
THE ARCHITECT AT HOOPA VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN 2015
NICO MARKS
In 1971, Frank Gehry, 42 years old and not yet the most famous architect in the world, began volunteering every Saturday at the Westminster School in Venice, partly out of “curiosity” and partly to see how he might help the students. Gehry, now 87, who is as passionate about teaching as he is about his craft, observed children in different grades in order to understand their journey. He says he realized that unless they were exposed to something exciting, not just rote math or literature, by sixth grade “the faucet was off and they were no longer open to ideas.”
So he teamed up with his sister Doreen Nelson, a teacher, and together each Wednesday afternoon they would take children from Westminster out into the streets to build an imaginary city, for which the kids had to bring their hated rulers and protractors. The children loved it, Gehry says. “We were teaching math and other subjects by accident.”
According to the architect, however, the teachers did not love it. “They got jealous,” he says, and they ended the sessions, even though Gehry’s “design-based learning” methods had become the subject of a Jon Boorstin documentary and been written up in Smithsonianmagazine. Gehry learned a valuable lesson, he says, which was that “this couldn’t be done with us being injected into a school. We had to be invited.”
“I’m having fun,” Gehry says. “People have to pull me away from this stuff.”
Forty years later, in 2011, the architect had a fortuitous dinner with his friend Bobby Shriver, the philanthropist and former mayor of Santa Monica, at which he met Shriver’s glamorous wife, Malissa Feruzzi Shriver (pictured top, with Gehry), who was close to the end of a five-year term as chair of the California Arts Council. “I want to do something in arts education,” Gehry told her.
But it had to be big—”Shriver big,” he added jokingly. To illustrate the scale he had in mind, he mentioned that he had recently visited Venezuela, where he had witnessed “El Sistema,” the country’s extraordinary musical education program that involves poor children in the orchestras. “It’s a model for everyone,” Gehry says.
Fortunately, Malissa Shriver knew of an incipient project close to the heart of First Lady Michelle Obama: the Turnaround Arts program, which is targeted at underserved and underperforming elementary schools. In 2011 the program was operative in eight states; Shriver lobbied for California to become the ninth. Gehry himself would put in money, as would the state government and private arts foundations.
In May 2014 the California branch of Turnaround Arts was launched, at a White House ceremony during which President Obama and the first lady spoke. At its outset the program served 10 elementary schools, each of which was assigned an artistic mentor from a group that currently includes Forest Whitaker, Kerry Washington, Chad Smith of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Tim Robbins, Russell Simmons, and Rashida Jones. Shriver and a staff of three oversee the program from offices at Gehry Partners, in Santa Monica. Metrics, she says, show increased school attendance and better performance. This year the program will take on five more schools.
For himself Gehry chose Hoopa Valley Elementary School, on Indian land in rural northern California. “It interested me because it was an enclosed society,” Gehry says. “It was a chance for me to learn as well as to help.” On his first visit the architect asked to be introduced to at-risk students. “He spends hours talking to them, asking about their lives,” Shriver says.
The children also visit the Gehry offices, where they paint fish sculptures and build cardboard towns, some of which “are just amazingly beautiful,” Gehry says, adding, “if they learn they can create something of value for themselves, they won’t turn back.” He recalls one boy who was initially wary; eventually he was coaxed into cutting up cardboard, and then he “opened like a flower.” He now corresponds with the architect.
“Frank’s philanthropy is all about personal relationships,” Shriver says. There’s no grand plan or formal announcement; Gehry has simply given to causes that resonate with him, and over time, in parallel with his career, the scope of his involvement has mushroomed. Those causes go way beyond education.
In 1968, Milton Wexler, a Los Angeles psychoanalyst, started the Hereditary Disease Foundation after discovering that his wife had Huntington’s disease, an incurable neurological disorder. “Milton treated artists for free. I was one of them,” says Gehry, crediting Wexler with helping him during a dark period. In 2008 the architect’s daughter Leslie Gehry Brenner died of uterine cancer, at 54; she left her estate to the Hereditary Disease Foundation—a gift Gehry matched dollar for dollar. Moreover, since 2010, Gehry has funded an annual prize of $100,000 for a scientist working on Huntington’s.
Another of Gehry’s friendships is with Argentine-Israeli conductor Daniel Barenboim, who, with the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said, founded the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, which brings together young musicians from Israel, Palestine, Syria, and other Arab countries. The orchestra performs around the world throughout the year. Barenboim wanted a permanent home, however, and Gehry, whose love of music is well documented, stepped in to help. Next year the Barenboim-Said Akademie‘s rehearsal hall, designed by Gehry, will open in Berlin. “People understand each other better through the arts,” he says.
The list of Gehry’s pro bono works is long. Having witnessed the 1992 L.A. riots, he was moved to design the Watts campus of the Children’s Institute Inc., a center for children traumatized by violence. Also notable is his collaboration with the Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation, which is devoted to reclaiming the 51-mile waterway. And then there are the homes built in post-Katrina New Orleans, cancer centers in Scotland, scholarships to Yale, and so on, all done with minimal fanfare. “I’m having fun,” Gehry says. “People have to pull me away from this stuff.”
Meanwhile, his protégé at the Hoopa Valley school remains on his mind. On a recent visit to the reservation Gehry was unable to find the boy; the architect asked him to call, and so far he hasn’t. So Gehry is going to call him. “I will pursue this,” he says determinedly. He has spent 40 years wanting to make this kind of difference. Now it’s time to make sure it actually happens.
“Do you see? Do you see?” It’s an unusually cloudy day in Southern California, yet the view from Nicolas Berggruen’s West Hollywood apartment is dramatic. Perched atop the 31-story Sierra Towers, the highest residential building in greater Los Angeles, the open plan loft affords sweeping vistas of the metropolis and beyond. You feel as if you’re floating, and suddenly I understand what lured the enigmatic 54-year-old, once known as “the homeless billionaire,” to settle here after a decade of hotel hopping.
“The light is like nowhere else. I have space to think,” he tells me, adding that he has bought several apartments in the building (he prefers not to disclose the number). Maddeningly, this means that despite his nod to conventional homeownership, he remains a mystery.
And Nicolas is a bona fide mystery. Over the years, whether in Los Angeles, New York, or Paris, I’ve heard any number of frustrated media moguls, politicians, economists, philanthropists, architects, artists, and journalists try to engage him, and it always boils down to: Who is he? “He is very unusual, very unpredictable,” says British financier Lord Jacob Rothschild, who has known Berggruen all his life.
His apartment doesn’t reveal much. There are no chattering employees, books, photographs, or music. The decor is minimalist, the art cool. Only the bed is unusual, due to its collection of very old stuffed toys. When I enter, Nicolas, dressed in a black T-shirt and jeans—a ringer for a younger, even slighter Mick Jagger—leaps up from a table strewn with papers and darts over to the floor-to-ceiling windows.
“See over there,” he says in accented yet precise English, gesturing toward the Santa Monica hills, where the starship-like Getty Center peeks out. Adjacent to the museum property, at one of the highest points in the city, is the place where, it has just been announced, Nicolas will embark on one of the more ambitious projects in the philanthropy world: the construction of a secluded mountaintop campus devoted to sheltering the world’s elite thinkers in a peaceful yet intellectually fervid sanctuary for reflection and dialogue, the so-calledBerggruen Philosophy and Culture Center.
Nicolas refers to the project as a “secular monastery.” Located on a pastoral urban woodland half the size of Central Park, the huge campus will be designed by Pritzker Prize–winning Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron, best known for the Tate Modern in London. Nicolas has already launched affiliated fellowship programs with universities all over the world and established a $1 million annual award, the Berggruen Philosophy Prize, that he hopes will recognize the power of ideas, the way the Nobel Peace Prize does with actions, to make us “good or bad humans.” (The first recipient will be announced this fall.)
“Seeing a third of my money disappear overnight made me realize how ephemeral the whole thing is, and how futile it is at the end.”
The eyebrow-raising cost of all this is estimated to be several hundred million dollars, putting Nicolas, if he succeeds, near the Gates, Koch, and Soros orbit of donors. But an intriguing blend of expensive, tasteful, and unusual is Nicolas’s trademark. A French-born German-American, and a polyglot who speaks the languages of all three nations, he made his fortune (currently thought to be around $2 billion) in his thirties—and not, he says, with the help of a trust fund, as has been reported.
Until recently he was conspicuously circumspect about the details of his success, which only fueled speculation, thanks to his eccentric personal life. Fifteen years ago Nicolas sold his homes, cars, and other possessions, claiming they weighed him down aesthetically. (He kept his Gulfstream IV.)
