藝術市場的不透明 究竟是缺陷還是樂趣

A new art market season has begun, and with it another sequence of multimillion-dollar auctions that will amaze and mystify those unacquainted with the inner workings of the art world.

新的藝術市場季已經開始，隨之而來的是新一輪數百萬美元的拍賣會，它們會讓那些不熟悉藝術界內幕的人感到震驚和迷惑。

Auctions have, for centuries, been a theatrical way to sell art. But over the past two or three years, with the proliferation of high-value guarantees at Sotheby’s and Christie’s flagship contemporary sales — and the complex financial arrangements that go with them — they have become a form of spectacle that even experienced audience members can struggle to fully understand.

幾百年來，拍賣會一直是一種激動人心的藝術品銷售方式。但是，在過去兩三年裏，隨着蘇富比拍賣行(Sotheby’s)和佳士得拍賣行(Christie’s)的一流當代藝術拍品大量出現高價保證金以及複雜的財務安排，拍賣會變成一種奇觀，甚至連有經驗的觀衆也很難完全理解。

In London in October and in New York in November, auctioneers will invite bids for certain artworks that have, for all intents and purposes, already been sold. A flurry of imaginary “chandelier” bidding often leads up to the undisclosed guarantee price being bid, either by an unidentified third-party (who ensured the sale in return for a cut of any “upside”) or by the auction house itself, usually through a staff-member on the phone. This may well be followed by further bidding from unidentified would-be buyers on telephones or in the room, sometimes against further bids from the guarantor, until the hammer finally falls.

10月份在倫敦，11月份在紐約，拍賣公司將對某些實際上已經賣出的藝術品進行競價。莫須有的緊張的“吊燈”叫價（拍賣師在競價初期假裝看到有人出價，實際上拍賣師手指的方向可能只有吊燈——譯註）通常會導致叫價達到祕密的擔保價（提供擔保的是不透露身份的第三方[回報是能獲得部分“溢價”]或拍賣公司），這種叫價通常是員工在電話中報出的。之後，不知名的未來買家可能會通過電話或在拍賣現場繼續叫價，有時是與擔保人競價，直到拍賣槌最終落下。

“The auction houses have created a theatrical experience, heightening the emotion of buying and selling,” Greg B. Davies, head of behavioral and quantitative finance at Barclays Bank, said in a telephone interview. “The insiders are in a privileged position. They are networked. Outsiders can buy access to the assets, but not the knowledge base. This creates a barrier. You’re either in the fold or not.”

巴克萊銀行(Barclays Bank)的行爲與量化金融主管格雷格·B·戴維斯(Greg B. Davies)在接受電話採訪時說，“拍賣公司營造了一種激動人心的體驗，拉動買賣情緒。內部人士擁有特權。他們有自己的關係網。局外人能夠付錢獲得某些信息，但是得不到整個信息庫。這就樹了一道屏障，把圈內人和局外人隔開。”

A painting might sell at a public auction for more than $100 million, and the identities of the seller, the guarantor, the external bidders and the final buyer will remain cloaked in confidentiality. More than four months later, the wider world has yet to gain any definitive idea who sold, guaranteed or bought the 1955 Picasso painting “Les Femmes d’Alger, (Version ‘O’)” which soared to an all-time auction high of $179.4 million at Christie’s on May 11.

一件畫作可能在公開拍賣會上以一億多美元成交，但是賣家、擔保人、外部競價人以及最終買家的身份依然不得而知。四個多月後，外部世界仍不知道畢加索(Picasso)1955年畫作《阿爾及爾女人（O版）》(Les Femmes d’Alger [Version ‘O’])的賣家、擔保人和買家。在5月11日的佳士得拍賣會上，那件作品的成交價飆升至史上最高的1.794億美元。

Back in January, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the American economist Nouriel Roubini, who is a collector, ruffled feathers by telling The Financial Times that the art market needed more regulation because it had become routinely susceptible to trading on insider information, money laundering, price manipulation and tax evasion.

今年1月，在瑞士達沃斯的世界經濟論壇上，美國經濟學家兼收藏家努里爾·魯比尼(Nouriel Roubini)慍怒地對《金融時報》(The Financial Times)說，藝術市場需要更多監管，因爲這個行業往往是靠內部信息進行交易，存在洗錢、價格操縱和逃稅等行爲。

The theme was picked up again on Sept. 3 at the 2015 Art Business Conference in London. Robert Hiscox, former chairman of Hiscox Insurance and another prominent collector, told more than 300 delegates that the art trade was the like “the Wild West.” He added that it was the last “unregulated market” and that unregulated markets did not work because “people are too venal.”

