Art as Investment
Why the Best Art Investments Are the Ones Nobody Saw Coming
The painting that sold for a record sum at auction was almost certainly a worse investment than the one nobody wanted.
The Idea
Art has a seductive pitch as an asset class: it is beautiful, tangible, culturally prestigious, and — according to certain indices — has returned something comparable to equities over the long run. The problem is that those indices are almost certainly lying to you, not through malice, but through structure. The indices that track art returns are built on repeat-sales data — they only capture works that sold once, then sold again. This sounds logical until you realise what it excludes: every painting that was never resold because it lost value, sat unsold in a dealer's back room, or simply fell out of fashion. This is survivorship bias operating at its most elegant. The art market, in effect, only reports its own victories. There is also the illiquidity problem, which is more severe than in almost any other asset class. You cannot sell a third of your Basquiat when you need cash. Finding a buyer can take years, and auction houses typically take a commission of 15–25 percent of the hammer price. Add in insurance, storage, authentication costs, and the occasional forgery scandal, and the real returns start to look considerably less glamorous. What art genuinely offers — and this is underappreciated — is a low correlation with stock markets. In a portfolio context, that diversification has real value. But that is a different argument from 'art goes up.' It is an argument for art as a hedge, not a growth engine. Those are very different things to buy.
In the World
In 2017, a painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci — 'Salvator Mundi' — sold at Christie's for a sum that made global headlines and was immediately hailed as proof of art's extraordinary investment potential. It had been purchased at an estate sale decades earlier for what amounted to pocket change, restored, and authenticated. The story was irresistible: obscure find becomes the most expensive painting ever sold. But the story almost everyone missed was the one running in parallel. In the same years that 'Salvator Mundi' was appreciating, thousands of works by mid-century artists — names that had seemed canonical in the 1980s — were quietly collapsing in value. Entire collecting categories that had once commanded serious prices were being liquidated by estates for fractions of their insured value. No index captured this. No headline announced it. The economist William Goetzmann spent years building one of the more rigorous datasets on art returns and found that once you correct for survivorship bias and holding costs, the average art investment significantly underperforms what you would expect. The outliers — the Basquiats, the Banksys, the rediscovered old masters — are real, but they function more like lottery tickets than like bonds. The people who profited most from 'Salvator Mundi' were not collectors speculating on a hunch. They were an auction house, a network of dealers, and a small group of art historians whose expertise is genuinely irreplaceable — and who, crucially, knew something the market did not yet know.
Why It Matters
None of this means art is a bad thing to own. It means the case for owning it should probably rest on something other than expected financial returns. If you love a work and would be glad to live with it regardless of what it does in value, you are in a much healthier relationship with it as an asset. The enjoyment you get from it is a real return — one that bonds and index funds cannot offer. Framing it that way is not a consolation prize; it is actually the honest accounting. Where this gets practically useful is in recognising the emotional traps the art market is designed to trigger. Scarcity signals, provenance stories, celebrity collectors, and auction room theatre all work to make you feel that a decision needs to be made urgently and that the price is evidence of quality. These are exactly the conditions under which financial decisions go wrong. Knowing that the market structurally overstates its returns, and that your ability to identify the next undervalued masterpiece is almost certainly lower than you feel in the room, is a useful corrective. Art bought with clear eyes — for love, with any financial upside treated as a bonus — tends to work out better than art bought as a bet.
A Question to Ponder
If an asset gives you genuine daily pleasure but mediocre financial returns, how should that pleasure factor into how you think about what it is worth to you?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable