choice of the time span (2005–2013) allows us to consider four years of infrastructural market
growth (2005–2008) and five years (2009–2013) in which the system reacted to the massive 2008 financial
crisis, eventually recovering from its main short-term e↵ects.
Our empirical observation was divided into three parts.

• In the first, we considered the world of galleries, identifying regular patterns in their operations.
• In the second, we concentrated on museums, looking at the specific features of their behavior.
• In the third, we focused on some overlaps and interactions between these two di↵erent institutions.
• In the conclusion, we present and discuss the empirical evidence collected.

5. The Art Basel Galleries

Galleries act as market agents even if they are not pure dealing agents. Galleries represent
specific artists, promote and sell their works through exhibits, catalogs, events, and often operate as
trustworthy advisors for important collectors. The definition of gallery encompasses institutions that

15 Richard (2009) invaluable work on the di↵usion of conceptual art in Germany during the 1970s identifies a very interesting
example of a long-term informal, stable alliance.
16 Art Basel dataset: We collected data on all the galleries that participated in Art Basel between 2005 and 2013 and data on the
artists presented every year by each gallery, thereby building a unique dataset on the basis of the fair’s original annual
catalogues. We developed a longitudinal database of the portfolios of 508 galleries, their reciprocal connection and overlaps,
and of indicators of the visibility of more than 7300 artists, mapping their mutual relations. We excluded the “Edition”
section in the recognition that the market of printed multiples displays di↵erent dynamics.
17 Museums and exhibition spaces dataset: We selected a sample of 35 international contemporary art museums and exhibition
spaces, chosen according to their cultural significance on the basis of qualitative interviews with contemporary art curators.
The database comprises information on 9005 artists, 16,947 group shows and 1948 solo shows from 2005 to 2013.
18 Auction prices dataset: We charted auction sales prices for a selection of the artists included in the previous datasets.
Arts 2020, 9, 110 7 of 18

vary greatly in terms of dimensions, centrality, and financial and organizational capacities. One of the
most striking trends in recent years is the tendency for galleries to become polarized, with a small
number of huge, multinational, primary, and secondary market galleries (such as Gagosian, Hauser &
Wirth) on one side and all the rest on the other side. The rest are composed of international or national
small to medium-sized galleries. The distinction between secondary and primary market galleries
that used to be important is now much less clear-cut. With few exceptions, galleries are relatively
small firms and represent a limited number of artists in a primary and secondary market perspective.
Their sustainability is based on a combination of short-term operations (selling artworks to cover the
company’s upfront costs) and medium long-term operations (sustaining, controlling, and increasing
the artists’ value and status). There is a high level of investment and sunk costs for each artist included
in each gallery roster, and galleries thus tend to concentrate on a relatively small number of trusted
relationships with artists.
Art Basel is the most well-established contemporary art fair at the global level and over the
last 20 years was the fair that attracted the wealthiest collectors, representing an opportunity for
participating galleries to cover a significant part (from the 30% to the 50%) of their annual sales. This is
why a large number of galleries apply for admission each year, giving rise to lengthy waiting lists.
A small number of galleries that are already members decide on admission through a co-optative
mechanism. Although the member galleries do employ di↵erent strategies, a common feature in Basel
is that the artworks exhibited there are the ones with the best chances of being sold.
In order to develop an overview of the galleries’ behaviors, we decided to consider the panel of
all the galleries admitted to Basel from 2005 to 2013.
Table 1 provides a clear picture of the population of galleries admitted to Basel in the period under
consideration (2005–2013).

Table 1. Number and rotation of galleries at the Art Basel fair.

Galleries 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Number 256 280 288 291 289 285 287 284 284
% Variation - 9% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%
In 1 - 49 43 46 45 40 47 44 41
Out 2 - 25 35 43 47 44 45 47 41
Rotation 3 - 29% 28% 31% 32% 29% 32% 32% 29%
1 The galleries that did not take part in the fair the year before. 2 Galleries that were in the fair the year before and
are not listed in the year in question. 3 Rotation is the overall mobility ratio: (Incoming + Outgoing)/Total galleries.

The overall distribution of incoming and outgoing galleries is stable as is the overall rotation of
the group.
Of the 508 galleries admitted during these nine years, 191 (38%) were stable participants in the
fair (eight or nine times) while 96 (19%) were admitted for only one year.19 The number of galleries
that are admitted for only one year remains stable over time (Table 2).

Table 2. Number of galleries admitted to Art Basel for only one year.

Galleries 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
In/Out 1 year - 12 11 19 13 11 16 14 -
Percentage - 4% 4% 7% 4% 4% 6% 5% -
All 256 280 288 291 289 285 287 284 284

19 Calculated excluding the first and the last year of the sample.
Arts 2020, 9, 110 8 of 18

As shown in Table 3, the number of artists included in the Art Basel galleries’ roster increased
significantly in 2006 and 2008 before stabilizing, and the overall rotation of artists (number of new
incoming and old outgoing) tended to decrease in the last part of the period.

Table 3. Number of artists at the Art Basel fair.