He lived, he would say, out of a paper bag. But his asceticism was at odds with his tendency to show up (invariably accompanied by a startlingly attractive young woman—albeit rarely the same one twice) at every international party and place du jour, whether the Oscars (he used to throw an annual party at Château Marmont), Davos (where he also hosted an A-list gathering), or Art Basel (where he is a bold-faced client).
In recent years he has morphed from a party-hopping investor into a serious-minded plutocrat who hops from the Reichstag to the California governor’s office to the Great Hall of the People in Beijing for private meetings with Xi Jinping. Often he brings one of those stunning young women along, driving some of the people in his orbit mad, which is precisely his intention, I believe.
I am friends with Nicolas and his younger brother Olivier, an art historian, and over the years I’ve noticed in Nicolas what looked like discomfort. At parties he rarely seemed to relax; never would I see him touch alcohol, hit the dance floor, or even smile much at his date. He always seemed to be looking around, searching—but for what? I do remember his excitement when he decided to shift from investing to philanthropy and activism. However, these days something about him is new. Last year, when he told me he was thinking of having children, he seemed calm.
Nicolas had long shown zero interest in being a father—not least because it might entail getting married—but in February he welcomed into the world Alexander Nicolas and Olympia Bettina, born three weeks apart via donor eggs and separate surrogates.
Whence the change of heart? Among other factors, he had been reading Siddhartha, Herman Hesse’s classic 1922 novel of self-discovery, the protagonist of which tries different paths to enlightenment. Nicolas had been a financier, then a reformer. Now, perhaps, it was time to stretch himself a different way.
“Won’t your children need a mother?” I ask.
“Not necessarily,” he replies. “People in L.A. don’t judge.”
Disappointingly, I’m not allowed to see the babies, since their pediatrician has banned visitors and they’re on another floor. I do get to see photos; both infants, wearing T-shirts for the Berggruen Institute, the California think tank Nicolas founded in 2009, already look like their father.
“I feel so much younger,” he says over lunch at his regular table at the Beverly Hills Hotel. “Children give you another life.” At the same time, he says, children bring “vulnerability.” “I put myself in a position where I’m clearly the father and the mother. They are totally dependent on me.”
“To understand Nicolas you have to understand that he is driven by competition with our father.”
Vulnerability is Berggruen’s nemesis. At 14 he was sent by his Jewish father to spend a summer in Catalonia with a Jesuit priest, one Father Gofard, who attempted to teach him “the value of accepting that you are affected by others.” “I understood it, but I couldn’t live it,” says Nicolas, who calls himself “rebellious,” “disruptive,” and “very opinionated” as a child. He distracted himself with girls and afternoon visits to Salvador Dalí, who was living nearby and served him pink champagne.
“To understand Nicolas you have to understand that he is driven by competition with our father,” Olivier tells me. “Our father was a dominating character, and Nicolas wanted independence from him. He doesn’t want to have to lean on anybody.”
Last year, after Christmas, I did something I had never done before but that is very much in vogue with the one percent, according to travel agents. Industry jargon hails it as “soft adventure,” but I prefer to call it “insulated risk.” In a nutshell, I vacationed at a five-star resort in what used to be called the Third World.
The trip occurred serendipitously. I had just spent an entirely risk-free week of tennis and golf at a family resort in the Caribbean, and I was facing the week between Christmas and New Year’s alone. (My significant other was 5,000 miles away, in Hawaii with his adult children.) A girlfriend invited me to join her at Mukul, a luxury resort on the so-called Emerald Coast of Nicaragua. With its open-air restaurants and café tables spread out under a vast thatch palapa, it reminded me of Costa Careyes in Mexico, or what Costa Careyes may have looked like in the 1960s: a wild, raw coast offering intoxicating isolation, before the arrival of mansions and private jets. But Mukul had comfort, too: a golf course, pools, and a spa, as well as the broadest, whitest beach I had ever seen.
I also thought it sounded pretty cool to go on holiday to Nicaragua. I would earn what Klara Glowczewska, T&C‘s travel editor, calls “bragging rights,” which travelers have long coveted, she said. And my limited knowledge of Nicaragua definitely put the country in the braggable category. I had childhood memories of scary-sounding headlines: armed uprisings, volcanoes, malarial rainforests, war, all of which could be safely absorbed from the safety of the palapa, should they still pose a threat.
My only concern was that Bahía Manzanillo, the bay beyond Mukul’s gorgeous white beach, looked on the internet as if it had some very significant surf, so before accepting I called the resort to see if the water was safe, since I love to swim. Oh yes, the receptionist assured me. Now the only impediment was a steady stream of negative commentary from my other half, in Hawaii.
“Why on earth would you go to Nicaragua? There are beaches closer to home. It’s dangerous, it’s baking hot, there are bugs.”
I am not a thrill-seeker. In fact, I am a lifelong sufferer of anxiety. But I am also a bit stubborn and Type A, one of those people who believes that “no” is just the start of a conversation. So “Hawaii,” as we shall call him, had me fired up. I wasn’t hoping to fall into a volcano (I am a mother of young children), but I was hoping for something—just what, I wasn’t sure.
On December 27, I traveled to Miami, whence American Airlines was supposed to fly me to Managua. At boarding time the passengers were told that a stewardess had called in sick, and immediately my anxiety started humming. Was it possible the stewardess just didn’t want to go to Nicaragua? What did she know that I didn’t? Was she really sick? Was it contagious? An hour later a steward clutching a Starbucks cup arrived to claps and cheers, and we were off.
The wild, raw coast offered intoxication isolation, before the arrival of mansions and private jets.
In Managua I transferred to a small propeller plane with peeling leather seats that had clearly seen better days. I tried to relax by looking down at the haze-covered mountains and red dirt roads twisting through jungle. Upon landing I was met by a driver from Mukul who coolly told me that our car, a white SUV, had both air conditioning and WiFi. Some crazy adventure. Suddenly, in front of us a villager walked with his oxen. What a great Instagram, I thought, clicking away, except my phone promptly seemed to stop working. (Ahem, Verizon.) Ha, I thought, fishing out my other cell, an AT&T iPhone, the one I keep for emergencies. This one worked. A bit smugly, I did feel that I was prepared for the developing world.
The gates of Mukul opened to immaculately manicured grounds where, unlike outside, livestock did not roam freely. I was met by my personal concierge, who showed me my accommodations, a charming bungalow with French doors. It was now the end of the day. Too late for a swim? According to the concierge, it was a long walk to the beach, but in 30 minutes I could take a shuttle bus. My Type A instincts kicking in, I grabbed my bikini and goggles and asked the concierge if she could kindly drive me herself (she was, after all, my personal concierge). Not only did she, she handed me a local cell phone on which to call her should I need anything else. I would come to nickname this device the “Bat Phone,” since over the next five days the poor woman was summoned at least as often as the Caped Crusader ever was.
At the beach I raced into the water. It took me 10 minutes to get beyond the surf and the sandbars. When I looked back at the shore, I realized I was farther out than I had thought, and completely alone. The water was black. For the first time ever while swimming at sea, I was slightly frightened. As I fought my way back to land, ducking in and out of crashing waves, I wondered if the receptionist had really meant that it was a swimmer’s beach.
Back at the bungalow I discovered that another friend of mine, fellow T&C contributor Holly Peterson, had been in the space just before me. This meant two things: First, I was in the right place, since Holly has impeccable taste and a great love of adventure, and second, that Mukul’s beach was probably just for surfing, since, unlike me, Holly is a passionate and excellent surfer.
Meanwhile, thanks to the lovely young concierge, various petty grievances seemed to be in the process of being rectified. My friend had lost her luggage, which was now en route from the airport. The bungalow, which had been filthy when we arrived, was now clean. The refrigerator, which had been barren, now contained food and drink. We enjoyed a good dinner under the palapa and said goodnight. Just before I got into bed I told Hawaii he was fussing about nothing.
“Just wait,” he said. “There’ll be something.”
Five minutes later something hit the floor of the bungalow. I switched on a flashlight I had brought from New York and pointed it under the bed. Nothing. So I rolled back under the duvet. There was movement around me and much clattering, and suddenly I too was deposited on the ground. I got up and discovered that one side of the bed had collapsed. (I weigh 108 pounds, incidentally.)
It was after midnight, too late to call the concierge on the Bat Phone, so I slept on the bed’s other side, hoping it would hold up until morning, and anticipated the mockery from Hawaii. But first there was more drama. In the morning my friend’s daughter got stung by a stingray, which apparently Bahía Manzanillo was full of. “You have to shuffle when you’re wading,” we were told, a bit late. Hawaii called as the resort doctor arrived, his mockery turning to genuine alarm. “Do not leave her side,” he said in staccato. And the excitement kept coming: That night on the way home from dinner our golf cart started going slower and slower and finally stopped altogether. We pushed like crazy, got nowhere, and finally left it stranded while we walked home in the dark (not so easy for the young woman with the greenish, swollen foot).
The next night my bed started to shake again. I got up, checked the slats—all was in place—and went back to sleep. In the morning I discovered there had been an earthquake measuring 5.8 on the Richter scale. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Now the calls from Hawaii were becoming more frequent, each one beginning with: “So what has happened now?” Truth be told, we were having a fantastic time. We had nicknames for our wounded cart (Herbie) and our stick shift rental car (Ramona), which I repeatedly stalled driving up hills too slowly. We signed up for surfing lessons and loved them, even though the instructor, a tall Australian, told me he hadn’t seen wipeouts like mine in a long time. I had sizable bruises as evidence, the sight of which, e-mailed to Hawaii, would elicit exasperated sighs. A lifeguard named Juan was now swimming in flippers alongside me when I went into the water. At dinner we got used to the hourlong wait between ordering our food and eating it. I ran into friends from London, who shared their stories of the hotel’s growing pains. “We asked for a tennis pro,” Rachel, a mother of five, told me. (A search had to be conducted and someone driven all the way from Managua.) Holly told me weeks later that she had been stung by a scorpion. On New Year’s Eve the resort threw a beach party, during which they ran out of glasses, a situation the staff resolved by picking up used ones, wiping them off right in front of us, and filling them up again.
When we arrived we’d have minded this sort of service. Now we just laughed and drank from used stemware. The truth was, we’d gotten used to not being in control. My image of Nicaragua turned out to be woefully outdated; the country has had a thriving tourist industry for more than a decade. But there was a lot of well-intentioned, hit-or-miss service. All began to make sense when Mukul’s effervescent general manager told us that his favorite TV show ever was Fantasy Island. Mukul was our Fantasy Island, and it taught us that expensive paradise, unexpectedly, takes the form of chaotic goodwill.
Since I got home I’ve thought often about that trip, and here’s what I’ve decided: It wasn’t in spite of the difficulties and annoyances that I enjoyed it, it was because of them. I asked Lisa Cohen, the ebullient travel agent who had booked my trip at the Caribbean family resort, for her perspective. She said that over the last decade or so, roughly during the technology boom that has filled our lives with so much gadgetry, there has been a rise in demand for trips that take us slightly out of our com- fort zones, maybe because we are now accustomed to, and perhaps bored by, efficiency and order. We actively seek disorder—just not too much.
“People want adventure. They want to go somewhere exotic, but afterward they want to return to the comfort of the Four Seasons,” said Cohen, who works for Valerie Wilson Travel, one of the top corporate travel agencies in the country.
A day in the life of Lisa Cohen, she joked, is not unlike that of a Park Avenue psychiatrist, featuring calls from Fortune 500 CEOs who are abroad and suffering from diarrhea, or who have landed somewhere and the weather isn’t what they expected and realize they’ve packed the wrong clothes. One of her favorite stories is about the time she sent a pair of honeymooners to the Hawaiian island of Lanai and the resort was overrun by mice, so she flew them to a different island. (The couple have since divorced.)
Philip Lategan, the South African owner of the travel company Journey Beyond, told me that visitors to Africa used to want a real safari. “Now it’s really entertainment,” Lategan said. “The resorts are more luxurious than the Peninsula.” Zarafa, a camp on the plains of Botswana, has a better wine cellar than some top hotels in the U.S., he said. Some of his clients bring bodyguards; others have asked to climb Mount Kilimanjaro “and not get dirty.”
“We’ve pulled it off,” Lategan said. “It just takes a lot of money, and 30 porters.” One family he worked with had a phobia of insects, “so we nuked the place” where they were camping.
The real challenge, according to Lategan, is making safaris safe for children, who not long ago were expected to stay home, since a fearful cry or sudden movement can dangerously upset an animal in the wild. Now children get to see cheetahs and hippos from the safety of a covered vehicle. The real obstacle to giving high-end tourists the gentle buzz they want is, as Lategan put it, “idiocy.” He cited an Australian couple so determined to drive rather than fly across the Botswana bush that they spent an unplanned night in the wilderness, having plugged the wrong address into their GPS and ended up at a camp that was full.
India too has benefited from the soft adventure trend, said Raju Singh, the owner of Ventours International Travel. “Delhi Belly is a thing of the past,” he told me, adding that Indian hotels can be as good as if not better than their counterparts in the U.S. But outside? Some of Singh’s clients seemed surprised to run into cows in the street. Others have said to her, “I’d like to come to India but not see any beggars.”
A straw poll among friends tells me that the most rewarding challenge of any trip is relaxing into an uncustomary lack of control. Holly Peterson has surfed in dangerous currents all over the world, and her car once broke down in one of Brazil’s notorious favelas, but the thing she found hardest? Keeping her cool when she was delayed at the Costa Rica–Nicaragua border. She and her posse of young surfers had to disembark from one vehicle, drag their luggage 100 yards, and, clutching 19 passports, stand in a line that included chickens and other livestock. “When that 90-minute drive turns into a six-hour adventure, it’s important for your children to see you stay calm.”
Last year Suzanne Herz, the executive director of publishing at Doubleday, took her 16-year-old son to see chimps in the Mahale Mountains of Tanzania. They began with a two-day safari considerably more basic than they anticipated, after which her son turned to her and said, “Mom, I need to be evacuated to the nearest Four Seasons.” Instead, after flying to Mahale from Arusha, Tanzania, aboard a puddle jumper that kept stopping to deliver provisions to other camps, they arrived exhausted in humid 100-degree weather, hoping to cool off with a swim in clear, inviting Lake Tanganyika—but no, there were crocodiles, the guides told them, which led to a long boat ride to the middle of the lake, where the water was too deep for the crocs. A series of grueling four-hour hikes up a steep mountain followed, only some of which yielded glimpses of chimps (which Herz was unable to enjoy due to her glasses fogging up). “You have no control, you don’t know what’s going to happen, and you can’t always get what you want,” Herz told me. Nevertheless, her son ended up calling it the best trip he’d ever been on.
Travel takes us out of ourselves and opens us to new ideas, new places, and ultimately a more accommodating frame of mind. On the return from Nicaragua, our plane was delayed, and none of us minded in the slightest. Once we got to Miami, however, I was suddenly furious that my phone still didn’t work. (It turned out that Verizon had suspended my account on suspicion of fraud. It also turned out that Verizon’s fraud office is closed on Sundays.) I felt anxiety closing in, which is perhaps why I tried for so long afterward to conjure up those five slightly crazy days in Nicaragua and remember what it was like when the bed shook and the golf cart petered out, and the only possible reaction was to laugh. There was also, of course, the greatest fun of all, which perhaps was what I had been looking for all along, before I even signed up—namely, listening to the perplexed skepticism of Hawaii. He’ll never admit it, but from the barrage of phone calls and questions later on, I’d guess he was just a little jealous.
“What do you see?
That is the opening line in RED, the 2009 play about Mark Rothko written by John Logan. Alfred Molina, playing Rothko memorably on Broadway, opens the 90-minute piece, pointing to one of the painter’s infamous red and black works – or since we are on stage, a replica – and asks: “What do you see?”
That’s my question as I sit off and on in the packed courtroom on the third floor of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse at 40 Center Street in New York, where Judge Paul Gardephe is hearing the month-long civil case of luxury goods magnate (and Sotheby’s chairman) Domenico de Sole, and his wife Eleanore (above) , against Ann Freedman, the former president of the Knoedler Gallery, the oldest art gallery in New York until it abruptly closed in 2011. The de Soles argue that Freedman and Knoedler knowingly sold them a fake Rothko, Untitled 1956, for $8.3 million in 2004. (A Long Island woman, Glafira Rosales, has already pled guilty to peddling Knoedler forty or so fake works created by Queens street artist Pei-Shen Quian, which the gallery then resold at staggering markups.) Meanwhile, a criminal investigation hovers. Rosales has not yet been sentenced, and her co-conspirators, Qian and her boyfriend, Jose Carlos Bergantinos Diaz, as well as Diaz’ brother, await extradition from China and Spain, respectively. At stake, many in the art world believe, is the opaque manner in which dealers and galleries operate, hiding behind the mythology of expensive art created by talented drug addicts and drunkards, many of whom left imperfect records. Dealers are not required to tell customers the identity of sellers, a standard that would never fly in, say, high-end real estate, or any other multimillion-dollar field.
What do you see?
Apparently RED is on the mind of several people in court. As she was leaving court last Wednesday, Eleanor de Sole told journalists she’d seen the play performed in her hometown of Hilton Head, South Carolina. So what is it we currently see in the courtroom?
