Word on the street—or at least on social media—is that the art world is crashing. Fairs are being canceled, major galleries are closing, and the global art market is experiencing a 12% decline, as illustrated by the Art Market Report by UBS and Art Basel. So is it true? Is the art world and the art market crashing? In this article, we’ll provide a clear overview of some of the key events that have caused the current commotion and offer a sober assessment of the report in question.
Tim Blum’s recent announcement to ‘sunset’ his Blum gallery—an industry-leading art gallery with locations in New York, Los Angeles, and Tokyo—resulted in a genuine shockwave in the art world. We knew many smaller art galleries were struggling, but seeing the big players close their doors hits different. However, critical of the current art market environment, Blum emphasized that the decision is about systemic exhaustion, rather than financial conditions, as he will continue to buy and sell art, but not in the traditional gallery format. A couple of days later, collector-turned-dealer Adam Lindemann announces the closure of his well-established New York gallery, Venus Over Manhattan, after 14 years of business, opting instead to focus exclusively on collecting. Lindemann cited exhaustion from art fair politics as a significant factor in his decision. Last year, numerous other galleries closed their doors as well. In 2024, New York, the holy land of the art world, experienced a wave of gallery closures, with significant dealers such as Marlborough Gallery, Cheim & Read, and Deli Gallery ending their operations, following the closures of JTT Gallery, Queer Thoughts, and Denny Gallery in 2023. Last year in London, the gallery programs of Limoncello and Vilma Gold came to an end as well. And in Los Angeles, more galleries have closed, downsized, or gone on hiatus, including Lorin Gallery and Praz-Delavallade, which closed permanently. One could argue that 2024 was a worse year than 2025 has been so far for art galleries; yet, the aforementioned recent closures seem to create more commotion and buzz, fueling an ongoing narrative that appears to be reaching new heights of art world fatigue and a stuttering market. Galleries open and close all the time, but the circulation of, and focus on, art world misfortune and upheaval seems to have reached a new level in 2025.
A catalyst for this narrative is the latest Art Market Report by UBS and Art Basel, which showed a significant decline of 12% to an estimated market of $57.5 billion. This annual report, directed by Dr. Clare McAndrew, founder of Arts Economics, maps the current state of the global art market by collecting all available auction data (secondary market) and a yearly survey for art dealers and galleries (primary market), accompanied by data from art fairs and NFTs. It is essential to note that, particularly in the primary market, tracking is complex, if not problematic, due to its private nature and reliance on self-reported data, which depends on the participants’ willingness and honesty. So is the report complete and representative when it comes to galleries and art dealers? This year’s report received close to 1,600 completed responses, with 700 galleries participating in one of Art Basel’s fairs. As a result, the data sample has a clear focus on more established art galleries and only covers 1,600 of 25,000 registered art galleries on ArtFacts. However, as the report itself uses the same methodology year over year, the trends that emerge in these reports are relevant and arguably as good as it gets, even though the majority of small to medium-sized art galleries are being omitted. This report has been cited across almost all art platforms, and especially this year on social media as well. However, it is striking to see how many different readings this report has had, as people interpret the numbers in ways that fit a desired or undesirable narrative. Let’s examine the key findings to determine if the art world is truly in crisis.
First and foremost, 2024 was indeed not a good year. A 12% drop is significant, especially considering it is a consecutive decrease after a more modest -4% in 2023. But is the art market crashing? In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the market declined by 22% to approximately $50 billion. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and global recession, the art market tanked to just $39.5 billion—a 36% decline. When times are unsure and tough, the market responds, as collectors are more cautious and hesitant, both to buy and to sell. Considering today’s geopolitical climate, it is no surprise that dealers cited the prevailing context of political and economic volatility as their top challenge for 2024. In times of conflict, combat, and economic warfare, it was written in the stars that less money would circulate in the art market. Comparing the current 12% decrease to the aforementioned 22% and 36%, words like “crash” and “crisis” seem a bit harsh. Both in total value and in terms of the percentages, 2022 to 2024 are very comparable to the market in 2014 to 2016. In hindsight, we would never call those years an art market crash—so perhaps a more nuanced and sober look at this report is advised, rather than using it to fuel market uncertainty. Yet, despite the comforting nuance the bigger picture offers, it also reveals a more worrying trend: the market is not growing. Over the past 20 years, there has been no upward trend in the total value of the art market, whereas the markets for other luxury goods have been growing steadily—a conclusion that deserves further discussion in a different article on a different occasion.