Artists 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Number 2966 3313 3338 3748 3883 3810 3944 4037 4093
% Variation - 12% 1% 12% 4% 2% 4% 2% 1%
Incoming 1 - 825 668 987 828 623 770 798 707
Outgoing 2 - 478 643 577 693 696 636 705 651
Rotation 3 - 39% 39% 42% 39% 35% 36% 37% 33%
1Artists that were not included in the fair list the year before. 2 Artists that were in the fair the year before and are
not listed in the year in question. 3 Rotation is the overall mobility ratio: (Incoming + Outgoing)/Total artists.

Considering only the 155 galleries that were admitted for all nine years—the ones that make
up the true backbone of the fair—the artists that were included in more than 10 rosters are eight
highly-established names, among whom Andy Warhol has maintained a dominant position (Table 4).

Table 4. Artists included in at least 10 rosters of the stable galleries (included for nine years).

Artists 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Andy Warhol 22 21 22 23 24 21 21 18 19
Picasso 17 15 17 14 15 13 14 15 14
Sol LeWitt 12 16 13 11 14 13 14 14 13
Alexander Calder 13 12 14 11 12 13 12 13 14
Lucio Fontana 11 12 13 14 11 10 13 12 11
Joan Miró 12 11 12 11 12 12 12 10 10
Jean Dubu↵et 12 13 11 9 9 10 12 12 13
Donald Judd 10 9 9 12 13 12 14 12 10

A stable cohort of artists that appeared in the art fair’s rosters at least for seven years out of the
nine possible years (48% of the total, see Table 5) surrounds this core group.

Table 5. Artists’ inclusion in the galleries’ rosters.

From 7 (included) to 9 years 1899 48%

From 3 (included) to 7 years 1121 28%
Fewer than 3 years 976 24%
Total 3996 100%

There were only 976 artists who appeared only one or two years (24% of the total). These figures
indicate that the stable galleries representing the “structural backbone” of the fair from 2005 to 2013
concentrate their actions on the same group of 1900 artists. Only 24% of their portfolios vary more
widely in terms of artists on o↵er.
Another relevant finding is that, if an artist is included in more than two rosters, his or her ability
to remain at Basel for a longer time changes: 95% of the artists included in two or more rosters show a
duration of seven to nine years. This percentage falls to 39% for those who were represented by an average
of fewer than two galleries. The interpretation of these figures is not univocal: Basel is a highly-selective
Arts 2020, 9, 110 9 of 18

environment, and once an artist has been included and shown, the gallery environments tend to keep
him or her for many years.20
This tendency toward a stable set of artists increased after the 2008 financial crisis. We calculated
the portfolio rotation21 of the Basel galleries considering the artists that are eliminated and the ones
Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
that are included in each roster and found that this index decreased after 2008 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Galleries’ portfolio rotation.

Figure 2. Galleries’ portfolio rotation.
After the financial crisis, the galleries apparently concentrated on the same artists they had
After the financial crisis, the galleries apparently concentrated on the same artists they had
presented at previous editions of the fair, reducing the number of changes. This attitude indicates a
presented at previous editions of the fair, reducing the number of changes. This attitude indicates a
risk reduction strategy adopted widely among the Basel galleries (as indicated by the reduction of the
risk reduction strategy adopted widely among the Basel galleries (as indicated by the reduction of
standard deviation of the rotation).
the standard deviation of the rotation).
6. Contemporary Art Museums and Exhibition Spaces
6. Contemporary Art Museums and Exhibition Spaces
Museums work as cultural agents. They operate by acquiring and preserving collections, through
Museums
research work as and
and publishing, cultural agents. They
by mobilizing operate
di↵erent by acquiring
audiences and mediaand outlets
preserving collections,
(events, online
through research and publishing, and by mobilizing different audiences and media
platforms, exhibits, talks, educational programs, zines, etc.). Their purposes might vary depending outlets (events,
on
online platforms, exhibits,
the founders’ mission statements. talks, educational programs, zines, etc.). Their purposes might vary
depending
From a on the founders’
market perspective,mission
theirstatements.
sets of actions might be compared to that of “rating” agencies:
From aby
acquisition market perspective,
a museum their setsinofaactions
or exhibition solo ormight be compared
collective show can to be
thatconsidered
of “rating”aagencies:
sign of
acquisition by a museum or exhibition in
reputation-building for an artist and his or her works.a solo or collective show can be considered a sign of
reputation-building for an artist and his or her works.
For our research, we selected a sample of 35 contemporary art museums and exhibition spaces
For our
operating research,
in 15 nations,we selected
listed a sample
in Table 6. of 35 contemporary art museums and exhibition spaces
operating in 15 nations, listed in Table 6.