First we see theater: a real-time, real-life high-stakes drama that transports one into the multi-layered art world, a jigsaw-puzzle of innumerable experts, historians, researchers, conservators, and middlemen all looking for an angle and a cut. (Never again will I listen to any art professional who says, “I’m only interested in art, not the commercial side of the industry.”) Simply put, there is no art without money: the relationship is symbiotic. Christopher Rothko, Mark’s son, has been in court testifying that he has a policy of never authenticating his father’s work. David Anfam, the world’s leading expert on Rothko and author of the Catalogue Raisonne, has said the same thing. Why? Not because they can’t recognize Rothko’s art (Anfam was clear on that) but because too much money is at stake. Rothko told Ann Freedman back in the day he thought the fake Rothko was “beautiful,” but he was not prepared to document that it was also real. The reliance the whole industry places on nebulous-sounding oratory rather than solid documentation is almost comic. No other sophisticated business does transactions based on verbal fairy-tales. The defense, according to Freedman’s lawyer Luke Nikas, plans to show early next week that this “context” – the very real world of fairy tales and no documentation – is crucial to understanding it all.
So far the testimony has taken us back to the 1990s and 2000s, inside the opulent walls of the high-windowed Knoedler Gallery on 70th and Madison. Founded in 1846, Knoedler was the oldest, most reputable gallery in America. Ann Freedman, 68, sitting tall off to the left as you face Judge Gardephe, is a reedy, grey-haired, bespectacled woman who looks more like a university don than a hard-charging saleswoman; however, it was Freedman who battled her way up from Knoedler’s receptionist to become its president in 1994, earning herself a reputation that commanded respect, yes, but also fear. Peers thought she was sharp-elbowed. Many complained of the abrupt way she replaced her well-liked predecessor Larry Rubin, reportedly changing the succession arrangement he’d set up.
We also learned last week that certain people in the art community didn’t like her way of conducting business. In 1994, which was when Rosales first brought her fake wares to Knoedler, the British-born MoMA curator John Elderfield told Freedman that he didn’t think two Richard Diebenkorn works the gallery was showing were authentic. Phyllis Diebenkorn, the artist’s widow, who was with him, agreed, according to Elderfield; so too did the Diebenkorns’ daughter Gretchen, who testified that the paintings “lack soul.” Elderfield tried to be British and polite about his misgivings, which in hindsight might have been a mistake. Assuming Freedman would withdraw the works, he’d be “dismayed” ten years later to discover she had sold them. Diebenkorn’s wife was outraged. But – and it’s a big but – she never wrote to Freedman or anyone complaining.
Meanwhile, as many have testified, Ann Freedman was extremely successful at finding and selling first-rate contemporary art. Her “brand,” to quote Domenico de Sole (who, one could argue, knows a thing or two about brands given his stewardship of Gucci and now Tom Ford) was impeccable. De Sole told jurors that under her rule, the Knoedler Gallery continued to be thought of in superlatives. It was “the top.”
This was the reason, de Sole told the jury, that he and his wife, Eleanor, a former IBM executive, showed up for an appointment at Knoedler in late 2004. They’d never met Freedman, but they knew her “brand.” They also knew she represented an Irish artist, Sean Scully, whose work they’d recently admired on a friend’s wall. At that point the de Soles collected art but had never spent more than $2 million on a single item. They are rich, yes, but not billionaires. De Sole, a Harvard-trained-lawyer, had “worked hard” to get where he is, he explained.
As it turned out, Freedman told the de Soles in 2004 she did not have a Sean Scully, according to de Sole, so he asked to see the two works she did have in the office, prompting her to unwrap a Jackson Pollock she said was available for over $11 million. There was also the red and black Rothko,Untitled 1956, available for $8.5 million.
While de Sole described the scene, its subject, the painting, was beside him on an easel. It was displayed casually, almost absurdly so given the dramatic “unveiling” being discussed. “Aggressive” was the word de Sole used to describe Freedman’s pitch. She mentioned a Swiss “client” who wanted to sell his paintings discreetly. His father had been the collector. (Earlier that morning in the courtroom, one of Knoedler’s researchers, Melissa De Medeiros, had been forced to admit that although the gallery came up with various “plausible” storylines about who might have advised this client’s father, known as “Mr. X”, Knoedler had no concrete idea who this person was.)
But to the de Soles Ann Freedman gave the impression she not only knew the “client” but that all sorts of experts, including Christopher Rothko and David Anfam, had seen the work and validated it. (Anfam and Rothko both denied this.) “Magnificent” was another word Freedman used. De Sole would ask her to put it all in writing, which she did. Her letter, shown to the jury, clearly says that Knoedler warranted the authenticity of Untitled, 1956.
De Sole and his wife let the painting, once purchased, go abroad to be viewed at the prestigious Beyeler Foundation in Switzerland, then hung it in their house in South Carolina, where many friends came to view it, said de Sole. It was bought for his daughter Laura, since he and Eleanor have taken trouble to divide up their estate fairly between Laura and another daughter, who “fight,” according to their mother.
But one morning in 2011, after he got out of the shower, de Sole found his wife shaking. She’d read a story in the New York Times saying that another painting, Untitled 1950 by Jackson Pollock, sold to hedge fund manger Pierre LaGrange by Knoedler in 2007 for $17 million, was fake. The provenance – a Swiss collector had supposedly owned it – sounded all too familiar. De Sole would ultimately call Freedman, who stated that Lagrange was wrong. Both his painting and De Sole’s were the real deal. The word “aggressive” was used again.
That was the last time Freedman and de Sole spoke. A criminal investigation began; the Knoedler gallery closed. The truth about Rosales and her scheme would emerge. Freedman, who has not yet testified, will argue that she too was a victim, having bought three works from Rosales too. (At far less of a markup than her customers.) A startled de Sole testified that he had only discovered in court that the “Rothko” he bought from Ann Freedman for $8.3 million had been purchased from Rosales by Freedman for a mere $950,000. He was spluttering as he got that last part out.
How did you feel about the painting once you discovered it was a fake? he was asked. “It was worthless,” he said, adding his wife now cries at night, and finally, “I got a fake painting for $8.3 million and they don’t want to give it back to me.”
And all the while the painting sat there beside him. At some point the lawyers picked it up and took it out – fast. Had it been worth $8.3 million – or more, because a real Rothko by would have appreciated significantly – men in white gloves would have been called. It was now a rough-handled object of scorn.
And there, really, is the puzzle at the heart of all this for people who don’t spend their time pouring over art catalogues or traipsing through galleries. How is it that one moment a painting can be loved and admired, hung on a museum’s walls, and the next it is “worthless,” jostled, bounced about, and cried over? Surely the painting was still the painting.
What do you see?
However this ends, the spectacle of that painting in court is a deconstructive mockery of all the murky pretension, hypocrisy, and greed around it. It’s testament if ever there was that art – and, as a lover of Keats and a believer in truth being beauty and all that suggests, I really hate to say this – has no intrinsic value. The value consists entirely in the perception of where it came from, not what it is.
What do you see?
So what I see in court during this trial is a rapidly expanding global industry that, terrifyingly, has zero regulation, is rife with corruption, price-fixing and self-interest, and is little more than a shady, self-interested cartel based on . . . nothing.
And that’s a depressing spectacle.
HIGH DRAMA IN SUNNY MONACO THIS MORNING, where Dmitry Rybolovlev, the Russian oligarch who is the subject of my article for the December/January issue of T&C, was “questioned” by police for an hour and a half, along with his glamorous young lawyer Tetiana Bersheda.
The locals can talk of little else, since in Monaco — population 37,831 — it’s not everyday that the guy who owns the local soccer team (AS Monaco), lives in the principality’s most expensive apartment, and is besties with Prince Albert gets summoned for a q and a by local prosecutors.
The oligarch is dismissing the whole thing as procedural, Bersheda tells me, but Frank Michel, the lawyer who filed charges on behalf of Tania Rappo (close friend-turned-enemy of Rybolovlev) of tampering with police evidence and invasion of privacy tells me it’s serious. “Rybolovlev will be charged,” Michel says, “and then there will be a trial involving one of the most powerful men here. Monaco has never seen the like.”
BERNARD SIDLER
Perhaps, but there’s already much about Dmitry Rybolovlev’s story of which we’ve never seen the like.
The billionaire, who is only 48, has in his lifetime faced down murder attempts, a year’s imprisonment in Russia, a divorce (“the world’s most expensive”) so nasty it involved the arrest of his now ex-wife, and now is embroiled in the art scandal of the year, in which he claims he was duped for well over $1 billion by intermediaries he trusted. This is the case that’s riding towards trial in Monte Carlo and in which he’s been accused of evidence manipulation. (He denies this.)
