Amid Political and Financial Turmoil, Frieze New York Kicks Off With With Robust Sales
On top of the bevy of fairs, there are a multitude of gallery shows, museum exhibitions, and art fairs opening or already on view this week. In a market where collectors are choosing to take things more slowly when it comes to spending their time—and their money—than in previous years, that is seemingly a good thing.
More from Robb Report
A 1930s San Francisco Home Lists for $19.5 Million With a Garden Apartment
Bill Gates Will Give Away $200 Billion and Shutter His Foundation by 2045
Koenigsegg's Hypercar Just Set Two More Bonkers Speed Records
But there's more in the air than talk about the market. The aisles buzzed with conversations of the financial and political state of the world.
'This week will set the tone for how the global market will behave in the coming months,' London-based adviser Arianne Piper told ARTnews. 'The unfortunate truth is that the political situation has disrupted that. It's not so much the current economic situation but the fear of the economic consequences of that situation.' That said, Piper added that the people who made it out to the Frieze on Wednesday are buying. 'It's not about the money. It's about the bandwidth.'
Notably, Gagosian had a solo presentation of three sculptures by Jeff Koons, the artist's first collaboration since departing the mega-gallery's roster in 2021. This trio 'Hulk' works—Hulk (Organ), Hulk (Tubas), and Hulk (Dragon and Turtle)—came from Koons's personal collection and were installed in front of a custom vinyl backdrop, derived from his 2007 painting Triple Hulk Elvis III.
'The fair is off to a great start and the response to our booth has been phenomenal,' Gagosian senior director Millicent Wilner said in a statement, which noted that Hulk (Tubas) had already sold. When ARTnews asked about the price of each of the three mixed-media works, the gallery declined to comment, but well-places sources tell ARTnews that Hulk (Tubas) sold for $3 million.
Thaddaeus Ropac, which currently has spaces in three European cities and Seoul, reported a strong start at Frieze New York, with a slower but more deliberate pace of sales despite strong attendance. 'People are taking their time and being really considered,' he said, adding that the gallery remains 'cautiously optimistic' about overall results.
Early sales include Liza Lou's Zeugma (2024) for $225,000; Joan Snyder's mixed-media Float (2015) for $210,000; David Salle's Bow Tie (2024) for $130,000 to a US-based collector; a Martha Jungwirth painting for €85,000; and a Robert Longo drawing for $65,000. Two small works by Megan Rooney sold for £18,000 each, with a larger painting, priced at £75,000, currently on hold. Georg Baselitz's Motto: sexuelle Niete sagt Heidegger sagt Celan is also on reserve for €1 million.
Pace Gallery kept things sharp at Frieze New York with a two-artist presentation pairing Adam Pendleton and Lynda Benglis. Pendleton himself curated the booth, which features four 'Black Dada' paintings from 2024 and two 'Movement' paintings from 2025. For her part, Benglis has six bronze sculptures, completed between 2021 and 2024, that play off Pendleton's canvases, showcasing their different approaches to abstraction. All six of Pendleton's paintings found buyers within the first couple of hours of the fair for between $165,000 and $425,000, while multiple works by Benglis sold for between $275,000 and $300,000.
New York dealer Andrew Kreps described the first day of the fair as going 'really well' with great energy for Jes Fan's 2023 sculpture Cross Section (Right Leg Muscle II) selling for $26,000; Harold Stevenson's 1967 painting Untitled (Hand sign language) going for $70,000; and Hadi Falapishi's Professional Painter in a Dream (2025) for $25,000.
The gallery also sold four editions of Roe Ethridge's UV-cured pigment print, Ranunculus in Copper Pot at Hermes, 24 rue Faubourg Saint-Honoré Rooftop (2023), for $16,000 each, and Ernie Barnes's 1995 Study II for The Dream Unfolds was also on hold. Interest came 'across the board,' Kreps said, primarily from collectors in New York and Miami.