20
Table 6. Contemporary art museums and exhibition spaces in our sample.
The inclusion of an artist in a gallery’s roster may depend on various factors: it can be the consequence of a long-lasting
relationship or a short-term opportunity.
Museums In general terms,
Country this inclusion
Artists Groupcan be considered
Shows SoloaShows
sign of the %
artist’s
Soloreputation.
Shows
The fact of being shown by more than one gallery increases the intensity of this sign (Karpik 2010; Baia Curioni et al. 2015).
21 Mumok Austria 483 629 51 8%
Index portfolio rotation is defined as the sum of discontinuities (new artists in or old artists out), considered in percentage of
MuHKA Belgium
the portfolio of each gallery. Artists who were presented558 664are excluded. 28
for only one year 4%
MAC Niterói Brazil 65 35 34 49%
MAM São Paulo Brazil 100 80 31 28%
RAM China 46 41 5 11%
UCCA China 564 566 63 10%
MSU Zagreb Croatia 692 876 63 7%
Kiasma Finland 319 330 25 7%
Centre Pompidou France 912 1214 100 8%
MAC Lyon France 398 395 39 9%
Frankfurter Kunstverein Germany 439 431 30 7%
Fridericianum (Documenta) Germany 291 295 1 0%
Hamburger Bahnhof Germany 216 256 48 16%
Kunst-Werke Germany 816 935 29 3%
Arts 2020, 9, 110 10 of 18

Table 6. Contemporary art museums and exhibition spaces in our sample.

Museums Country Artists Group Shows Solo Shows % Solo Shows

Mumok Austria 483 629 51 8%
MuHKA Belgium 558 664 28 4%
MAC Niterói Brazil 65 35 34 49%
MAM São Paulo Brazil 100 80 31 28%
RAM China 46 41 5 11%
UCCA China 564 566 63 10%
MSU Zagreb Croatia 692 876 63 7%
Kiasma Finland 319 330 25 7%
Centre Pompidou France 912 1214 100 8%
MAC Lyon France 398 395 39 9%
Frankfurter Kunstverein Germany 439 431 30 7%
Fridericianum (Documenta) Germany 291 295 1 0%
Hamburger Bahnhof Germany 216 256 48 16%
Kunst-Werke Germany 816 935 29 3%
Ludwig Germany 570 704 42 6%
IMMA Ireland 408 520 84 14%
Castello di Rivoli Italy 325 442 30 6%
MAMbo Italy 343 360 44 11%
MART Italy 481 568 58 9%
Mori Art Museum Japan 687 716 27 4%
MUAC Mexico 266 270 38 12%
Stedeljik Netherlands 416 452 61 12%
Witte de Width Netherlands 216 199 32 14%
MACBA Spain 380 512 52 9%
MNCARS Spain 1010 1047 135 11%
Magasin III Sweden 183 207 29 12%
Moderna Museet Sweden 717 758 113 13%
Kunsthalle Zürich Switzerland 64 32 39 55%
Baltic U.K. 247 160 110 41%
Tate Modern U.K. 419 373 101 21%
LACMA USA 198 171 45 21%
MCA Chicago USA 697 841 131 13%
New Museum USA 606 646 51 7%
PS1 USA 865 915 90 9%
SFMOMA USA 323 307 89 22%
Total 15,320 1 16,947 1948 14%
1 There are 9005 artists in the museum dataset, but many of them are exhibited at more than one institution.

The star system has a perceptible influence on the museum environment, and indeed the
10 most-exhibited artists of the period are shown in Table 7.22

22 The imbalance in terms of representation of male and female artists highlighted by Tables 4 and 7 could not be more striking.
Indeed, previous studies have already shown how the overall representation of female artists in the Basel setting (2005–2012)
is extremely low: women artists represented only 27% of the total and European and North American galleries displayed
only 21% of women in their portfolios (Equi Pierazzini et al. 2017) and the situation is not getting better according to the 2019
Art Basel report, referring to 2018 data and indicating that the considered sample of primary market galleries represents 36%
of female artists and the sale of their works accounts for the 32% of their annual turnover. Moreover, the bigger the gallery,
the fewer female artists are represented are, with galleries with turnover over $10 million representing only 28% of female
artists (McAndrews 2019). Studies have indeed already underlined the condition of gender inequality in the art market in
terms of career mobility and wages (Arper and Wassall 2006) and in performance in terms of selling prices (Braden 2009;
Rengers and Velthuis 2002)—in this respect from this essay emerges that there are not women artists among those with
highest auctions prices. These kinds of problems are common also in other cultural sectors such as the music (Schmutz 2009)
and editorial field (Shor et al. 2015) as well as the performing art sector (Coulangeon et al. 2005) and the movie industry
(Bielby 2009).
Arts 2020, 9, 110 11 of 18

Table 7. Most-exhibited artists.

Artist No. Shows

Andy Warhol 30
Bruce Nauman 25
Je↵ Koons 23
Lawrence Weiner 21
Paul Klee 19
Gerhard Richter 18
Thomas Ru↵ 18
Cindy Sherman 18
Francis Alÿs 17
John Baldessari 17
Marcel Duchamp 17

Andy Warhol is the leading star of these nine years for both galleries and museums.
At the same time, 74.1% of the sample only appeared once in the nine years while only 4.1% was
shown more than six times (Table 8).

Table 8. Artists and number of exhibitions.

Number of Exhibitions Number of Artists Percentage

More than 10 75 0.8%
From 6 to 10 299 3.3%
From 2 to 5 1966 21.8%
1 Exhibition 6665 74.1%
Total artists 9005 100.0%

This finding, almost the opposite of the data collected for galleries (see Table 5 above), indicates
that the exhibition choices of each individual museum are largely independent of the choices made by
other museums, which is consistent with the promotional and cultural role these institutions play.