Unsurprisingly (he is a Russian oligarch), he doesn’t speak to the media too often. But for us he made an exception. Below he explains exclusively to T&C how he found himself at the center of so much international controversy:
DMITRY RYBOLOVLEV SELDOM gives interviews. The 49-year-old Russian—one of the richest people in the world, with a net worth estimated at $8.8 billion—is notoriously private, and also notoriously security-conscious, perhaps because back in the 1990s, while building up Uralkali, one of the world’s largest fertilizer companies, he survived a year in a Russian prison and several murder attempts.
To be greeted by a Russian-speaking security team at La Belle Epoque, Rybolovlev’s Monaco residence (reportedly the most expensive apartment in the world, worth $323 million), is not a surprise, then. The three-story penthouse also happens to be the scene of Monaco’s most infamous murder, that of the Lebanese-Brazilian banker Edmond Safra, who was killed in a botched arson attempt by one of his caretakers in 1999. British developers Nick and Christian Candy subsequently renovated the manse to resemble a modern Versailles. My heels click-clack on the marble floors as a pleasant but pale aide-de-camp ushers me into the living room, where Rybolovlev’s young lawyer, Tetiana Bersheda, tall and thin, with diamonds around her neck and wrist, soon comes to fetch me.
“Mr. R would like to meet you in his office,” Bersheda says. “It’s cozier.” We walk down the hall and confront a wooden door without handles. I pause. It slides apart as if we’re in a James Bond movie, and behind it stands Rybolovlev with an unexpectedly warm smile. He’s slim and dressed in a crisp blue-and-white-striped shirt, charcoal pants, and black velvet slippers—a signature Russian touch. “Thank you for coming,” he says. He looks younger than in photographs, and softer, perhaps because he’s not wearing his usual rectangular metal-rimmed spectacles.
The room is oval and intimate. He sits in an armchair, back to flung-open French doors, the yacht-filled harbor of La Condamine beyond. Curiously, since Rybolovlev is the owner of one of the world’s most valuable art collections, not a single work of art is on view. However, books, mainly on business and soccer, line the shelves. When I point out one by Donald Trump, he laughs. “I’ve never read it,” he says. “It was put there by the Candy brothers.” I sit on the sofa close to Bersheda, who is going to translate. Rybolovlev’s trust in the glamorous, brainy 31-year-old lawyer is obvious. They met six years ago in Geneva, where she worked for a law firm that he had retained. He asked her to work for him and she refused, but subsequently she set up her own firm, of which he is now a major client. She and I met last summer at Art Basel, where she gauged whether he should talk to me.
Rybolovlev ultimately invited me to La Belle Epoque because he has a story to tell, or rather explain. For the last year he has been at the center of the most astonishing scandal in the art world in years, an alleged billion-dollar fraud that has dealers, artists, and collectors sweating. At stake may be not just the money of an angry and very powerful man intent on recouping his losses but the thing the art world values more than anything: the freedom to operate in darkness.
Briefly: On New Year’s Eve 2014, Rybolovlev found himself at the Eden Rock St. Bart’s eating with Sandy Heller, a New York art consultant who advises many hedge fund managers. Somewhat obliquely Heller said, “It looks like you bought the Modigliani [we sold].” He was referring to Reclining Nude with Blue Cushion, one of the artist’s most famous canvases, painted in 1917. The painting had belonged to Steven A. Cohen, the founder of SAC Capital Advisors and also one of the richest men in the world.
Until then Rybolovlev, who is known for a certain froideur, had always avoided discussing his art collection, which includes masterpieces by Picasso, Leonardo, Rothko, Gauguin, Matisse, and Rodin. But he had begun to wonder, he says, whether he had been overpaying the man in charge of his acquisitions, and he was beginning to feel a gnawing anxiety familiar to major collectors—namely, that he was not in the driver’s seat of a collection purchased in his name. Art world middlemen—whether private dealers, art advisers, or people seeking a commission for setting up a deal—hold disproportionate power in this incestuous industry, which is largely unregulated and in which enormous deals frequently take place with little paperwork and behind closed doors. Often these middlemen know crucial elements of a deal that their billionaire patrons don’t, such as the selling price of a
painting. (In real estate the equivalent would be if a broker could conceal the sale price of a house—and the size of a commission.)
So, with the help of a girlfriend who speaks better English, the potentate asked Heller, “What price did you sell it for?” The answer: $93 million, $25 million less than Rybolovlev’s trusts had paid for it. Chuckling, Rybolovlev tells me his fellow diners at the Eden Rock “thought I was having a stroke.” Less cheerfully he says it was the worst New Year’s Eve of his life. Within minutes he was on the phone to Bersheda. For years, according to Rybolovlev, he believed he had been paying the middleman who had sold him the Modigliani (above)—as well as 37 other museum-worthy paintings—a commission of 2 percent (in other words, about $2 million for the Modigliani, not $25 million). He was now realizing every collector’s worst fear: He had been fleeced, and the question was, for how long and how much?
A day or so after New Year’s, Rybolovlev asked to meet Heller again. The two men went through the Russian’s entire collection, with Heller giving an estimate of what he believed was each item’s true value. His appraisal would shake the oligarch, and within days Bersheda would file a criminal complaint in Monaco.
A month later the Monte Carlo police arrested one Yves Bouvier, 52, Rybolovlev’s longtime procurer of masterpieces, as Bouvier rang the buzzer at La Belle Epoque. A Geneva businessman described by Vanity Fair’s French edition as “Swiss to the core,” a man who “shuns both the mundane and the extravagant,” Bouvier was well known in art circles as an art transporter and as the owner of mysterious storage facilities known as free ports—not as an art dealer or broker. He had been summoned to Monaco ostensibly to complete a long-delayed deal for his Russian patron, but he wound up in a jail cell instead, facing allegations of fraud and money laundering and the possibility of a long prison sentence.
The police also arrested Tania Rappo, a charismatic Monaco socialite whom officers interrupted in the middle of a massage. Once a member of Rybolovlev’s inner circle, Rappo and her husband Olivier, a retired dentist, had dined with the tycoon and his parents only days before. Now facing charges of money laundering, she would later tell me over dinner how the oligarch had plied her with drink as they chatted in his penthouse.
Both Bouvier and Rappo would deny the charges, hire lawyers, and spend the following months telling their stories to the media. Bouvier’s defense was simple: Yes, he had charged astronomical markups to his client, but, as he told Vanity Fair, “I did not act as intermediary but as the owner [of the art]. I had a right to a profit; it’s the law of busi- ness.” (Bouvier refused to answer questions for this article.)
Rappo’s defense was even simpler: Yes, she had collected commissions from Bouvier on the paintings he had sold to Rybolovlev—an amount Rybolovlev estimates to be $100 million altogether—but she claims not to have sought them, and she says Rybolovlev “never asked.”
“[If ] he would have asked me,” she says, “I would have told him.” The question echoing around the art world is how one of the world’s richest, toughest investors—whose trusts own the penthouse at 15 Central Park West (bought for $88 million in 2012 and occupied by his daughter Ekaterina, a college student at the time); two entire Greek islands (Sparti and Skorpios, famous for hosting Jacqueline Kennedy’s wedding to Aristotle Onassis); the Maison de l’Amitié (a Palm Beach mansion bought from Donald Trump for $95 million, which Rybolovlev reportedly intends to demolish due to mold problems); a $20 million property on Kauai bought from Will Smith; a $100 million yacht; homes in Gstaad, Geneva, Paris, and Monaco; and AS Monaco, the soccer team—could make himself so vulnerable. Was he, like many new billionaires, in such a hurry to build a glittering collection that he failed to “learn art,” as experienced patrons know one must to avoid overpaying? The art market is often described as insider trading conducted by a small but sophisticated network of “experts” who prey upon the naïveté of the nouveau riche. Did Rybolovlev, a famously shrewd and strategic investor, underestimate its ability to confound and deceive? Until now he hadn’t talked.
At our meeting at La Belle Epoque I put it to him: Had he been conned or was he negligent? The answer, he explained, went back to the early 1990s, before he and his family fled Russia. After the fall of communism, Rybolovlev, who originally trained as a cardiologist, switched to finance and became one of the first securities traders in Russia. One of his first moves as a financier was to take a majority stake in Uralkali, the former Soviet fertilizer monopoly, which subsequently increased its productivity five-fold. Boris Yeltsin was president. The economy of Russia was melting down. The rule of law had all but disappeared, and Uralkali’s success made Rybolovlev a target. To protect himself from ambushes he sent a fleet of identical cars with identical license plates registered in his name into Moscow; he also moved Ekaterina and his wife Elena to Geneva.
