Art Basel 2025 has opened its doors in its usual polished setting: carpeted aisles, international galleries, champagne on ice. On the surface, nothing has changed. But behind the polite smiles and sleek installations, the atmosphere is noticeably more tense. The market is under pressure. Yesterday's big buyers, boomer collectors, museums, private foundations, are pulling back. The next generation is not stepping in as quickly as expected. Younger buyers are there, yes, but they are looking for something else.
Galleries are juggling. Caught between a desire to innovate and the fear of not selling, they are falling back on the safe bets of the last century. But it is clear the magic is not quite working anymore.

• The jury’s still out

• Few numbers

• Art is losing its shine

• Posterity has its favourites

• B-R & H Finance

Market Review

The jury’s still out

The Middle East has once again shaken up the markets. Israel’s strike on sensitive infrastructure in Iran caused a minor shockwave. Unsurprisingly, investors went into safe-haven mode. Gold jumped 1.1 %, briefly crossing the Usd 3'400 mark (+29 % year-to-date). Oil surged over 12 % in a single day, though it remains up just 0.91 % ytd.

No widespread panic though. Equity markets dipped last Friday, but there was no meltdown. The attack, while targeted, appears to have been designed to hurt without fully destabilising. So far, we are not in full-blown crisis mode, but risk premiums have clearly jumped (VIX at 21.56 %).

Iran, the world's seventh-largest oil producer, with 3.3 million barrels per day and 1.7 million exported, is at the centre of the tension.

Donald Trump seems eager to jump into the fray. He is raising his voice and clenching his jaw, which is never good news for the markets. Let’s be honest, these regimes—think Iran or North Korea—trying to dictate their rules to the rest of the world, are getting exhausting.

If tensions escalate, the inflation machine could kick back into gear, forcing central banks to (yet again) rethink their rate cut plans.

Another collateral victim: the aviation sector. The closure of airspace over Israel, Iran, Iraq, and Jordan has dragged airline stocks down. The Boeing crash in India (over 240 fatalities) only added fuel to the fire, pulling GE Aeronautics down with it.

Then there is the index no one talks about: the Pentagon Pizza Index. Every time it spikes, a crisis follows. And guess what? On Wednesday 11 and Thursday 12, pizza consumption at the Pentagon exploded.

We are celebrating Luca de Meo’s move to Kering (-25.36 % ytd). The Renault boss is pulling off a dramatic pivot, from the auto industry to the world of luxury. From the stylish new R5 to Gucci bags and Balenciaga sneakers. The news briefly sent Kering shares soaring (now retreating again), while Renault stock dropped by a similar margin.

Special mention to the Korean index (Kospi), up 9.31 % so far this month, buoyed by heavy foreign institutional buying. Investors are betting on softer-than-expected tariffs. Meanwhile, the DAX and SMI are both in the red for the month, down -2.04 % and -1.16 % respectively.

Few numbers

Source: ARTnet - The Intelligence Report - The Year Ahead, 2025

• Usd 10.2 billion: total spent at auction on fine art in 2024, a drop of 27.3% compared to the previous year.

• 9: the number of women among the 100 top-selling artists at auction in 2024; there were 11 in 2023.

• -44.2%: decline in revenue from works sold above Usd 10 million, representing a shortfall of Usd 1.34 billion.

• -37.9%: drop in auction sales for ultra-contemporary artists (born after 1974) between 2023 and 2024.

• -27.9%: fall in total fine art sales recorded by the three major houses, Sotheby’s, Christie’s and Phillips, from 2023 to 2024.

Editorial

Art is losing its shine

The trend is clear. In 2024, the art market barely reached Usd 57.5 billion, exactly the same level as in 2010 (source: UBS / Art Basel report). Stagnation, even though the number of billionaires has tripled and their collective wealth has increased sixfold. Surprising? Not really. Boomers were the great collectors. Today, they are selling or passing on their collections. Their children? They no longer have the time. Collecting seems like a dated pastime.

