Would this be in your collection?
@reidhoffman recently posted a fascinating article about his conversation with Mike Winkelmann, the artist known as Beeple. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/69m-sale-just-beginning-reid-hoffman-qxcpc/
Beeple is an artist who has been making digital art for nearly two decades and is famous for having produced a work of art every day since May 1, 2007. The First 5000 Days sold at Christie's for $69 million.
The conversation between the two focused on AI as a medium, an extension of day-to-day practice, regardless of what your métier may be. The article hit home because it brought art into the conversation, namely what is art, and who gets to decide what has value and what is worth collecting.
In the corporate context this matters. The accompanying photo to the article showed one of Beeple’s more recent works featuring “robot dogs with faces of tech-leaders that prowled around his last exhibition at Art Basel” [Miami]. Regardless of your opinion of the work, Beeple has long been considered an important artist of the 21st century.
So, if you’re a corporate collector, would you add such a work to your collection?
Corporate art is fundamentally selected based on three criteria, potential long term asset appreciation, congruence with a design brief and collecting philosophy. Based on these criteria, the chance of this ending up in your lobby is a coin toss. Asset value, check; statement piece, check; collecting philosophy, potentially.
Collecting philosophy is the one element that is frequently not given enough consideration. Even among the most significant collectors, collecting philosophy is too often steeped in institutionalized and paternalistic noblesse oblige. Patronage as philanthropy. Here’s the rub. When corporations collect as a gesture rather than with intentionality, it’s condescension, not patronage.
You might argue that your philosophy is considered and that your intent is to support artists. We would counter that this very notion of support is flawed. Artists don’t need ‘support’, they need patronage in the commercial sense of the word. We need to get beyond collecting just those artists who have been anointed with celebrity. Artists need to be viewed not as fringe characters – the struggling artist – but as equal contributors to the economic fabric of our communities.
Here’s the part that most organizations miss entirely. Real patronage has real benefits, real ROI.
Back to the question of what belongs; are mechanized dogs art? Beeple may see his work in the tradition of the artist as provocateur, like Picasso and Warhol. (Both artists appeared among the roaming dogs.) Picasso’s Guernica comes to mind. It’s a challenging work. It depicts the suffering of people and animals using chaotic, Cubist, and Surrealist imagery. It’s an assault in itself, not just a political statement, condemning the brutality of modern warfare. Does Beeple’s work and not-so-subtle political commentary have the same gravitas? And what of the comparison to Warhol: art of the banal; art to titillate; art as commerce?
Art as they say is in the eye of the beholder. Art is experience. The question for collectors therefore is not what is worth collecting but what do you want to collect and why. Let us help you answer these questions. Our curatorial philosophy is grounded in consulting methodologies not just design principles, leading to selections that are intentional and aligned to each organizations distinct values.
Intrigued? Book a consultation to learn more about Open Art platform and programs.
Accompanying image: Visitors photograph Beeple’s “Regular Animals” (2025) at Art Basel Miami Beach. (photo Valentina Di Liscia/Hyperallergic)