In 1995 one of Rybolovlev’s business partners was shot and killed in Moscow; Rybolovlev was imprisoned for ordering the hit and spent 11 months in jail. The charges were later dropped, but according to Rybolovlev the experience changed his outlook. He had “risked my life to make a fortune.” He was going to “protect every cent.”
He soon joined Ekaterina and Elena in Geneva. However, in their new home, despite their vast wealth, the Rybolovlevs were isolated. Although Elena eventually learned to speak fluent French, her husband “was always distracted by business. I couldn’t clear my mind,” he says. One of the first friends they made was Tania Rappo, the wife of their dentist, who happened to mention that his wife spoke Russian. (Rappo comes from Bulgaria, where the language is spoken by about a third of the population.)
“We had a sincere friendship,” Rybolovlev says. The two families vacationed together, with the Rybolovlevs often treating the Rappos to trips on private airplanes and their yacht. When Elena gave birth to a second daughter, Tania was asked to be godmother. Meanwhile the Rappos escorted the Rybolovlevs as they began making the rounds, helping them get into an exclusive golf club and chaperoning them to society events. As the Rybolovlevs expanded their real estate empire internationally, Tania Rappo also introduced Rybolovlev to real estate brokers abroad (at his request, she says).
Around 2003 the Rybolovlevs decided to build an art collection—”the best in the world,” Dmitry has been quoted as saying. They had recently moved into a house with light fixtures for art displays, and with the help of Rappo they were making inroads among a Western European elite that spent its considerable wealth on art. Rybolovlev soon settled on his first acquisition: Le Grand Cirque, one of Marc Chagall’s many beloved circus paintings. (The previous owner of the house, who had left the fixtures, owned a Chagall.) He consulted several dealers, and the best price was $8 million, according to Rappo. However, she came up with a way to eliminate the dealers and buy directly from Le Grand Cirque’s owner, lowering the price by more than $2 million—and, pivotally, bringing Rybolovlev into contact with Yves Bouvier.
Over the last decade, economic forces on a global scale have overrun the art world—visibly to all, in the case of the gargantuan bids casually tossed out at the evening sales, but all but imperceptibly (except to a tiny and in-the-know elite) in other areas—and no one has been more at the center of it, or better epitomized its drive for concealment, than the canny Bouvier. In Switzerland a business owned by Bouvier’s family, Natural Le Coultre, is one of the country’s oldest transporters of goods, formerly of all kinds but since the 2000s of fine art exclusively. The shift in strategy was not coincidental. As the Economist and others have pointed out, “collectibles [such as art] have outperformed stocks over the past decade,” aided in part by the world’s string of financial crises. In fact, for some ultra-wealthy individuals art has become the asset of choice, for not only does a Modigliani nude hold or increase its value, it is an easy asset to move or hide.
Over the years Bouvier has shifted his core business from art transportation to building and operating vast, secretive high-tech fortresses used for storing not just artworks but cars, wine, coins, and furniture. Such repositories, known as free ports, have existed for centuries, but until quite recently their primary purpose was to hold raw materials in transit—a shipment of soybeans, say. They were found primarily in transit zones, such as airports and canals, and they usually enjoyed one of the benefits of existence at the jurisdictional margins: tax and duty freedom.
For the collector who sees his 1961 Petrus not as something to drink but as an asset to hoard and potentially sell, Bouvier offered an invaluable service. Items could not only be stored behind the free port’s seven-ton doors, surrounded by laser trip wires and vibration detectors, they could be shown to other collectors there and traded or sold without moving an inch—and taxed only if they left the free port. Perhaps the most attractive aspect of all is that such transactions could take place beyond the prying eyes of a district attorney or a private investigator tracking down assets in a divorce battle. (As a result, many in the art world worry about a tendency for free ports to become “art cemeteries.” The world’s largest free port, at Geneva Airport, is said to hold as much art as the Louvre.)
Chagall’s Le Grand Cirque was stored in the Geneva free port, and Rybolovlev took Rappo with him to view it. Rappo has since said that she remembers that Bouvier appeared in person to greet them and was attentive. Rybolovlev claims to barely recall this. “If he had approached me, I would not have wanted to know him,” he says, citing his habit of shying away from anyone trying to solicit his business.
What happened afterward is important, because whatever their disagreements, Rybolovlev and Bouvier agree that the nature of their relationship—whether Bouvier was an agent working for Rybolovlev on a commission basis or an independent art dealer who bought and sold works for himself, freeing him to charge any markup he liked—was never codified on paper. Rappo says that shortly after their encounter at the Geneva free port, Bouvier called her to ask her to arrange a follow-up meeting.
“I think I can be useful,” Rappo says Bouvier told her. Rybolovlev “jumped,” she says. “He was really very happy.” According to her, the oligarch recognized that Bouvier had some of the best art in the world sitting in his Geneva warehouse. Rybolovlev, for his part, says he scarcely remembers his first meeting with Bouvier, and he took the meeting only because Rappo encouraged him to. He found Bouvier “a regular, likable man,” different from the stereotypical smooth-talking art dealer. And because Rappo, whom he trusted “totally,” had brought them together, Rybolovlev agreed to work with him for, the oligarch claims, a fee of 2 percent—which Bouvier denies, saying that amount was merely for transport and administrative costs.
At first Rybolovlev collected slowly, buying a handful of works, including a Monet water lily painting, Gauguin’s House of Hymns, three Picassos, and three Modiglianis. After 2009, however, the pace quickened. Rybolovlev was no longer interested in decorating his walls with museum pieces, he says, perhaps because the walls themselves were a subject of dispute.
In 2008, Elena Rybolovleva, Dmitry’s wife of 24 years, whom he met on the first day at medical college back in Russia, filed for divorce, citing adultery on an industrial scale, including parties aboard yachts at which Dmitry shared “young conquests with his friends and other oligarchs.” (“He was not a model husband,” a spokesman for Dmitry later told the New York Times. “Mr. Rybolovlev never denied the infidelities, but the wife knew about it for many years and passively accepted it.”) In the wake of what would become an exceptionally acrimonious divorce battle (which included Elena’s being arrested in Cyprus for allegedly stealing a $28 million diamond ring she later proved her ex- husband had given her while they were still married), Dmitry began seeing art as an investment for his daughters’ futures, he says. He subsequently started moving the collection into vaults (trophy works by Matisse, Klimt, Rodin, and Magritte by now had joined the stockpile). The art was owned by trusts, which, Elena complained, were designed to thwart her access to the couple’s fortune in divorce court. The divorce (which, Dmitry confided exclusively to T&C, was finally settled in October for an undisclosed amount) was at one time famous for being the most expensive in the world, after a Geneva judge awarded Elena half of her ex-husband’s fortune, some $4 billion.
Rybolovlev now says he didn’t want his marriage to end—nor, he felt, did Elena. He believes it could have been saved, but Rappo, whom Elena was close to, “pushed her”—his words—not to reconcile, because, he says, Rappo (and Bouvier, with whom he believes Rappo had formed a secret partnership) wanted “the story of my divorce” to cover what he calls Rappo and Bouvier’s unfolding scheme. That alleged plot, which Rappo and Bouvier deny, involved defrauding Rybolovlev—hiding from him the enormous markups on the masterpieces he was acquiring through them—in order to finance an ambitious expansion of Bouvier’s free port empire. And Rybolovlev, even if he found out, would have no choice but to go along.
“They assumed wrongly,” Rybolovlev says, “that because of my divorce my interests would be in line with theirs. They assumed I wouldn’t want to be open about my collection—ever.”
Bouvier’s plans were ambitious indeed. After the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration launched an attack on banking secrecy laws around the world, leading to an exodus of foreign cash from Swiss banks and increasing the allure of hoarding Picas- sos inside humidity-controlled vaults. Bouvier announced plans to build the largest, most technologically sophisticated free port ever, in Singapore, where the art protection laws were even more relaxed than Switzerland’s. Not long afterward he announced the construction of another warehouse, in Luxembourg.
Rybolovlev, meanwhile, was only getting richer. In 2007 Uralkali floated on the London Stock Exchange and became the most successful Russian IPO ever. Less than a year later the Putin regime—which is notoriously antagonistic toward Russian oligarchs living abroad, particularly ones whose fortunes derive from buying post-Soviet assets on the cheap—summoned him to a meeting in Moscow,
where Rybolovlev was informed that the Kremlin was reopening a potentially bankrupting investigation into the collapse of a mine belonging to Uralkali. Understanding the government’s interest in his company and that his days of owning it were numbered, Rybolovlev cashed out, leaving his estimated net worth somewhere between $8 billion and $13 billion. He then focused on trolling the world for other investments. In 2010 he moved to Monaco, his trusts buying La Belle Epoque. His trusts also bought a majority stake in the AS Monaco soccer team in 2011. And in 2012 a broker recommended by Rappo sold his trusts the penthouse at 15 Central Park West. Rybolovlev says that Rappo called him as the deal was closing. “I’ve been offered a commission of $100,000,” she told him. “Would you mind if I accepted?”