When ARTnews asked if he was concerned about sales at Frieze during what many consider a cooling interest in contemporary art, Kreps replied that it helped that his prices were in the low-to-mid range. 'Today, I felt there would be a lot of enthusiasm, and I think people are wanting to get out there and think about art,' he told ARTnews
For its booth, Casey Kaplan Gallery had a solo presentation of glass and stainless steel sculptures by Hannah Levy, with several works, priced between $45,000 and $80,000, selling to US-based collectors during the first day.
'It's been good energy,' senior director Emily Epelbaum-Bush told ARTnews, noting new collectors and curators dropping by the booth. 'We've seen people we haven't seen in some time. We're really excited about the beginning of the fair.'
Goodman Gallery, which has locations in Johannesburg and Cape Town, as well as New York and London, had a group display highlighting artists who have had important international spotlights over the past year. A large-scale painting by Pamela Phatsimo Sunstrum, fresh from her solo exhibition last year at the Barbican in London, sold for $90,000 to 'a seminal New York collection,' the gallery said. Additionally, a work by Carrie Mae Weems, from her 2021 series 'Painting the Town,' sold for $100,000 to a Dutch collector. Both works were sold with the promise that they would be donated to institutions in the future, according to the gallery. Their presentation also includes works by William Kentridge, Shirin Neshat, and Ravelle Pillay, alongside new pieces by Yinka Shonibare and Kapwani Kiwanga.
'Obviously, you know, it's an intriguing time to be in the United States—if not the world,' said Anthony Dawson, director of the gallery's Cape Town location. 'It's wonderful to see that people are still so committed to the production of contemporary art.'
Karma also reported a successful first day at Frieze New York, led by the $350,000 sale of Owl for Emil (1958), a modestly sized painting by Gertrude Abercrombie, who is currently the subject of a major retrospective at the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh. Other noteworthy sales include Richard Mayhew's Mountain Mindscape (1969) for $350,000, Manoucher Yektai's Blue Table (1960) for $275,000, and Reggie Burrows Hodges's Referees: To The House (2021) for $175,000.
Tina Kim, who brought to the fair a range of works from the women artists in their program, sold works by Lee ShinJa, Ghada Amer, Pacita Abad, and Suki Seokyeong Kang for between $80,000 and $200,000.
It's not surprising that there was a great deal of interest in the future of Frieze, which as of last week has a new owner (if only tangentially). Earlier this month, Endeavor Group Holdings sold Frieze, along with its magazine and global portfolio of fairs, to its Ari Emmanuel, Endeavor's former CEO, and a consortium of investors for a reported $200 million. That sale was the spark of speculation among more than a handful of VIP day attendees, though few were willing to speculate or give Frieze's new owners advice.
'There's an opportunity here, to really increase the revenue stream and come up with a new, innovative business model,' author and art market observer Magnus Resch told ARTnews. 'The simple business model of real estate arbitrage isn't working anymore. You can't just open new locations.'
For Resch, the future of art fairs would involve variable pricing models for the galleries that participate and an expanded offering: watches and collectibles, something Resch admits might alienate existing patrons. He added, 'Frieze has a chance to become the leading player in the art world. They just have to stop living in the past.'