7. Galleries and Museums: Independence and Relationships

The boundaries between the practices of galleries and those of museums have been fading since the
evolution of so-called “primary market” galleries in the 1970s. The growing size and role of the market
in the last 25 years, and the growing demand for artworks and art in general, has reduced incentives to
maintain a long-term, faithful relationship between artists, galleries, and museums. The increasing
role of the economic side of the art agency operates as a tool for the progressive mobilization of the art
system in a process that is consistent with increasing liquidity and relational fluidity.
Is this dynamic really being acted out? Are the roles of both galleries and museums actually on
the verge of a profound change? Is it possible to empirically describe the dynamics being played out in
the core of art market structures?
In 2015, The Art Newspaper openly questioned museums’ relative independence from the
seductions of the market: “Nearly one-third of the major solo exhibitions held in US museums between
2007 and 2013 featured artists represented by just five galleries, according to research conducted by The Art
Newspaper. We analyzed nearly 600 exhibitions submitted by 68 museums for our annual attendance-figures
survey and found that 30% of prominent solo shows featured artists represented by Gagosian Gallery, Pace,
Marian Goodman Gallery, David Zwirner, and Hauser & Wirth” (Halperin 2015).
In the next section, we develop two empirical tests that o↵er an evidence-based perspective on
the issue.
Arts 2020, 9, 110 12 of 18

7.1. Independence
One initial descriptive analysis considering the overlap between the museums and the Art Basel
galleries portfolio of artists indicates a consistent degree of independence between the two groups
of institutions.
The overall sample is composed of 13,298 artists, 7315 appearing at Basel from 2005 to 2013,
and 9005 exhibited in the same years by the selected sample of 35 contemporary art museums and
exhibition
Arts 2020, 9, xspaces (Figure
FOR PEER 3).
REVIEW 13 of 19

Figure 3. Overall sample structure.

A total
Of of 3022
the artists artists appeared
exhibited in bothmuseums
in the selected samples,and 41%spaces,
of all those
66% areexhibited at Basel,
not included inand
Basel,31% of
thus
those exhibited
confirming in the museums.
the museums’ independence from the fair system.
Offurther
A the artists
testexhibited in the
carried out on selected
the museum museums sampleandand
spaces, 66% of
a group are52 not included
selected in Basel,
Basel thus
galleries 23

confirming the museums’ independence from the fair system.

supports the description above and shows that the two groups not only seem to act independently
A further
but also operatetest carried
through out on networking
different the museumstructures.
sample and 24 a group of 52 selected Basel galleries23

supports the description above and shows that the two groups not only seem to act independently but
• The museum–artist network is characterized by a higher level of degree centrality and a lower
also operate through di↵erent networking structures.24
betweenness for the exhibited artists: this implies that each artist has relationships with a larger
number of colleagues in the museum world and that each museum tends to privilege different
clusters of artists.
23 Artists were selected based on their years at Basel (nine) and the position of the booth within the overall fair layout,
• considering
The gallery–artist network displays a contrasting structure: a lower degree and higher level of
only the booths located along the central alley. The analysis was carried out by considering the two groups of
betweenness.
institutions Thistheindicates
separately: thattheir
galleries with theartists
galleries
and theoperate
museumson smaller
with but more
their artists. similar
For both groups, groups of
the analysis
treated the artists as nodes and the institutions as ties.
artists.
24 In order to analyze the dynamics of gatekeeping activities, we performed a network analysis (software: UciNet) connecting
Theartists, galleries in
differences andthe
museums. We calculated
networking the main
structures centrality
reveal thatmeasures,
the two focusing
groupson of“degree centrality”
institutions (expressing
played the
diverse
number of ties surrounding each node) and “betweenness centrality” (expressing how central a node is in connecting to the
roles and For
others). maintained different
an artist, having a high relationships with
degree of centrality the first
means, population of or
of all, that his artists during
her works the ninebyyears
are presented many
galleries; second, he or she is exhibited with a relatively large number of artists; third, he or she is exhibited alongside
central artists and tends to be a more stable feature of the fair’s displays over the years. On the other hand, a low degree
23 Artists
does notwere selected
necessarily based
imply that on
thetheir years
artist’s atisBasel
career (nine) and the position of the booth within the overall fair
undermined.
layout, considering only the booths located along the central alley. The analysis was carried out by
considering the two groups of institutions separately:
Network the measures.
centrality galleries with their artists and the museums with
their artists. For both groups, the analysis
Centrality Measures treated the
Museumsas nodesGalleries
artists and the institutions as ties.
24 In order to analyze the dynamics of gatekeeping activities, we performed a network analysis (software:
Degree centrality 1127.09 74.43
UciNet) connecting artists, galleries and
Betweenness museums. We
centrality calculated the11.70588241
0.457142851 main centrality measures, focusing on
“degree centrality” (expressing the number of ties surrounding each node) and “betweenness centrality”
(expressing how central a node is in connecting to the others). For an artist, having a high degree of centrality
means, first of all, that his or her works are presented by many galleries; second, he or she is exhibited with
a relatively large number of artists; third, he or she is exhibited alongside central artists and tends to be a
more stable feature of the fair’s displays over the years. On the other hand, a low degree does not necessarily
imply that the artist’s career is undermined.
Arts 2020, 9, 110 13 of 18