Tetiana Bersheda warned me that I would find Tania Rappo “captivating.” After I meet her in her lawyer’s office, atop a creaking staircase in a building near the Fairmont Monte Carlo, and later at dinner, accompanied by her husband and her lawyer, at an outdoor French restaurant, I cannot deny it. Dressed casually in a black halter top, jeans, and heels—as well as big pearl earrings—Rappo looks far younger than her years. One of the first things she tells me—then repeats again and again—is that she and Bersheda never got along. Bersheda was always kept away from the art collection, and one senses how much the rivalry between these two women plays a role in the case.
At the restaurant Rappo, who speaks eloquent English as well as French, Russian, and her native Bulgarian, chain-smokes throughout the evening, and although she orders champagne, she scarcely touches it, preferring to talk, talk, and talk. Both her husband, a handsome, quiet man, and her lawyer, “Maître Michel,” occasionally interrupt, telling her, “Tania, no, don’t say that,” but clearly Rappo is not a woman who is told what to do.
Her story, essentially, is that Rybolovlev is using her and Bouvier as pawns. “You cannot understand the story of the art,” she says, waving her cigarette, “unless you understand the story of the divorce.”
Her tale begins, naturally, with a call at four in the morning from Elena in 2008. “Crying like you cannot imagine, she said, ‘Can you please come?’ I say, ‘Is somebody dead?’ She says, ‘No, but please come.’ So at four I wake up, I get my car, I go to the hotel.” There Elena tells her that by accident she came across documents on Dmitry’s computer containing the passport information of various guests visiting the Rybolovlev yacht, including many “girls” and Dmitry’s mistress at the time. This, Rappo says, was the event that triggered the divorce—Elena filed within weeks. (Inciden- tally, aside from advising Elena to consult a lawyer, Rappo denies hastening the breakup. “I tried for about two years to put them together,” she says. It was Dmitry who made reconciliation impossible, she claims: “From the very beginning he said, ‘Tell her she will have nothing.’ “)
For the next few years Rappo’s relationship with Rybolovlev was status quo. It was not a friendship, she says: “I had affection for her. I never had affection for him… He’s a block of ice.” However, she continued to be a liaison between Rybolovlev and Bouvier; and she continued to receive introduction fees from Bouvier, an arrangement for which she says she received around 5 percent whenever a deal closed. She and Elena stopped speaking for a reason Rappo won’t divulge.
Last year, when she found out Elena had been arrested, she says she got nervous; she calls the event a turning point in her relationship with Dmitry. (If so, Rybolovlev says he didn’t notice—Rappo still showed up for events he held.) The arrest had taken place during a visit to Cyprus, where Rybolovlev has considerable financial assets, including at one time a large stake in the country’s biggest bank. Rappo says Rybolovlev told her, “There are three places in the world I can do whatever I want. One is Cyprus, one is Skorpios, and the other is Monaco.” And she claims he had Elena arrested—even though she spent only a short while in custody—to scare her into dropping her lawsuits (filed in several countries) in pursuit of her ex-husband’s money.
“To put the mother of your two children in prison just not to give her money—what kind of person is that?” Rappo says. “This is the style of Mr. Rybolovlev, and that’s exactly what happened to us. He wants to humiliate people and put such stress on them that they give up.” (Rybolovlev brushes all this off and says Elena cannot stand to hear Tania Rappo’s name.) I put it to Rappo: Why would Rybolovlev target her and Bouvier if not for the money he says they owe him?
“There is a saying in French: When you want to get rid of your dog, say it has rabies,” Rappo says. “He wanted to discredit Bouvier.” And as for his putative vendetta against Rappo? She alleges that Rybolovlev and his lawyers have gone after her and not just Bouvier because they “must find a way to link the case to Monaco. The paintings were not sold here.”
At one point I ask Rappo if, knowing Rybolovlev as well as she does, and after all she has gone through, she is ever afraid of him. “Afraid is not the word, but you feel danger,” she replies.
Monaco is tiny—barely three-quarters of a square mile—and densely populated, holding almost 40,000 people inside that area. It was hard to imagine, but a few blocks from the restaurant where I met Rappo was the Rybolovlev penthouse.
“Tania is at the heart of this story,” Rybolovlev tells me when I meet him at La Belle Epoque. “She was a friend, not a business associate. But the friendship was an illusion.”
Rybolovlev says he heard through the grapevine that Rappo had gotten richer, acquiring apartments in Paris, London, and Monaco during the years he had known her. Her explanation, he says, was that she had come into a windfall thanks to her family’s sale of real estate in Bulgaria. Rybolovlev also said she had given money to Bouvier to invest in the Singapore free port (which Rappo denies), and Bouvier had made her a fortune.
But his suspicion was not triggered until Bouvier came to Rybolovlev in 2013 and 2014 to shop two paintings, first Salvator Mundi, a recently discovered Leonardo for which he wanted $127 million, and then No. 6 (Violet, Green and Red), a prized Rothko for which he requested $140 million. Rybolovlev told Bouvier that the family trusts would pay for the Rothko only in installments while Bouvier sold other works, including a Modigliani sculpture Rybolovlev had owned since 2012. Bouvier seemed to have trouble finding a buyer for the Modigliani—or “anything!” Rybolovlev says.
And then Rybolovlev found out about a New York Times article he had missed from months earlier reporting that the Leonardo he had purchased for $127.5 million had been sold not long before for only $75 million to $80 million. The piece also stated that many experts thought the work had been done by an assistant in Leonardo’s studio, not the artist himself.
Rybolovlev says he asked Bouvier about the article directly and Bouvier brushed it off, telling him dealers never give correct sale figures to journalists. He insisted the pieces would sell in time.
Rybolovlev’s suspicion lingered, which is why when Sandy Heller mentioned the Modigliani in St. Bart’s a month later, Rybolovlev asked him how much he had sold it for, something he ordinarily might have been reluctant to ask. (He says Bouvier asked that their transactions be kept confidential for fear that combining art dealing with art storage would be seen as a conflict of interest, a practice the art dealer Larry Gagosian has indeed criticized.) As he sat there stunned in the Eden Rock din- ing room, he says, realizing how much he had overpaid, his first reaction was, “I wanted to call Tania and ask her, ‘Do you know what Yves is doing?’ “
But then, according to Rybolovlev, it struck him that Rappo always seemed to know what Bouvier was doing. Since the very first moment of the relationship, she had been there for nearly every meeting with Bouvier and every viewing in the Geneva free port.
According to Bersheda, the criminal complaint she filed last year was against Bouvier only. Rybolovlev was already hurt and angry, but the serious pain came, he says, when he heard that investigators had found commissions from Bouvier in Rappo’s bank accounts going back to 2004. Rappo knew Rybolovlev to be reserved and wary, he says. He let his guard down around Bouvier because he trusted her. At that point he began to see Rappo, not Bouvier, at the center of the spider’s web. Their falling out has led him to ask what he calls “difficult philosophical questions.” Had it not been for the dentist’s wife he would never have gotten involved with Bouvier.
Rybolovlev says he did not know what was going to happen to Rappo or Bouvier. “I didn’t know the police would arrest them then,” he says in answer to their accusations of a sting at Rybolovlev’s apartment. The police had asked him to act normal, he claims, but “I needed vodka to get through it.” Rappo, he says, was her usual, effervescent self, chattering about the beauty of the Rothko and pressuring Rybolovlev to buy it.
Both Rappo and Bouvier argue that the Monaco prosecution (which is heading toward trial) is in Rybolovlev’s pocket. Rappo has protested that her right to due process was violated. (“You can’t just go and look in the bank accounts of somebody,” she says.) Rybolovlev brushes this off.
The truth, he says, is that he just wanted to hear Rappo say, ” ‘I did it. I’m so sorry.’ I might have forgiven her,” he says. Instead, when they were face to face in the Monaco jail after she had been arrested, he claims she denied everything.
“It’s easy for [Bouvier and Rappo] to paint me as the stereotypical Russian oligarch,” he says. But if he were so interested in hiding his assets from Elena, he says, why would he announce to the world that he had been the victim of a multibillion-dollar scam, in the process letting it be known how much his trusts had overpaid for each of his artworks?
“They underestimated me,” he says.
I ask him if, in the wake of all the misery he claims was inflicted on him by a woman he came to depend on because she spoke Russian, he is thinking of finally learning a new language. Laughing, he says he is trying, but it isn’t going well.