Only three artworks sold for more than Usd 50 million in 2024. There were six in 2023, and ten in 2022 (source: ARTnet). Sales of works over Usd 10 million have plunged by 39%. Unsurprisingly, gallery margins are feeling the pressure. Contemporary and ultra-contemporary art dominate with 48% market share, followed by modern and post-war art at 29%. But let’s not forget: what is "contemporary" today will be "dated" tomorrow. The market fights against time, trying to freeze artists in a state of eternal youth. Old stars are revived, retrospectives are staged, and their works resurface at fairs and auctions. But the waves fade... and many sink into a sea of the forgotten (see Wealth section).

To survive, galleries rely on first-time buyers, who now represent between 28% and 45% of annual sales. The buyer base must constantly be renewed. After China and Russia, the Middle East is the new promised land. Everyone rushes in to "educate" the market. It is no coincidence that the ArtReview Power 100 is now led by Shaikha Hoor Al Qasimi of the Sharjah Art Foundation. In 2024, millennials and Gen Z made up a quarter to a third of bidders, doubling their share over the past five years. In the Middle East, 58% of new buyers are under 40.

And yet, the engines of contemporary art are stalling. At Art Basel 2025, the headline works are still by artists from the last century. A little sad, really.

Where have the enfants terribles gone? Hirst, Koons, Mapplethorpe? Forgotten, for now. Cattelan is still afloat. But the next wave is taking its time. That said, one must-see at Art Basel Unlimited is Felix Gonzalez-Torres’s “Go-Go Dancing Platform” (1957–1996), presented by Hauser & Wirth.

Hauser & Wirth (again) is branching out into restaurants and hotels, LVMH-style. But the magic is fading. Galleries are getting lost in overcomplicated concepts and verbose narratives, all in the hope of stirring some emotion. In trying too hard to “mean something,” art seems to have forgotten how to be beautiful, or subversive, or both.

The latest example? Artsy’s editorial “30 artists defining queer art now.” As if knowing an artist’s sexuality somehow enhances the power of the work. Caravaggio was a murderer, Schiele an obsessive, Artaud mad. The work survives without the biography. The rest is marketing.

The market has become institutionalized. Galleries are for sale, foundations are multiplying, and everything aims to be Instagrammable. Special mention to the MOCO Museum in Amsterdam, arguably one of the worst museums I have ever visited.

So what is happening? Instagram already flattened art into pure image. Richard Prince saw it coming. But AI changed the game entirely. It now generates billions of images on demand. What was once subversive, or reserved for the artist alone (think Gursky’s XXL digitally refined photos), is now accessible to anyone. The image has become virtual, and art dematerialized. This is a shift as radical as the invention of photography, or Duchamp’s urinal.

But this technological upheaval comes with another, quieter one: the fragmentation of the buyer base. Baby boomers are stepping back, but the next generation is not naturally taking over. Visual culture has dissolved into the flow. How many thirty-somethings today can recognize a Mondrian, a Rothko, a Jasper Johns or a Sol Lewitt? Artistic legacy is no longer a given. It has become optional. And no one is ticking the box.

Receive market insights (and more) on the first and third Friday of each month.

If you enjoy this newsletter, please share it

Wealth

Posterity has its favourites

We are attempting to define an investment framework for modern, contemporary, and ultra-contemporary art. The exercise has been done before, and often done well. We make no claim to authority here, just an invitation to reflect.

Let us start with modern art. Every so often, a forgotten name resurfaces: Rayse, Buffet, Hartung, Poliakoff, and off we go again. If you are early in the cycle, you might benefit. But if you are late, history needs to latch on for good, and that is rare.

Ten who will stand the test of time

Let us begin with an arbitrary premise. Art history will only remember ten major artists per century. Ten names etched in textbooks, hung in museums, and fought over at Christie’s. The others do not disappear, but often settle into secondary roles as witnesses of a time or supporting players in a movement. That is often what separates a true work of art from a decorative object.