• The museum–artist network is characterized by a higher level of degree centrality and a lower
betweenness for the exhibited artists: this implies that each artist has relationships with a larger
number of colleagues in the museum world and that each museum tends to privilege di↵erent
clusters of artists.
• The gallery–artist network displays a contrasting structure: a lower degree and higher level of
Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19
betweenness. This indicates that the galleries operate on smaller but more similar groups of artists.
The di↵erences
under observation:in
thethe networking
galleries, acting structures
according toreveal thatperspective,
a dealing the two groups of institutions
operated played
with fewer artists
and on
diverse an and
roles overall more similar
maintained and limited
di↵erent group of
relationships artists,
with the characterized
population of by a higher
artists market
during profile.
the nine years
The museums worked with a wider set of artists and according to a much more independent
under observation: the galleries, acting according to a dealing perspective, operated with fewer artists
andperspective.
on an overall more similar and limited group of artists, characterized by a higher market profile.
Given these findings, market and cultural roles seem to be distinct.
The museums worked with a wider set of artists and according to a much more independent perspective.
Given these findings, market and cultural roles seem to be distinct.
7.2. Connections
7.2. Connections
Considering the museums’ exhibitions, it is important to distinguish between solo and group
shows. The first are monographic, dedicated to a single artist as a tribute to his or her career or to
Considering the museums’ exhibitions, it is important to distinguish between solo and group
welcome a promising newcomer. These shows involve a specific investment of curatorial labor and
shows. The first are monographic, dedicated to a single artist as a tribute to his or her career or to
funds for the institutions and represent a critical statement about the work of an artist. The second,
welcome a promising newcomer. These shows involve a specific investment of curatorial labor and
group shows, are also important reputational signals for the artists involved but they are collective
funds for the institutions and represent a critical statement about the work of an artist. The second, group
exhibitions, sometimes characterized by a specific theme, and artists might be included for various
shows, are also important reputational signals for the artists involved but they are collective exhibitions,
reasons.
sometimes It ischaracterized by a specific
interesting to observe theme,
that from 2005and artists29%
to 2013, might be Basel
of the included for(878)
artists various
werereasons.
included in
It solo
the is interesting to observe
shows produced that
by the from 2005
museums. to 2013,
If we 29%
look at theof the Basel
general artists
museum (878) were
sample, included
only 17% of thein
the artists
solo shows produced by the museums.
had a solo show (Figure 4). If we look at the general museum sample, only 17% of the
artists had a solo show (Figure 4).

Figure 4. 4.Solo
Figure Soloand
andgroup
groupshows:
shows: Museums and Basel.
Museums and Basel.

Although
Althoughthethe
action ofof
action museums
museumsgenerally
generallyseems
seemstotobe
be independent
independent of ofmarket
marketsignals,
signals,the
theartists
artists
who were
who included
were includedat at
Basel received
Basel receivedsignificantly
significantlygreater
greaterattention
attention from the museums.
from the museums.ThisThisoverlap
overlap
requires further
requires investigation.
further investigation.IsIsthis
thisa asign
signthat
thatgalleries
galleries use
use the curatorial
curatorialchoices
choicesofofmuseums
museumsasas aa
point of reference? Or the opposite? Is it a matter of combined attention from both the institutions
point of reference? Or the opposite? Is it a matter of combined attention from both the institutions
converging
converging on on a given
a given artist?
artist?

7.3.7.3.
Further In-Depth
Further Inquiry
In-Depth Inquiry

TheThe
lastlast
testtest
that wewe
that conducted
conductedconsidered
consideredaaspecific
specific sub-sample
sub-sample ofof artists,
artists,all
allthose
thosethat
thathave
have
been included in the galleries’ rosters after 2008. This is a group of 75 newcomers: 64 of themselected
been included in the galleries’ rosters after 2008. This is a group of 75 newcomers: 64 of them selected
byleast
by at at least
oneone
of of
thethe 155
155 stableBasel
stable Baselgalleries
galleriesand
and 11
11 only
only selected
selectedby
byother,
other,less-stable
less-stableBasel galleries.
Basel galleries.
For all of these artists, we considered the operations carried out by the sample of museumsand
For all of these artists, we considered the operations carried out by the sample of museums and
charted the progression of auction prices from 2005 to 2019, looking in particular at the level of market
charted the progression of auction prices from 2005 to 2019, looking in particular at the level of market
“liquidity” calculated as total auction turnover for each year and artist.
“liquidity” calculated as total auction turnover for each year and artist.
These are the main findings:
These are the main findings:
• Auction liquidity for this group of artists rose significantly after 2013, with a total turnover of
107.1 Million dollars from 2013 to 2019 (Figure 5).
 Arts 2020, 9, 110 14 of 18

