Editor’s Note: This story originally appeared in On Balance, the ARTnews newsletter about the art market and beyond. Sign up here to receive it every Wednesday.
Miraculously, we survived one of the busiest Mays in recent memory. There was a news-packed Venice Biennale, followed by more New York fairs than one person could attend. And then there was, of course, the annual marquee sales at the major auction houses. Art Basel’s flagship fair in June is now all that stands between the art world elite and a summer in the Hamptons, Mallorca, and other ritzy destinations.
But first, it’s time to take stock of the auction sales, which topped $2.5 billion across Christie’s, Sotheby’s, and Phillips. Per the New York Times, that’s nearly double last year’s equivalent take of $1.3 billion. The headlines, of course, were led by the record-breaking $181.2 million sale of S. I. Newhouse’s Jackson Pollock painting, Number 7A, 1948. And that $2.5 billion total was buoyed by the $630.8 million generated by the 16-lot sale of works owned by Newhouse, one of contemporary art’s most storied collectors. After a stellar November that interrupted a streak of weak, uneven auction seasons, there were plenty of green shoots this May.”
ARTnews asked five advisers for their takes on the sales, from the abundance of high-profile consignments to what we can expect from the art market’s “new normal.”
What was the single most revealing moment of the week for you? Not the “best” or “worst” sale, but a specific moment that tells you something about where the market actually is.
Andrea Hazen: Both Christie’s and Sotheby’s had a huge number of attendees touring the preview exhibitions—there were a record high of more than 20,000 at Christie’s in May, and Sotheby’s had comparable numbers when they opened in the Breuer building in November. Of course, a certain number of those visitors are not going to be buyers, but that fact stood out to me after a couple of years of a lull in the market.
I also went to the 2026 Art Business Conference, where Charles Stewart, Sotheby’s CEO, talked about the fact that a lot of millennial and Gen Z buyers are starting to perk up. Gen X and baby boomers have historically been great collectors, but galleries and auction houses have had a hard time with younger generations. Stewart spoke about how younger people are not just buying art but also cars and other luxury items. Maybe that will be a gateway to collecting art.
Hugo Nathan: The most revealing moment of the week was the 1995 Richter from the collection of Marian Goodman. It was a small jewel by an artist whose market has been relatively soft in recent years. The spirited competition and strong depth of bidding on this work, which sold for well over twice its low estimate, gave some much-needed life to Christie’s salesroom on Thursday. It showed that depth is there in the market. [Abstraktes Bild was estimated at $3 million to $5 million and sold for $8.7 million including fees.]
Ed Dolman: When the dust settled on the Mnuchin sale, I think we knew where the market was. Prices were strong, but there were no real surprises, and that reflected exactly where the market is. The Rothko [Brown and Blacks in Reds (1957), which sold for $85.8 million] was a standout result, proving the enduring demand for exceptional postwar material. The Jeff Koons and Franz Kline works both sold for big money but proved to me the market has corrected, stabilized, and moved on.
Meredith Darrow: Despite the Pollock being a unicorn, and of course doing incredibly well, I felt the fact that it didn’t sell for double the amount that it did was telling. Although this could be a collector’s only opportunity in their lifetime to acquire a Pollock drip painting, the wealthiest collectors are currently more measured and discerning about quality than they may have been during a peak, frenzied market—as this was a good, not great, example of these works.
Benjamin Godsill: For me, a pivotal moment was the Phillips [modern and contemporary evening] sale doing so well. While it wasn’t the strongest sale, even for them, they did an amazing job of matching reserves to interest levels and having a clean auction. And that is where the market is right now. Beyond the big headline lots and estates, the market is sensible, with collectors willing to spend the right price for the right work but not stretch beyond that.
Auction houses saw a rebound last fall, due mostly to the excitement around trophy works like Gustav Klimt’s Portrait of Elisabeth Lederer, which sold in November for $236.4 million. Was this season more of the same, but with Newhouse’s Pollock and Gund’s Rothko? Or are we starting to see a more durable recovery emerging?
Hazen: I bid on several lots for clients, and this time around, we only came away winning one lot, because things were far exceeding the estimates. We were not buying Pollock and Brâncuși, but we were bidding for some pieces for more than $10 million. Some of the things I bid on were at Christie’s Impressionist art day sale. I was astounded at the number of not-great examples that were going for four to six times the estimate. It appeared that bidders were coming from all over the world. So, there is health, and not just in the upper tier. The question is: Who are all these buyers? The craze for “wet paint” artists has faded. There were a couple [of artists] that buyers are still going crazy for, but there’s not so much of that kind of speculation.
Nathan: I don’t think you can only attribute the market rebound to high-value lots. There were consistently higher sales totals across the board, including in evening sales that didn’t have the blockbuster pieces, such as the one at Phillips. Moreover, the day sales have been consistently strong, with a significant proportion of lots selling beyond their top estimates, which is indicative of a more durable recovery.
Dolman: This season was much stronger than November. November’s results were the shot in the arm that the market needed, giving confidence to both buyers and sellers. We saw that reflected in the quality and number of works offered and the strength of demand right across the board. The market is in very good shape right now; it is discerning and mercifully short on speculation, creating opportunities for both buyers and sellers.