So, the market has dropped. Now let’s find out who took the most significant blows. In a nutshell, the high-end of the art market has noticed a sharp decline. Despite a 12% decrease in the total market, the number of transactions increased by 3%. This 3% growth is not the key finding here; it is growth, but it is not significant enough to conclude that more people are buying art. It especially underscores that, with approximately the same number of transactions, the value is significantly less, as the top end of the transactions has lost considerable ground to the lower end. To understand this better, we need to examine both the primary market with the art galleries, which saw a 6% decline in value, and the secondary market, the auction houses, facing a 25% decrease. Let’s start with the latter. The high-end segment plummeted, with 39% fewer sales above $10 million, following a 28% decline in 2023, resulting in a 45% decrease in value. This segment was growing strongly in 2021 and 2022, and now we see the almost cyclical rhythm of this market heading firmly in the other direction. 2024 was not the year for multi-million-dollar sales, which reinforces this negative trend as big collectors hold on to their masterpieces instead of bringing them to auction, thereby not giving the market the right pieces to recover. To conclude, sales below $5,000 saw both an increase in value and volume of 7% and 13% respectively.
Whereas the secondary market leads a life of its own with transactions from one collector to another with the auction houses as the intermediary, the primary market includes more art world actors such as the art galleries, art fairs, the collectors, and, of course, the artists themselves, making it arguably more relevant or essential for those operating in the art world and to see if it is really crashing or not. The total value of the primary market, based on the data from the surveyed galleries for this report, is estimated at $34 billion. The 6% decline is not as problematic as the 25% decrease in the secondary market, or the 12% overall drop of the art market, which is predominantly caused by the lack of $10 million sales at auction. Furthermore, this 6% decline in the primary market is once again attributed to a significant drop in the highest segment; the world’s largest art galleries, with a yearly turnover exceeding $10 million, experienced a 9% decline, which has a substantial impact on the overall market value. At the other end of the primary market, smaller galleries with a turnover of less than $250,000 experienced a 17% increase in value following an 11% increase in 2023. One might wonder whether the big spenders are simply buying less expensive works, or if they are out, as is the case in the secondary market, due to the current geopolitical climate, and we are actually seeing new buyers enter the fold within a more affordable price range, with more accessible and smaller galleries. And even more, beyond these 1,600 surveyed galleries, of which nearly half are operating in the highest realms and fairs of the art world, how is the landscape of the small to medium-sized galleries evolving? Do we observe the same increase in value as with the surveyed galleries, particularly those with a turnover of less than $250,000? Questions deserving of further research, in my humble opinion. But the year-over-year growth in this segment cannot be ignored and is arguably the most positive takeaway from this report that is not being talked about at all.
Based on these numbers and the broader context, the art world is facing significant headwinds due to the current geopolitical climate, but it is not crashing—especially not the primary market. Yet, it would be foolish to think that all the problems are due to economic ups and downs, and that the art world has to do nothing but wait for better times. The world is changing, and those who adapt best to the new audiences and changing landscape will survive or even prosper, regardless of the global economy. For your reference, in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis when the art market noticed a 22% decrease, CAI was founded, and as an artist, I found two galleries to represent me, with whom I have been working ever since—illustrating that it is not impossible to thrive in times of so-called crisis. Perhaps that is exactly why the higher-end segment is in decline when the road gets rough, consisting of the dinosaurs of the art world clinging on to how things use to be, and the lower-end is adapting better hence seeing a bigger piece of the pie than they used to. Still, its most significant challenge is to, despite the inevitable cyclical economic changes in which the total market value fluctuates, ultimately see the total market value climb incrementally over time. Considering the rising costs and fragile ecosystem of the art world, having a bigger pie is the key to avoiding going hungry in the long run.