Best of Robb Report
The 10 Priciest Neighborhoods in America (And How They Got to Be That Way)
In Pictures: Most Expensive Properties
Click here to read the full article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
1 Super Artificial Intelligence (AI) Stock Billionaire Bill Gates Has 25% of His Foundation's Portfolio Invested In
Key Points The Gates Foundation holds a substantial number of Microsoft shares. Microsoft has become a top player in offering artificial intelligence models. However, the stock is starting to appear somewhat pricey compared to its peers. 10 stocks we like better than Microsoft › Bill Gates is a well-known entrepreneur, having co-founded Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) in the mid-1970s. This made him a fortune, and he constantly ranks among the richest people in the world. He established the Gates Foundation Trust, one of the world's most well-funded foundations. By examining its holdings, investors can gain insight into what one of the world's brightest minds considers top stock picks, and they've identified an AI stock that has been a stellar performer in recent years. In fact, the stock has more than doubled since the start of 2023 alone. What is this stock? It's none other than Microsoft. Microsoft is the foundation's top holding This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Bill Gates runs the fund, so he will fill it with a company that he thinks will succeed. Most of this stock was donated from Gates' wealth; however, if the foundation didn't think Microsoft was set to succeed, they would have sold it a long time ago and moved on to something else. About 25% of the foundation's worth is tied up in Microsoft stock, valued at around $10.7 billion. That's a concentrated bet for a charitable foundation, but it has worked out well with Microsoft's recent success. Microsoft has emerged as a top AI pick due to its role as a facilitator in the space. It isn't developing its own generative AI model; instead, it's offering many of the leading ones on its cloud computing platform, Azure. Developers can choose from OpenAI's ChatGPT, a leading option, Meta Platforms' Llama, DeepSeek's R1 (a more affordable alternative from China), or xAI's Grok, a company founded by Elon Musk. By offering a wide range of generative AI models, Microsoft isn't locking its clients into a single provider. This has made Azure a top choice for building AI models on, which is why it has outgrown its peers in recent quarters. We'll get an update on how the other cloud computing providers -- namely Alphabet's Google Cloud and Amazon's Amazon Web Services (AWS) -- in the next few weeks, but I'd be shocked if Azure isn't growing quicker than they are. Azure has become a top platform for building AI applications, but has it done enough to make Microsoft a top buy now? Microsoft's stock is starting to look a bit pricey for its growth If Microsoft derived all of its revenue from Azure, I'd be a buyer at nearly any price. However, Microsoft has other product lines that aren't growing as quickly, which slows the company's overall growth pace. In its latest period -- the third quarter of fiscal 2025 -- overall revenue rose to $70.1 billion at a 13% pace. While Microsoft doesn't break out the revenue generated by Azure, we know from prior information that it accounts for over half of the Intelligent Cloud division, which brought in $26.8 billion during Q3 (ending March 31). They do provide Azure's growth rate, which was Microsoft's top-performing division in Q3, rising 33% year over year. Microsoft's diluted earnings per share also rose an impressive 18%, but is that fast enough to justify its valuation? Microsoft trades at nearly 40 times trailing earnings, which is a very expensive price tag and exceeds its recent highs reached during the AI arms race period. Wall Street analysts project $15.14 in earnings per share for fiscal 2026 (ending June 30, 2026), which indicates the stock trades at 33.7 times forward earnings. That's still a high valuation, and investors need to start being a bit cautious when stocks reach that level, especially when they're growing at Microsoft's pace. Yes, Microsoft is growing faster than the market, but it's not growing as fast as some of its peers. Take Meta Platforms, for example. It trades at 28 times trailing earnings and grew revenue at a 16% pace during its last quarter with 36% earnings-per-share growth. That's a cheaper stock growing faster, which should cause Microsoft investors to question whether it's the best big tech stock to be in right now. Numerous other big tech stocks have better growth numbers and cheaper valuations than Microsoft. Although it's a dominant company, it's starting to look a bit expensive compared to its peers. Should you buy stock in Microsoft right now? Before you buy stock in Microsoft, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Microsoft wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $636,628!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,063,471!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,041% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Keithen Drury has positions in Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta Platforms. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Meta Platforms, and Microsoft. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 1 Super Artificial Intelligence (AI) Stock Billionaire Bill Gates Has 25% of His Foundation's Portfolio Invested In was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Fast Company