9月3日，在倫敦的2015年藝術交易行業大會(Art Business Conference)上，這個話題再次被提起。著名收藏家、希斯考克斯保險公司(Hiscox Insurance)的前總裁羅伯特·希斯考克斯(Robert Hiscox)對300多名代表說，藝術品交易就像“瘋狂的西部”。他補充說，藝術市場是最後一個“未被監管的市場”，這樣的市場難以維持，因爲“人們往往見利忘義”。

This year, outsiders have been given a peek into the murk at the top of the art world courtesy of the continuing legal dispute between the Russian billionaire Dmitry E. Rybolovlev and the Swiss businessman and dealer Yves Bouvier. Mr. Bouvier is alleged to have made excessive undisclosed profits while compiling a collection of about 40 works by famous artists for Mr. Rybolovlev.

今年，透過俄羅斯億萬富翁德米特里·E·雷博洛夫列夫(Dmitry E. Rybolovlev)和瑞士商人兼交易商伊夫·布維耶(Yves Bouvier)之間的一系列法律糾紛，圈外人看到了藝術界頂層的黑暗。據稱，布維耶爲雷博洛夫列夫收集了約40件著名藝術家的作品，其間暗自謀取過量收益。

Among the transactions, Mr. Rybolovlev said he paid $127.5 million for a Leonardo da Vinci that he subsequently discovered Mr. Bouvier had acquired privately for between $75 and $80 million. In Monaco, Mr. Bouvier is fighting private and public legal actions on charges of fraud and complicity in money laundering, and in France he is under investigation for the alleged theft of two Picasso gouache paintings.

雷博洛夫列夫說，他支付1.275億美元購買了萊奧納多·達芬奇(Leonardo da Vinci)的一件作品，後來發現，布維耶私吞了7500萬美元至8000萬美元。在摩納哥，布維耶被指控詐騙，串通洗錢，正在應對私下和公開的法律訴訟；在法國，因爲涉嫌參與盜竊畢加索的兩幅水粉畫，他正在接受調查。

These cases would seem to validate the assertion made at the Art Business Conference by Pierre Valentin, a partner in the London law firm Constantine Cannon, that to characterize the art market as unregulated was “complete nonsense,” since legal processes are at least in operation. He told delegates that research by his firm had shown that the British art market, for example, was governed by 167 laws and regulations, “and that figure was going up, not going down.” He did suggest, however, that there should be “targeted” measures to regulate “certain auction practices and certain types of insider dealing.”

這些案件似乎證實了倫敦律師事務所Constantine Cannon的合夥人皮埃爾·瓦倫丁(Pierre Valentin)在藝術交易行業大會上的說法。他說，稱藝術市場缺乏監管“毫無道理”，因爲法律訴訟至少正在進行。他對代表們說，他的公司的調查表明，以英國藝術市場爲例，有167項法律條文和規章制度在監管這個市場，“而且這個數字在上升，而非下降”。不過，他也提到，應該有一些“針對性的”措施來監管“某些拍賣行爲和內幕交易”。

All the major auction houses maintain that they are rigorous in upholding ethical business practices at their sales. Mitzi Mina, head of Sotheby’s London media office, said in an e-mail that her auction house “has in place a comprehensive and robust know-your-client program which amongst other things, ensures we are in compliance with the latest anti-money laundering/anti-corruption regulations in place throughout our selling locations.”

所有大型拍賣公司都堅稱自己在拍賣中嚴格遵守職業道德。蘇富比的倫敦媒體主管米齊·米納(Mitzi Mina)在接受郵件採訪時說，該拍賣行“設立了全面有效的客戶瞭解程序，確保遵守所有拍賣地最新的反洗錢、反腐敗規定”。

Nonetheless, it’s not particularly difficult to dream up ways of making money in the art market in a gray sort of way.

不過，想出在藝術市場上用灰色手段賺錢的方法並不太難。

Say, for example, I discover a brilliant young artist on Facebook. After a crazy week at my house in the Hamptons, he has made 30 abstract paintings for me, which I’ve bought for a total of $90,000. Having posted examples on Instagram, I enter one of these paintings into a contemporary day sale and ask two business associates, who are cut in on the deal, to bid it up to $150,000. After the sale, a benchmark auction price posted on Artnet, and news of the artist’s inclusion in a forthcoming museum show — which happens to be curated by a friend of mine — establishes my new acquaintance as a hot young artist. Over the next six months, we discreetly sell 20 more paintings at auction and privately for an average price of $70,000 each.