• Auction liquidity for this group of artists rose significantly after 2013, with a total turnover of
107.1 Million dollars from 2013 to 2019 (Figure 5).
• Before their inclusion at Basel, 19 artists were exchanged, with an average yearly turnover of
180,976 dollars. After their inclusion, the number of artists with auction sales rose to 37 up to 2013
and then to 57 since 2014, with an average yearly turnover of 313,096 dollars (a 73% increase).25
This is a group of young newcomers to the market who were been included in the Art Basel roster
after 2008 and increased their overall market value after 2013.
• Museums have a significant presence in relation to this group of artists: 55 of them (73%) were
exhibited in a museum between 2005–2013 (as compared to an average of 41% of the total number
of Basel artists, see Figure 3). Moreover, 24 of them (32%) were given solo shows, as compared
to an average of 29% (see Figure 4). The stable Basel galleries represented 22 of them. This tells
us that the action of museums mainly overlaps with the action of a specific group of insiders,
represented by the stable Art Basel galleries.
• The auction liquidity of the artists featured in solo shows is 1,279,000 dollars as compared to an
average of 647,000 dollars, and an average of 64,000 for the artists who were not included in any
museum exhibitions.26 This means that museum exhibitions, and especially solo shows, have an
impact on auction prices.
• The last significant finding is that the action of galleries follows in the footsteps of museums:
16 cases out of the 23 characterized by a solo show indicate that the museums’ activities anticipated
the galleries’ commercial intentions to deal in that artist’s work. This evidence suggests that
cultural and dealing features may be closely connected in terms of sequence, but they are
nonetheless organized with curatorial evaluations prevailing over dealing practices.
Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

Figure
Figure 5. Auction
5. Auction turnover
turnover of selected
of selected Art Basel
Art Basel artists.
artists.
8. Main Findings and Limitations
• Before their inclusion at Basel, 19 artists were exchanged, with an average yearly turnover of
In this
180,976 article,After
dollars. we focus
theirour attentionthe
inclusion, onnumber
the systemic dimension
of artists of the contemporary
with auction sales rose to art
37 market,
up to in
order to o↵er an evidence-based contribution on its behaviors, while simultaneously
2013 and then to 57 since 2014, with an average yearly turnover of 313,096 dollars (a 73% considering it in a
perspective
increase).25 that
Thisencompasses
is a group ofthe economic
young and theto
newcomers cultural dimension
the market of thebeen
who were exchanges.
includedWeinthus
the first
Art Basel roster after 2008 and increased their overall market value after 2013.
• Museums have a significant presence in relation to this group of artists: 55 of them (73%) were
25 Auction values were adjusted for inflation. Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical rates.
exhibited in a museum between 2005–2013 (as compared to an average of 41% of the total
26 We excluded here four outliers, those artists who had more than 20 million in turnover from auction sales: Hurvin Anderson,
number of Basel artists, see Figure 3). Moreover, 24 of them (32%) were given solo shows, as
Joe Bradley, Zhang Huan, and Farhad Moshiri. All of them were shown at the stable Art Basel galleries.
compared to an average of 29% (see Figure 4). The stable Basel galleries represented 22 of them.
This tells us that the action of museums mainly overlaps with the action of a specific group of
insiders, represented by the stable Art Basel galleries.
• The auction liquidity of the artists featured in solo shows is 1,279,000 dollars as compared to an
average of 647,000 dollars, and an average of 64,000 for the artists who were not included in any
museum exhibitions.26 This means that museum exhibitions, and especially solo shows, have an
Arts 2020, 9, 110 15 of 18

o↵ered a comprehensive overview of the art system as both an economic and a cultural environment.
The economic vs. cultural binary conceptualization is at once simplistic in theoretical terms and
difficult to operationalize from an empirical point of view; in this paper, we suggest that, in order
to overcome these limits, it would be fruitful to begin by following action nets (Czarniawska 2004)
so as to observe the features of the system as emerging from this temporary state of stabilization.
Organized around three main spheres of action and meaning—cultural and public, educational,
economic, and financial—the system unfolds as a bundle of di↵erent forms of agency.
In the central section of the article, the empirical analysis, we focused on two databases of
information collected regarding Art Basel galleries and a sample of contemporary art museums and
exhibition spaces selected from around the world. This analysis identified a stable informal pattern of
organizational choices that di↵erentiates the sets of actions of the two institutional groups, museums
and galleries; that is to say, patterns of choices distinguish the role of “cultural legitimation” from the
commercial perspective.
In the last part of the article, considering a group of artists selected by these galleries in and after
2008, we noted an intense overlapping of action between the two groups of institutions. In reacting to
the 2008 crisis, the most important Art Basel galleries intensified their focus on new artists and looked
attentively at the choices made by the group of museums under consideration here. We also found
that the connection between these two institutional groups has a recognizably positive e↵ect on the
overall auction liquidity of the artists included in the sample.
The consistency between these two categories and the financial impact of such consistency does
not a↵ect the signaling and cultural role played by museums, and indeed moves by museums seem to
anticipate both the galleries’ choices and the auction liquidity of the artists.
In spite of the system’s infrastructural expansion and the crisis of 2008, our analysis did not find
evidence of a change in the informal organizational pattern of the art system.
The fact that we also found two artists who display intense auction liquidity and gallery presence
that is not echoed by shows in the selected group of museums indicates that some artists may have
dealer-led careers, as a relatively minor option.
The main limitations of our findings stem from our choice to develop an initial empirical overview
and have to do with di↵erent issues. One is related to the sources: the Art Basel sample reflects a very
specific gallery environment, while the sample of museums is quantitatively limited. The second order
of limitation is methodological, suggesting that our findings could be productively supplemented
by further qualitative inquiries. For example, the positive sequence “museum–gallery” empirically
identified here needs to be reconsidered by looking at the complex set of relationships that may
connect the work of gallerists to collectors, curators, and museums. Such informal relationships do not
necessarily leave behind evidence that is explicit and easy to trace.
Further research is needed to build on this classification of the art system’s forms of agency.
The most fruitful way to pursue such research would be through qualitative analyses, either focusing
on specific artworks or following the network of practices at play in specific environments.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and writing, S.B.C. and M.E.P. (selected parts); methodology and
formal analysis, S.B.C. and L.F.; review, data processing and visualization, L.F. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This research was developed within a wider project organized by ASK—Art, Science &
Knowledge Research Center at Università Bocconi, Milan.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Arts 2020, 9, 110 16 of 18