15 hours ago
- Fast Company
How leaders can be transparent about their belief systems without alienating anyone
Not long ago, leaders largely steered clear of the rough-and-tumble of politics. They inhabited a culture of impartiality, and for the most part stayed in their lane, rising now and then when called upon to offer observations about their specific sectors. Those times are over. We now live in an era of CEO activism, where shareholders, employees, and consumers expect corporate leaders to take a stand on issues far beyond their core industry—issues like immigration, DEI, or gender rights. Whereas before, hardly anyone outside of their industry could pick a chief executives out of a lineup, today's business leaders from Howard Schultz to Bill Gates to Elon Musk are household names, with the ability to influence public discourse—and policy—with a single tweet. For a business, there are distinct advantages to taking a political stand. At the same time, there is a fine line between brand enhancement and brand destruction. In this climate, how can a leader be transparent about her or his belief system without alienating anyone? Rewards and Risks First, it's hard, if not impossible, to reveal your belief system without alienating someone. It's almost a given: audiences and stakeholders these days may demand a political stand, but they can also be thin-skinned and easily offended when they don't agree with that stand. For the leader, the key is to avoid alienating significant portions of the constituencies and stakeholders responsible for the company's ultimate success: shareholders, employees, and consumers. When it comes to affiliating openly with a political figure or party, there can be advantages, such as privileged access and perhaps the ability to favorably influence policy direction. That said, there are also risks. Some of them are obvious: political fortunes are volatile, and public opinion is fickle, both of which can spell trouble for an aligned business. Political leaders have many priorities, and can shift their own positions on a dime, leaving a company that has publicly pledged allegiance with a case of whiplash. They are also prone to scandal, leaving aligned brands exposed to public outrage. Moreover, while there are certainly dangers in speaking out, silence can also have negative consequences in the public eye. It's important to realize that political parties, personalities, even movements come and go. Leaders are in this for the long haul; they should want their company to prosper for more than one election cycle. Recent events demonstrate the power of public opinion. The Trump administration's executive orders against diversity and inclusion initiatives split the business communities. Target rushed to align with the new directives, but Costco remained true to its own DEI stance. As a result, consumers punished Target and rewarded Costco. Staying true to the core Remember that politicians are paid to be politicians. Executives are not. Leaders are paid to ensure a company grows and prospers far into the future. That might mean rubbing elbows with those in power, or even contributing to campaigns, but it does not have to mean selling the soul of your identity, i.e. politicizing the brand or dragging a company's image (along with you) for the sake of a small short-term advantage. Reputations are hard to rebuild, and customers, once lost, are hard to reclaim. While a leader's personal beliefs may inform actions both private and professional, there are a few basic principles that can act as guardrails, providing the freedom to be transparent while preventing the leader's viewpoints and actions from creating conflicts and harming the company's fortunes. 1. Focus on values, not politics Nobody expects an executive and a workforce of thousands to agree on every issue. But a leader can set the tone by emphasizing core organizational values rather than personal political opinions. Companies are strongest when they articulate and consistently adhere to a clear set of values—regardless of shifting political winds. 2. Tie beliefs to business mission As a leader, you are a steward of your company's mission—not a political spokesperson. If your personal convictions align with your business's purpose, express them in a way that supports that mission. If they don't, reflect on whether your current role aligns with your values. A CEO thrives when personal belief and business purpose reinforce one another. 3. Build credibility through consistency While political trends are fickle, brand trust is built over time. Consumers reward companies that consistently uphold their stated commitments—whether to sustainability, product quality, or inclusion. Consistency is credibility. 4. Respect dissent, invite dialogue Foster a culture where respectful disagreement is welcome. Employees should feel safe expressing differing opinions without fear of retaliation. Provide spaces—forums, listening sessions, anonymous feedback tools—for difficult conversations to happen constructively. Diversity of thought is a strength, not a liability. 