Of course, this is a blunt simplification. But it helps structure the thinking. You start making lists, questioning them, adjusting them. In the process, you build a framework, a way of seeing, understanding, evaluating.

And since every framework needs a starting point, here is ours. As children of the twentieth century, we have divided the last 120 years into three periods: 1900 to 1945 (the avant-gardes), 1945 to 1980 (the American scene), and 1980 to the present day (the age of branding in art).

To keep things simple, we have deliberately set aside sculptors (for example: Bernini, Moore, Calder, Giacometti, Rodin) and photographers (Cindy Sherman, Gustave Le Gray, Wolfgang Tillmans, Nadar). Not out of lack of interest, but to keep the framework readable.

From the fifteenth century to the avant-gardes of the twentieth, eight out of ten names are largely undisputed. Certainly, the absence of Murillo, Dubuffet, Klimt or Millet may raise eyebrows, but that is the limit of the exercise. All the artists from these first six periods share one thing in common: their market value is solid, they are sought after, and their works are rare. The market has consecrated them, and then locked them in.

Toward an artistic evaluation framework

We have identified nine criteria to assess an artist from an aesthetic, critical, and heritage perspective. Some can be measured, like market value or recognition. Others are more intuitive, like durability or universality. This framework does not claim to judge artistic quality, but rather the ability of a body of work to endure across time, history, and market cycles.

Here are the nine criteria:

1. Historical influence: Did the artist change the course of art history?

2. Formal innovation: Did they introduce a new visual or technical language?

3. Recognition during their lifetime: Were they collected, exhibited, supported?

4. Uniqueness and recognisability: Can they be identified without reading the label?

5. Market validation: Is their valuation solid, followed, institutional?

6. Probable durability: Are they likely to remain relevant in 30 years?

7. Universal reach: Does their work resonate beyond its immediate context?

8. Critical or academic weight: Do they inspire analysis, lasting reflection?

9. Career management: Has their trajectory been coherent and intelligently built?

Now let us apply this framework to two radically different artists: Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528) versus Maurizio Cattelan (born 1960). One was a printmaker, theorist, and master of detail. The other is an iconoclast, prankster, and provocateur. Yet both have managed to impose a highly recognisable style and a sharply self-aware artistic stance.

Total out of 45:

• Albrecht Dürer: 43/45

• Maurizio Cattelan: 33/45

Dürer stands for rigor and timelessness. He invented a form of the modern artist ahead of his time: erudite, published, and autonomous. His work has endured across centuries.

Cattelan is the commentator of his era, the sharp mirror of our hypermediated world. His power is undeniable, but his legacy remains a gamble. He amuses, shocks, and provokes thought.

B-R & H Finance

Founded in 2004, B-R & H Finance SA is a Swiss entity specialized in wealth management. We offer a full range of personalized and independent investment services and advisory solutions. Regulated by SO-Fit and authorized by FINMA, we are also members of the ASG (Swiss Association of Independent Asset Managers) and work with leading custodian banks.

Affiliate Programs and Sponsored Content: Please note that while we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we are not responsible for the content of external sites referenced in our articles, reports, or any other materials. Some links may direct you to affiliate programs or sponsored content, which will be indicated by an asterisk (*). We do not manage or endorse the privacy practices, content, or policies of these third-party sites. We encourage you to carefully read their privacy policies and terms and conditions before engaging with them.

Disclaimer: This newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, an offer, or a solicitation to buy or sell securities or adopt an investment strategy. The information, opinions, and analyses presented here are based on sources believed to be reliable and are expressed in good faith, but no explicit or implicit guarantee is made regarding their accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Stock market investments are subject to market and other risks, and there is no guarantee that investment objectives will be achieved. Past performance is not indicative of future results.