References
Adorno, Theodor. 2002. On the Fetish character in Music and the Regression of Listening. In Essays on Music.
Edited by Richard Leppert. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 288–317. First published 1938.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Armstrong, Carol, and Catherine De Zegher. 2006. Women Artists at the Millennium. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Arper, Neil O., and Gregory H. Wassall. 2006. Artists’ careers and their labor markets. In Handbook of the Economics
of Art and Culture. Edited by Victor A. Ginsburg and David Throsby. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Baia Curioni, Stefano. 2012. A Fairy Tale: the art system, globalization, and the fair movement. In Contemporary
Art and Its Commercial Markets. A Report on Current Conditions and Future Scenarios. Edited by Olav Velthuis,
Stefano Baia Curioni and Maria Lind. Berlin: Sternberg Press.
Baia Curioni, Stefano, Laura Forti, and Ludovica Leone. 2015. Making visible. Artists and galleries in the global art
system. In Cosmopolitan Canvases. The Globalization of Markets for Contemporary Art. Edited by Olav Velthuis
and Stefano Baia Curioni. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benjamin, Walter. 2013. Charles Baudelaire. Un poeta lirico nell’età del capitalismo avanzato. Edited by Giorgio Agamben,
Barbara Chitussi and Clemens-Carl Härle. Vicenza: Neri Pozza.
Bielby, Denise. 2009. Gender inequality in culture industries: Women and men writers in film and television.
Sociologie du Travail 51: 237–52. [CrossRef]
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press. First published 1979.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Braden, Laura. 2009. From the Armory to academia: Careers and reputations of early modern artists in the
United States. Poetics 37: 439–45. [CrossRef]
Braudel, Fernand. 1993. Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme. XVe-XVIII siècle. Les jeux de l’échange. Paris:
Le Livre de Poche, vol. 2.
Butler, Cornelia, and Lisa Gabrielle Mark. 2007. WACK!: Art and the Feminist Revolution. Los Angeles: Museum of
Contemporary Art.
Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1987. The Imaginary Institution of Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Coulangeon, Philippe, Hyacinthe Ravet, and Ionela Roharik. 2005. Gender di↵erentiated e↵ect of time in
performing arts professions: Musicians, actors and dancers in contemporary France. Poetics 33: 369–87.
[CrossRef]
Czarniawska, Barbara. 2004. On Time, Space, and Action Nets. Organization 11: 773–91. [CrossRef]
Czarniawska, Barbara. 2014. A Theory of Organizing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Czarniawska, Barbara, and Bernward Joerges. 1996. Travels of Ideas. In Translating Organizational Change.
Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Studies in Organization, vol. 56, pp. 13–48.
Czarniawska, Barbara, and Guje Sevón, eds. 1996. Translating Organizational Change. Berlin and New York:
De Gruyter Studies in Organization, vol. 56.
Danto, Arthur C. 1964. The Artworld. American Philosophical Association Eastern Division Sixty-First Annual
Meeting, 15 Octorber 1964. The Journal of Philosophy 61: 571–84. [CrossRef]
De Nora, T. 1995. Beethoven and the Construction of Genius: Musical Politics in Vienna 1792–1803. Berkeley, Los Angeles
and London: University of California Press.
Dickie, George. 2000. The Institutional Theory of Art. In Theories of Art Today. Edited by Noël Carroll. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Equi Pierazzini, Marta, Alberto Monti, and Paola Dubini. 2017. Glass Cli↵ in Art? An Exploratory Study of
Women Artists’ Careers at Art Basel System. Paper presented at the European Academy of Management
(EURAM), Glasgow, UK, 21–24 June.
Evans, Graeme. 2003. Hard Branding the cultural city. From Prado to Prada. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 27: 417–40. [CrossRef]
Arts 2020, 9, 110 17 of 18