假設，我在Facebook上發現一位有才華的年輕藝術家。他在我漢普頓的家中瘋狂創作一週，畫了30幅抽象畫，我以9萬美元全部買下。我在Instagram上發佈一些樣品，把其中一幅畫提交到一場當代藝術品拍賣會上拍賣，讓兩位商業夥伴半路加入叫價，把拍賣價拉昇至15萬美元。拍賣結束後，在Artnet上發佈基準拍賣價，同時發佈新聞，宣告這位藝術家的作品已列入即將舉行的博物館展覽——展覽碰巧是我的一位朋友策劃的——這樣，我就把這位剛結識的朋友塑造成熱門年輕藝術家。在接下來的六個月裏，我們在拍賣會上悄悄賣出20多幅畫，每件的平均售價爲7萬美元。

This fictional scenario may or may not have parallels with last year’s mania for “flipping” young art at auction. But there’s no escaping the increasing opacity of certain moments at recent public sales. Just what exactly is going on when a dealer tops up the bidding on a young artist in whom he has taken an investment position? And are there conflicts of interest when an auction house shares a financial guarantee with a third party?

這個虛構的情節可能與去年“迅速轉售”年輕藝術家作品的狂熱有雷同之處，也可能不太一樣。不過，毋庸置疑的是，最近的公開拍賣出現了越來越多不透明的時刻。交易商既是年輕藝術家的投資人，又在拉高此人作品的叫價，這到底是怎麼回事？拍賣公司與第三方共同提供擔保的做法是否存在利益衝突？

“There is a growing sense that some business practices, particularly at the high end of the auction sector, lack transparency and invite suggestions of insider trading,” Tom Flynn, director of the art market master’s degree program at Kingston University, in London, who moderated a panel at the conference, said in a telephone interview.

湯姆·弗林(Tom Flynn)是倫敦金斯頓大學(Kingston University)的藝術市場碩士學位項目主管。他在藝術交易行業大會上主持了一個專題討論。他在電話採訪中說，“人們越來越覺得，有些行業行爲缺乏透明度，存在內幕交易的嫌疑，尤其在高端拍賣領域。”

Mr. Flynn and Mr. Valentin are among a number of people who think that the auction houses might benefit from some more regulatory attention.

弗林和瓦倫丁等人認爲，更多監管可能有益於拍賣公司。

But this is rather different from the systemic issues that nearly 20 years ago led the United States Justice Department to began a three-year criminal investigation into auction house collusion. In 2000, Sotheby’s and Christie’s were compelled to pay a combined $512 million to settle claims that they cheated their buyers and sellers. In April 2002, a federal judge sentenced A. Alfred Taubman, Sotheby’s principal owner and former chairman, to a year and a day in prison and fined him $7.5 million for his role in the price-fixing scheme.

不過，這與約20年前的系統性問題大不相同。當時的問題導致美國司法部對拍賣公司的合謀定價進行了爲期三年的刑事調查。2000年，蘇富比和佳士得被控欺騙買賣雙方，被迫聯合賠償5.12億美元，才得以和解。2002年4月，蘇富比的主要所有者兼前總裁A·艾爾弗雷德·陶布曼(A. Alfred Taubman)因參與價格壟斷被美國聯邦法院判處一年零一天刑期和750萬美元罰款。

Mr. Taubman died in April, at the age of 91. Emphasizing how times have changed since that collusion scandal, Sotheby’s has secured its former boss’s art collection for sale in November and January, but only after guaranteeing the Taubman estate a minimum price of $500 million to stave off Christie’s, its rival.

今年4月，91歲的陶布曼去世。爲了擊敗對手佳士得，得到這位前老闆的藝術藏品拍賣權，蘇富比提供了5億美元的最低擔保金。拍賣將於11月和明年1月進行。這說明，從那次串通醜聞之後，情況已大有不同。

For the moment, most people involved in the art world remain pretty relaxed about the murkiness that awaits them in the forthcoming season.

目前，藝術界的大部分人對即將到來的拍賣季的黑暗一面仍保持相當輕鬆的心態。

“The opaqueness is an attraction,” Suzanne Gyorgy, global head of art advisory and finance at Citi Private Bank, said in an interview. “You become part of a game, with insider rules. I would like some more transparency with third-party guarantees. But people don’t want the art market to be regulated, because then all the fun would be taken out of it. Kind of like when Dorothy pulled back the curtain on Oz.”

花期私人銀行(Citi Private Bank)的全球藝術諮詢和融資主管蘇珊娜·捷爾吉(Suzanne Gyorgy)在接受採訪時說，“這種不透明性具有吸引力。你按照內部人士的規則參與遊戲。我希望第三方保證金能更透明。但是人們不想讓藝術市場遭到監管，因爲那樣的話，就沒什麼樂趣了。就像多蘿西（Dorothy，《綠野仙蹤》的女主人公——譯註）拉開了奧茲國魔法師的帷幕。”