As a result, one could argue that the current frenzy of negativity and panic appears to be rooted in the current media landscape, where loud voices online, with a strategic sense for drama and sensation, are in search of views and clicks to go viral for monetary gain in the media’s battle for attention. This ongoing narrative of the dying art world, based on system fatigue, in which artists, art enthusiasts, and even those within the art world seem to root for its downfall, appears to be an irrational desire for self-destruction. It is uncanny to see how many artists find joy in the prospect of the art world coming to an end—a sentiment that seems to grow out of frustration, a feeling of being left out of this conversation, and the vast amount of misinformation circulating online. However, gallery closures will not give artists more opportunities; on the contrary.
Why are artists rooting for the end of the art gallery system and renouncing it as an obsolete and greedy model that does not care about the art, before getting stuck in the overwhelming administration and costs of participating in festivals, doing everything themselves, and more often than not, with underwhelming results? Why are artists reluctant to share 50% of their sales to galleries who are giving them a platform in the art world to grow a meaningful career and find the recognition they are in search of, but are happy to give 30% to online art marketplaces who do nothing at all for the artists; no physical exhibitions, no in-person talks about art, no prospect of building something beyond the transaction of an online sale? Why are we cheering to destroy the voices of the people who have contributed a lot to art and the art world, such as curators and gallery directors, who invested in artists to realize their dream and vision to create great art, but are being portrayed as evil gatekeepers, yet we are fine to let the gatekeeping be done by the algorithms of Meta, even though the art is inferior or even censored on these platforms?
Yes, there is system fatigue. There is a generational shift. The art world is changing—for some too slow, for some too fast. This change itself is another topic that requires further discussion; however, the desire to see the art world collapse due to certain issues and challenges it faces today is not the right attitude to make the art world a better place for all of us. We all have a responsibility in this matter. Perhaps if we didn’t treat the art world as a corpse we’re dragging around, it wouldn’t become one. After all, that must be the goal if we want to protect art and the artists. How can the art world become a better place if we only focus on its negative news and flaws, overlooking what is positive and does not fit into the narrative of a dying art market? For instance, instead of focusing on and dramatizing these gallery closures, why are the numerous new premises that opened in the past year out of the picture? The report mentions 37 openings, compared to 30 reported closures. I guess bad news sells. Polarizing statements might give individuals short-term popularity and visibility, but it is not make the art world more welcoming, warm, or inclusive—ironically, exactly the things those loud voices expect the art world to become, and rightfully so.
From my experience, the art world is welcoming, warm, transparent, and inclusive, especially at entry-level art galleries, which are populated by people who truly share a passion for art. At least, you can only experience it this way if you are also genuinely interested in art, and not just in your own art and career—and I believe this is precisely where the shoe pinches. The market will remain as small as it is; people are only getting excited about their art and initiatives. More people are interested in creating art than seeing art. More people are interested in selling art, their own or that of others, as a dealer, than in acquiring it. By doing so, it is inevitable that artists will feel left out, if there is an estimate of at least 5 million active artists today—and I believe the real number is a multitude of this number—creating 10 to 50 artworks every year, the vast majority of artists will remain unexhibited and their works will remain unsold. This is not the art world’s fault; it is a logical outcome. Learning to live with art, and not just your own, is key—and I strongly recommend it.
In other industries, when things get tough, the community supports the industry in all possible ways to keep it alive. So perhaps one needs to ask oneself, ‘How am I improving the art world?’ Am I spreading negativity—perhaps, because of my frustration of not seeing more personal gain from this industry—or am I making it a better place by contributing to it in a positive manner; by keeping up the attendance numbers, by participating in the main art events, by buying the printed magazines that foster relevant discussions but are struggling to survive, by supporting other artists by collecting them or promoting them, et cetera. Ultimately, it is in giving that we receive.
Last Updated on July 25, 2025
- Published on
About the author:
Julien Delagrange (b. 1994, BE) is an art historian, contemporary artist, and the director of CAI and CAI Gallery. Previously, Delagrange has worked for the Centre for Fine Arts (BOZAR) in Brussels, the Jan Vercruysse Foundation, and the Ghent University Library. His artistic practice and written art criticism are strongly intertwined, examining contemporary art in search of new perspectives in the art world.
