On the invisible boundary between building reputation, manipulating the market, and committing fraud
Periodically, a scandal involving forgery or fraud permeates the art press, reviving a convenient suspicion: that the entire market is a fabrication, that prices are illusory, and that behind every figure lies a hand pulling the strings. This suspicion is understandable; yet, framed in such a manner, it is false. There is no evidence of a coordinated and permanent manipulation of the art market. Proven instances of fraud exist, yet they are isolated cases and, in the aggregate, exceptional.
It is more unsettling than a conspiracy theory and more difficult to dismantle. The market is not a fraud. Its structure renders it, by design, nearly impossible to distinguish from the outside between three distinct phenomena: the legitimate construction of reputation, lawful yet questionable manipulation, and criminally proven fraud. The issue is not that deception exists. It is that we cannot ascertain, in any specific instance, whether it is present.
1. How a price that does not entirely lie is manufactured
Let us begin with what has been demonstrated, as it is less sensational and more revealing than any accusation. The price of a work is not an assessment of an inherent property of the object. It is the outcome of a social process. The economic sociology of art has documented this with rigour: under conditions of radical uncertainty regarding quality—as no one can objectively prove that a painting is worth ten million—it is the authorised actors who confer reputation and produce the signals that allow for a valuation. Gallerists, critics, curators, journalists, and influential collectors. Value is produced intersubjectively, among individuals with the authority to recognise it; it is not discovered within the object itself.
There are studies that quantify this. Exhibition in prestigious museums correlates with subsequent performance at auction. Social signals—who supports an artist, in which network they circulate—predict contemporary art prices better than the visual traits of the work, especially in emerging markets. And the price itself, in the gallery, functions as a message: it communicates quality, status, the identity of the initial buyers, and the legitimacy of the artist. The number conveys meaning before it is a figure.
None of this is illegitimate. It is simply the manner in which a market for unique goods, the value of which no one can independently verify, functions. However, it carries a consequence that must be confronted: if value is manufactured through relationships and signals, then manipulating those relationships and signals is, from an external perspective, indistinguishable from producing them legitimately.
2. The legal theatre of price
Consider the auction, which is the most visible and supposedly most transparent part of the market. Until recently, in New York, the auctioneer could engage in chandelier bidding: accepting non-existent bids, cast into the air, to create the appearance of activity up to the reserve price. It was legal under certain conditions. In 2022, the city eliminated a significant portion of the specific rules that regulated auctions—including disclosure obligations regarding guarantees and that very practice—leaving the field to general regulations and self-regulation.
Consider guarantees. Before a work is offered at auction, the auction house or a third party may assure the seller of a minimum price. Should no higher bid be placed, the guarantor retains the work; if the price is exceeded, they receive compensation or a portion of the difference. The effect is a price floor established before the actual bidding commences. A guaranteed work appears pre-validated by sophisticated capital. This is not necessarily deception—it may be disclosed—but the boundary between 'information the bidder deserves' and 'information withheld from them' relies upon an opacity that the system tolerates.
Consider the primary gallery market, which is not a transparent exchange but rather the inverse: managed scarcity, waiting lists, and the selection of those permitted to purchase. All of this generates an aura of qualified demand. And all of this is perfectly legal. Controlling supply to sustain a price is market management; it could also be, in a specific instance, manipulation. From the outside, the difference is not discernible.
None of these practices is, in itself, fraud. That is precisely the point. The standard repertoire of the market—chandelier bidding, opaque guarantees, strategic withdrawal, defensive buybacks, institutional placement—produces the same visible effects that deliberate manipulation would produce. The legality of the tool does not guarantee the integrity of its use, and the use is not observable.
3. When fraud does occur: what the cases teach us
Proven instances of fraud exist. It is prudent not to dilute these within general suspicion, as their exceptional nature constitutes part of the argument. Glafira Rosales pleaded guilty to introducing several dozen forged works of abstract expressionism—attributed to Rothko, Pollock, and Motherwell—via the Knoedler gallery, which were in reality painted by a single artist. Wolfgang Beltracchi was convicted by a Cologne court for forging works with fabricated provenances, including collections that never existed. Inigo Philbrick was sentenced for selling more than one hundred per cent ownership of the same work to multiple buyers simultaneously, using it as collateral without informing the co-owners.
Three observations are immediately apparent in these cases. First, what enabled the fraud was not the technical skill of the forger or the audacity of the dealer, but the very opacity that sustains the legitimate market. Provenances that no one could verify, ownerships that no one cross-checked, and reputational trust that replaced due diligence. Philbrick was able to sell the same work multiple times because no public registry existed to prevent it.
The second point: the system failed to detect any of these frauds through internal mechanisms. They were uncovered by collapse—when Philbrick’s buyers sought the same work at once—, by denunciation, or by judicial investigation. From within, the market could not distinguish the fraudulent operation from the legitimate one because both utilised the same opaque channels.