Darrow: I believe the strength of the sales across the board, with a larger number of high-ticket items than in November, absolutely suggests that we are in the midst of a robust and healthy market.
Godsill: Outside the blockbusters—which are truly driven by available material more than discretionary selling—what we are seeing is sensibility. People are willing to spend the amount they feel something is worth today, but they are not willing to pay tomorrow’s prices.
Between the guarantees, irrevocable bids, some instances of thin bidding, and strategic buying, which result do you think people are misreading, and what’s the more accurate read?
Hazen: People are misreading the $107.6 million sale of the Brâncuși sculpture at Christie’s. There was one bidder for that: the guarantor. The house got Nicole Kidman to do a shallow and embarrassing video to prop up the sculpture, and at the end of the day, it was going to sell for what it sold for. Why even take it to auction? At the same time, I did see people going crazy for the Pollock, for which there was super-competitive bidding.
Nathan: While some big prices were made for Rothko this week, I was struck most by the market’s consistency. As the lack of runaway prices on many of the week’s top lots would suggest, pricing remains relatively steady. Comparable Rothkos were trading at similar levels in 2012, when the previous record had been set. The success of so many Rothkos might better indicate that collectors, when armed with accurate price intel and thus equipped with measured confidence, are taking an increasingly rational approach in their willingness to chase masterpieces.
Dolman: Phillips, Sotheby’s, and Christie’s all did a wonderful job in winning correctly estimated material in a super-competitive environment. We should not misread the apparent lack of “fireworks” as weakness at all—more a symptom of a strong, well-understood market that now lacks exuberant speculation. The demand across the board, from the day sales to the very top of the market, performed exceptionally well. I don’t think we have fully adjusted to the “new normal.” All three major auction houses have become masterful at managing their sales and laying off risk. The results of their sales management are clear: Estimates tend to be higher (the low estimate often reflecting the price agreed with the third party), the sell-through rates are high (the majority of lots are covered by irrevocable bids, which offer a discount or significant revenue to the buyer), and there are fewer heated bidding wars for underestimated works. This leads some commentators to underestimate the underlying strength of the market.
Darrow: The huge results for young artists are misleading—like those for Yu Nishimura or Joseph Yaeger. There’s a huge discrepancy between those numbers at auction and what these works would sell for on the private secondary market.
Godsill: At high altitudes, the air is thinner than people realize or admit, but there is way more oxygen down at sea level—the day sales.
Setting aside the trophy lots, was there a category or price band that quietly outperformed?
Hazen: The mid-tier—works priced at $200,000 to $1 million—did quite well, with many works selling for four to six times the estimate, including some things that weren’t great pieces. While there was a Rashid Johnson that didn’t exactly kill it, there was a Rudolf Stingel that did well, and I was happy to see that. He’s a great artist.
Nathan: Impressionism quietly outperformed, perhaps reinforcing that tastes are leaning back to the traditional. Day sales at both houses saw the likes of Renoir, Bonnard, and even some of their lesser-known counterparts—Gustave Loiseau, Armand Guillaumin, and Albert Marquet—consistently selling well beyond their presale top estimates. And in the Christie’s evening sale, works by both Monet and Pissarro sold for over three times their estimate.
Dolman: The Impressionist and modern market continues to benefit from buyers seeking quality and value.
Darrow: I was very impressed with the blue-chip day sale lots—a category that often falls through the cracks—across the board. I think it indicates that a wide range of collectors are focused on blue-chip artists, moving away from younger art.
Godsill: I’m not a mathematician, but the day sales’ sell-through rates felt quite comfortable.
How well do you think the press covered the sales this week? What’s the biggest thing we’re getting wrong—or missing entirely?
Hazen: One thing that has troubled me for years is that the headlines are always about the big winners and the top things. The truth of the matter is that there are very few people bidding at that level. It makes people feel like, “I’m wealthy, but I didn’t buy the $100 million thing.” My client and I have been looking at Rothko for a while, and we looked at Christie’s in the fall. He asked me about the one coming from [late dealer Robert] Mnuchin. My client asked, “Where do you think it’s going to fall?” I said, “If the world’s wealthiest buyers want it, they will pay any sum.” But uber-wealthy people are also buying things that cost $200,000. I understand that it’s not clickable, but I don’t think there’s enough reporting about that.
Nathan: The press headlines last week were naturally driven by the trophy pictures, the outcomes for which were largely predetermined by guarantees coming from a relatively small number of individuals in the market. The art market is much broader than that, and it’s difficult to draw sweeping conclusions without interrogating the nuance across different movements or artists—or even within a single artist’s oeuvre. Picasso is a great example. The results for masterpieces tell us a lot about the market for masterpieces, and not much else.
Dolman: The press does a fantastic job in a very difficult environment. The relentless promotion of the sales and prices achieved by the auction houses makes it difficult to stand back and ascertain what is really going on. Today’s press is largely well-informed and balanced, and has learned how the market now functions differently from the past.
Darrow: The level and amount of press coverage of the sales and the market in general are unprecedented and impressive. The reality is the press is rarely going to be privy to the insider story, but I think they’re doing a great job trying.
Godsill: No comment.