5. Be strategic If you choose to speak out, do so with intention. Consult your communications team, evaluate stakeholder impact, and conduct a risk-benefit analysis. As Harvard Business Review contributors Aaron Chatterji and Michael W. Toffel advise: 'Select issues carefully, reflect on the best times and approaches to get involved, consider the potential for backlash, and measure results.' Who's doing it right? A number of well-known CEOs have made a point of voicing their beliefs, and have not suffered for it. On the contrary, they have developed a leadership style that manages to be both values-informed and advantageous from a business standpoint. 1. Satya Nadella (Microsoft). Nadella openly discusses empathy and his Hindu faith, speaking often of caring for his son with special needs. He is upfront about his personal values of humility and purpose, but does not impose these upon the firm directly, emphasizing instead organizational culture and customer impact. Under his watch, Microsoft has quadrupled its market capitalization. 2. Dan Schulman (former CEO, PayPal). Schulman has been vocal in support of social justice and economic inclusion, which he links to his personal Jewish ethical values. PayPal pulled out of North Carolina to protest anti-LGBTQ legislation, a move that was criticized by the right but rewarded by stakeholders, with shareholder returns remaining strong. 3. Rose Marcario (former CEO, Patagonia). Markario's Buddhist beliefs and environmental ethics were strongly aligned with Patagonia's corporate mission. So when the company sued the Trump administration over its intention to dismantle and sell off national monuments, it mobilized the company's core outdoor audience and strengthened the brand, with increases in both consumer loyalty and profits. 4. Ken Frazier (former CEO, Merck). In 2017, Frazier resigned from President Trump's American Manufacturing Council following the administration's tepid response to the white supremacist marches and ensuing violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Frazier's action was seen as deeply principled, and Merck's shareholder value was not damaged. Other CEOs (UnderArmour, Intel, et al) followed suit, in part because Frazier's action created a public demand for moral leadership. Finding balance In the end, leaders must balance their own need to reveal their personal beliefs with the greater good of the organization. This is both an internal and external journey that requires a high degree of reflection as well as an appreciation for the complexity of the company and its role in both the market and society. It's an extremely challenging time to be a leader, but also an exciting one.
Fox News
15 hours ago
- Fox News
WWE legend expresses regret he was unable to speak to Hulk Hogan before his death
WWE Hall of Famer known as Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake expressed some regret that he had been unable to see Hulk Hogan before he passed away at the age of 71. Beefcake, whose real name is Ed Leslie, spoke to TMZ Sports on Saturday about his longtime friendship with Hogan. He said he had heard whispers that "The Hulkster" had not been doing so well, and he had thought about going to Hogan's Clearwater, Florida, home to visit him. "I was going to try to go to his house a couple of days ago. My wife said, 'You should just go over there.' And I was thinking, 'Oh, my God,' but if I go to the house and they say, 'No, you can't come in,' it would have crushed me. So I didn't, and now I wish maybe that I had tried to get in and tried to get to see him before he passed," he said. Beefcake was asked what he would have told Hogan if he had had one more chance to talk to him. "I love you brother, and we were truly friends to the end," he said. Beefcake said Hogan's friendship meant everything to him and that he had helped him break into the pro wrestling business. He recalled the great lengths that Hogan had gone to, to be there for him in his own time of need. Beefcake had been in a parasailing accident in July 1990, and Hogan had made the trip to see him. "I was in a horrible accident and not expected to live. And he left his family in California. His wife was about to have a baby, his son Nick, to fly to Florida to be there, because the doctor said they didn't think I was going to make it. And he flew there to be there for me. "And when they brought me out of a drug-induced coma, and he said to me, 'Don't even think about it. Brutus, you're going to live.' And I did. And he was there for me at the moment I needed the most." Beefcake and Hogan teamed together at the very early stages of their careers. They were known as The Boulder Brothers at the time. He was known as Brutus Beefcake when he first got started in the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). The two also were in the main event match for World Championship Wrestling's (WCW) Starrcade in 1994. He was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2019. Hogan died at a hospital on Thursday, an hour after he had had a cardiac event at his home.