The third and most delicate point concerns the boundary. The Bouvier-Rybolovlev case did not result in a conviction: the buyer accused the intermediary of having overcharged him by hundreds of millions over the years for a collection of thirty-eight works; the intermediary maintained that he acted as a dealer free to set his own margin. An out-of-court settlement was reached, the case was dismissed in Geneva, and a New York jury acquitted the auction house involved. This is not proven fraud. It is precisely the grey area: alleged overpricing, a conflict of role between agent and vendor, and opacity regarding who knew what. What one party considered a swindle, the other considered commerce. And the law, with the available evidence, could not resolve it.
4. The role of the media, without exaggeration
The press, the rankings, the lists of 'artists to watch', the coverage of fairs. One must be precise, as it is easy to overstate. What is demonstrated is that the media forms part of the apparatus that confers reputation: it fits into the mechanism by which authorised actors produce the signals that reduce buyer uncertainty. Media attention can be converted into liquidity—more enquiries, more visits, more potential buyers, more justification for increasing the primary price.
What is not demonstrated is that every price increase following coverage constitutes manipulation. It may be a legitimate reputational effect, genuine scarcity, authentic demand, or institutional validation. To assert that there is a coordinated and stable manipulation between media, auction houses, galleries, and collectors to manufacture prices across the entire market is conjecture, not data: it would require documentary evidence—emails, contracts, covert financing, synchronised operations—which, due to the very opacity of the system, almost never surface.
And therein lies the central problem, now applied to the media. We cannot affirm generalised manipulation. Neither can we rule it out. The structure does not allow us to know.
5. The loophole as a discovery
The overview leaves not an accusation, but an impossibility. It is demonstrated that reputation, social signals, institutions, and the media influence value. It is demonstrated that there are criminally proven frauds. It is demonstrated that the market possesses structural vulnerabilities—anonymity, intermediaries, shell companies, freeports, private non-public prices—recognised by the United States Senate, the US Treasury, the FATF, and by European anti-money laundering regulations themselves, which have only in recent years begun to include the art trade among those obligated.
What is not, and cannot easily be, is the line. Opacity prevents the clear separation of the legal formation of reputation, ethical but lawful manipulation, and proven fraud. This indistinction is not an accidental failure that a robust audit would correct. It is the operating condition of a market that trades in goods whose value no one can verify independently, and which has made discretion a norm.
If the value of art is not a property of the object but something activated within a system of relations—recognition, exposure, endorsement, circulation—then the manipulation of that system is, by construction, difficult to distinguish from its normal operation. Not because everyone lies, but because truth and falsehood regarding price circulate through the same opaque channel. The consequence is not cynicism—'everything is a lie'—which is as false as naivety. It is something more sober: when faced with an art market figure, intellectual honesty compels one to state that we do not know, and that the system is designed so that we cannot know.
And there is, even here, a loophole that is not insignificant. That very impossibility of verifying the price is proof that the price is not the work itself. What a painting does when someone stands before it—whether it reorganises something, whether it opens a horizon—does not pass through the auction house nor is it decided in the private market. That we can know, each of us, at first hand, without intermediaries and without opacity. The market jealously guards the secret of its figures. The experience of the work, by contrast, seeks no one’s permission.
On the open conversation
This text continues the reflection on how the value of art is produced and validated, a theme that runs throughout this Notebook. Should anyone wish to contribute from the perspectives of the economic sociology of art, market law, specialised journalism, or professional practice within the sector, the notebook remains open.
Sources
U.S. Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (2020). The Art Industry and U.S. Policies that Undermine Sanctions. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-Y4_G74_9-PURL-gpo142344/pdf/GOVPUB-Y4_G74_9-PURL-gpo142344.pdf
U.S. Department of the Treasury (2022). Study of the Facilitation of Money Laundering and Terror Finance Through the Trade in Works of Art. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Treasury_Study_WoA.pdf
Financial Action Task Force (FATF/GAFI) (2023). Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in the Art and Antiquities Market. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Methodsandtrends/Money-Laundering-Terrorist-Financing-Art-Antiquities-Market.html
European Union (2018). Directive (EU) 2018/843 (Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/843/oj/eng
U.S. Department of Justice, SDNY (2022). Former Art Dealer Sentenced to 7 Years for $86 Million Fraud Scheme (Inigo Philbrick). https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-art-dealer-sentenced-7-years-86-million-fraud-scheme
Landgericht Köln (2011). Urteil 110 KLs 17/11, 27 October 2011 (Beltracchi case). Portal NRWE.
Beckert, Jens; Rössel, Jörg (2013). “The Price of Art: Uncertainty and Reputation in the Art Field.” European Societies, 15(2), 178-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2013.767923
Braden, L. E. A.; Teekens, Thomas (2019). “Reputation, Status Networks, and the Art Market.” Arts, 8(3), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8030081
Lee, Kangsan; Park, Jiwoo; Goree, Samuel; Crandall, David; Ahn, Yong-Yeol (2024). “Social signals predict contemporary art prices better than visual features.” Scientific Reports, 14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60957-z
Velthuis, Olav (2005). Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. Princeton University Press.
Adam, Georgina (2017). Dark Side of the Boom: The Excesses of the Art Market in the 21st Century. Lund Humphries.
Thompson, Don (2008). The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art. Palgrave Macmillan.