Graw, Isabelle. 2012. In the grip of the market? On the relative heteronomy of art. The art world and art criticism.
In Contemporary Art and Its Commercial Markets. A Report on Current Conditions and Future Scenarios. Edited by
Olav Velthuis and Maria Lind. Berlin: Sternberg Press, pp. 183–208.
Grodach, Carl. 2013. Cultural Economy Planning in creative cities: Discourse and practice. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 37: 1745–65. [CrossRef]
Guerzoni, Guido. 2014. Museums on the Map. 1995–2012. Torino: Allemandi.
Halperin, Julia. 2015. Almost one third of solo shows in US museums go to artists represented by five galleries.
The Art Newspaper, April 2. Available online: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/almost-one-third-of-
solo-shows-in-us-museums-go-to-artists-represented-by-five-galleries (accessed on 13 August 2020).
Heartney, Eleanor, Helaine Posner, Nancy Princenthal, Sue Scott, and Linda Nochlin. 2013. After the Revolution.
Women Who Transformed Contemporary Art. Munich, London and New York: Prestel.
Iamurri, Laura. 2016. Un Margine che Sfugge. Carla Lonzi e l’arte in Italia 1955–1970. Macerata: Quodlibet Studio.
Karpik, Lucien. 2010. Valuing the Unique. The Economics of Singularities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kindleberger, Charles. 1991. Storia Delle Crisi Finanziarie. Bari: Laterza.
Latour, Bruno. 1984. The Powers of Association. The Sociological Review 32: 264–80. [CrossRef]
Lonzi, Carla. 1969. Autoritratto. Bari: De Donato.
Lonzi, Carla. 1980. Vai pure. Dialogo con Pietro Consagra. Milano: Scritti di Rivolta Femminile.
McAndrews, Claire. 2018. The Art Basel and UBS Global Art Market Report 2018. Basel: Art Basel.
McAndrews, Claire. 2019. The Art Basel and UBS Global Art Market Report 2019. Basel: Art Basel.
Mei, Jianping, and Michael Moses. 2002. Art as an investment and the Underperformance of Masterpieces.
American Economic Review 92: 1656–68. [CrossRef]
Morineau, Camille. 2009. Elles@centrepompidou. Women artists in the collection of the Musée national d’art
moderne/Centre de création Industrielle. In Exhibition Catalogue. Paris: Editions Centre Pompidou.
Moulin, Raymonde. 1989. Le marché de la peinture en France. Paris: Éditions de Minuit. First published 1967.
Nicolini, Davide. 2012. Practice Theory, Work and Organization. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nicolini, Davide. 2017. Practice Theory as a Package of Theory, Method and Vocabulary: A↵ordances and
Limitations. In Methodological Reflections on Practice Oriented Theories. Edited by Michael Jonas, Beate Littig
and Angela Wroblewski. Berlin: Springer International Publishing, pp. 19–34.
Nochlin, Linda. 1988. Why have there been no great women artists? ARTnews, January 1971. In Women, Art and
Power and Other Essays. New York: Westview Press, pp. 22–39, 67–71. First published 1971.
North, Douglas. 1990. Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pesando, James E. 1993. Art as an Investment: The Market for Modern Prints. American Economic Review
83: 1075–89.
Rengers, Merijn, and Olav Velthuis. 2002. Determinants of Prices for Contemporary Art in Dutch Galleries,
1992–1998. Journal of Cultural Economics 26: 1–28. [CrossRef]
Renneboog, Luc, and Christophe Spaenjers. 2013. Buying Beauty: On prices and Returns in the Art Market.
Management Science 59: 36–53. [CrossRef]
Richard, Sophie. 2009. Unconcealed. The international Network of Conceptual Artists 1966–1977. Dealers Exhibitions
and Public Collections. London: Ridinghouse.
Sacco, Pier Luigi. 2009. Kunst=Kapital? Invitation to a pointless investigation. In Imaginary Economics. Quando
L’arte sfida il capitalismo. Edited by Olav Velthuis. Milano: Johan & Levy, pp. 113–28.
Sahlin-Andersson, Kerstin. 1996. Imitating by Editing Success: The Construction of Organizational Fields.
In Translating Organizational Change. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Studies in Organization, vol. 56,
pp. 69–92.
Sapori, Armando. 1982. Studi di Storia Economica. Secoli XIII–XIV–XV. Firenze: Sansoni.
Schmutz, Vaughn. 2009. Social and symbolic boundaries in newspaper coverage of music, 1955–2005: Gender and
genre in the US, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Poetics 37: 298–314. [CrossRef]
Shor, Eran, Arnout van de Rijt, Alex Miltsov, Vivek Kulkarni, and Steven Skiena. 2015. A Paper Ceiling: Explaining
the Persistent Underrepresentation of Women in Printed News. American Sociological Review 80: 960–84.
[CrossRef]
Thompson, Dan. 2008. The $12 Million Stu↵ed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Arts 2020, 9, 110 18 of 18

Velthuis, Olav. 2003. Talking prices Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Velthuis, Olav. 2009. Imaginary Economics. Quando L’arte sfida il capitalismo. Milano: Johan & Levy, pp. 113–28.
White, Cynthia A., and Harrison C. White. 1965. Canvases and Careers: Institutional Change in the French Painting
World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zapperi, Giovanna. 2017. Carla Lonzi. Un’arte della vita. Roma: DeriveApprodi.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).