The world’s “most expensive”—and perhaps nastiest—divorce is over.
T&C can exclusively reveal that Dimitry Rybolovlev, the 49-year-old Russian oligarch who made a $9 billion fortune in the fertilizer business, has, after seven long years involving private investigators, battles over art, multi-million dollar properties—and even an arrest!—been settled “amicably” with all lawsuits dropped. The terms have not been released, but it’s worth mentioning that at one point a Swiss Judge wanted to award Elena Rybolovleva half his fortune, which is what makes this so costly.
That a settlement was coming was revealed exclusively to me in September, during a three-hour interview with the oligarch (in the presence of a translator). Rybolovlev is a taciturn man who rarely gives interviews. But we met at his home in Monaco, the famous triplex penthouse apartment, La Belle Epoque, possibly the world’s most expensive apartment and which also happens to be the infamous crime scene where the late banker Edmond Safra died, locked in a bathroom in 1999. (Rybolovlev, who was not without a sense of humor, told me he had had his priest sprinkle holy water everywhere to get rid of the bad xiu xiu).
We were there to discuss his role at the center of an alleged billion-dollar art fraud, which has recently been water-cooler talk in galleries and auction houses, afraid of what his case might reveal about their shadowy, unregulated industry. Dressed in black velvet slippers, charcoal pants and a blue and white shirt, Rybolovlev explained how the two stories were entwined, since the people currently facing criminal lawsuits accusing them of illegally enriching themselves as they bought bought art on behalf of his trusts, apparently believed, according to the oligarch, that their greatest ally was his divorce. He says they thought he would stay quiet about the art collection because he wouldn’t want Elena to know what was in it and come after it. “They were wrong. They underestimated me,” he’d later say.
In fact, he said, talking of the divorce, he never really wanted to get divorced at all. (Then again, one must remember he had not had a prenuptial agreement, so financially he had good reason not to.) He had met Elena (whose lawyers did not return calls) back when he was a student cardiologist, before he went into finance and the fertilizer industry and made his fortune. It was never an ordinary marriage with ordinary stresses. In the mid-1990s Russia was in political turmoil post-Perestroika. The success of his fertilizer company, Uralkali, meant he was a target of the government. He faced death threats and moved Elena to Geneva along with the couple’s eldest daughter Ekaterina; Dmitry subsequently spent almost a year in jail in Russia, allegedly for ordering a hit of one of his business partners. (He would be cleared … but neighbors in Geneva remember Elena having to tell them, in faltering beginner’s French: “He’s in prison for alleged murder.”)
GETTY VALERY HACHE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
It couldn’t have been easy. Then he got out and commuted between Russia and Geneva. He and Elena had another daughter, Anna, in 2001. Who and what pushed Elena to file for divorce in 2008? For that you’ll need to read my upcoming piece in the December/January issue T&C. She’d accuse him of hiding assets—properties all around the world in trusts—and the case went in and out of courts. Their fight climaxed in a terrible moment last year when Elena was arrested in Cyprus where Dimitry owns a stake in the country’s biggest bank; supposedly she’d stolen a $28 million ring (she would prove he’d given it to her.) It’s hard to think of a divorce where the friction is of a comparable scale. There are those who call this “the Russian way of doing things…”
Yet when I met with Rybolovlev his face softened as he mentioned Elena. He brought up what they agree on; not what they don’t. He told me they were about to settle, though right to the end, sources close to it confided it was touch and go: “A divorce like this is a bit like and M&A deal; it’s not done until it’s done.”
So now it’s over, at least on paper. Anyone who’s been divorced knows that a mix of emotions lingers: relief, bitter-sweet sadness, and also optimism. But I also happen to know the story isn’t over yet for this complicated, reluctantly high-profile family. More news to come.
FOR A LOOK AT WHAT THE WORLD”S MOST EXPENSIVE DIVORCE LOOKS LIKE, SEE HERE JUST SOME OF THE ASSETS BEING FOUGHT OVER:
$88 Million – 15 Central Park West apartment, NYC
$95 Million – Palm Beach mansion bought from Donald Trump, Maison de l’Amitié
$150 Million – Two Greek islands that once belonged to Athina Onassis
$111 Million – “My Anna” yacht
$20 Million – Kauai, Hawaii house purchased from Will Smith
$95 Million – Airbus A319 Jet
$480-800 Million – Art and furniture collection
$138 Million – Gstaad property
$50 Million – Moscow real estate holdings
$24 Million – Paris property
Last July, at the end of a Friday afternoon, Frank Gehry landed at Barnstable Municipal Airport, on Cape Cod, accompanied by his son Alejandro and his friend Bobby Shriver. The group drove straight to the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, and there the architect first saw her, anchored a little offshore.
A crowd had gathered, since, as Gehry says, “Hyannis Port is a real sailing community,” and because Foggy, whose name (based on an acronym for Frank Owen Gehry) had been etched in Gehry’s sloping scrawl onto its stern, is a sloop like no other. Fashioned out of traditional larch wood but accented with titanium and a glass latticework that glimmers like a school of fish, she looked schizophrenic, a hybrid of past and future.
Gehry is an avid yachtsman, and sailing informs much of his most famous work—think of the billowing motif of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, New York’s IAC building, and, most recently, the Louis Vuitton Foundation in Paris. Yet only recently did he undertake his first sailboat design.
TODD EBERLE
“I never had the resources before, and once I did I was busy doing my buildings,” he says. However, in 2008, Gehry found himself mulling the idea of designing a boat. He owns a fiberglass-hulled Beneteau First 44.7 (about to be renamed Foggy 1), which he keeps in Marina del Rey, California, and sails on Sunday afternoons, often with the architect Greg Lynn. The wives of both men tend to stay on land. (Lynn even had a boat called Girlfriend.) What if, Gehry wondered, he could design a boat that was both a signature piece and an enticement to his wife Berta?
He mentioned the idea to the developer Richard Cohen. A yachtsman too, Cohen had been wanting to build a large racing boat. After agreeing to work together, the two old friends brought in Germán Frers, an Argentine naval architect known for designing some of the most elegant fast sailboats in the world.
“Don’t let me go too crazy,” Gehry told Frers. “The boat has to work.” As instructed, Frers pushed back on Gehry’s plan for the vessel to have a flat, cabinless deck, which led to the choice of a curved “crown.”
However, when it came to choosing the material for the hull lining, Gehry and Frers drifted apart. Ever concerned with speed, Frers had proposed carbon fiber, the light, brittle material commonly used for racing boats. But Gehry wanted to line the boat with wood, partly because of “boat lore,” partly because he simply loves wood. Frers got a sinking feeling when he heard this, since wood adds weight without function. “I almost gave up hope the project would get done,” he says.
But in 2012, Cohen (who, full disclosure, is my significant other) found a possible compromise: build not just part of the boat with wood but the whole thing. He contacted the Brooklin Boat Yard in Maine, a small operation renowned for its carpentry as well as its engineering. One of its specialties is “cold molding,” a modern process that involves sandwiching wood around a high-tech core and yields lighter, stronger, and more durable craft than traditional planking.
Steve White, 61, the boatyard’s second-generation owner (and a grandson of E.B. White), was excited to work with Frers, but to have a non-boatbuilding architect of Gehry’s stature involved was daunting. And then he received Gehry’s drawings for the lattice windows on the deck and the stern.
“Bizarre,” was his reaction. In addition to its liberal use of materials like titanium, which few boat engineers have experience with, “there was a story behind every item on the boat—every cleat, doorknob, and showerhead.” And there were concerns that some of the unconventional elements could do more than just slow the yacht down.
“Glass steals a lot of the hull’s strength,” White says, likening Foggy’s windows to “holes in a pipe.” To see if they could withstand wave pressure, he and his team took sample panels to the technology laboratory at the University of Maine in Orono, where they hydraulically flushed the portals until they broke. (The windows turned out to be safe.)
Gehry, aided by his son Sam and a 3-D printer, “had fun” playing with Foggy’s design once he had found, or rather written, the boat’s “language.” “On a boat like this, it’s about romance and romantic encounters,” the architect says. At the heart of that fantasy is the yacht’s saloon, whose soft furnishings include a psychedelically colorful carpet created by Joyce Shin, Gehry’s daughter-in-law. It also includes sheepskin coverings for the couches from New Zealand, which turned the space into something between an Austin Powers–style lair and a discotheque.
Bizarre indeed. And yet, after joining Gehry in Hyannis Port and going aboard the sloop, Frers, and later White, had the same reaction. “It works,” both men said with considerable relief.
It also worked the following weekend, when Cohen and a crew tested Foggy in competition. Stripped of binnacles, bowsprit, and any unnecessary weight (even the psychedelic carpet), and fitted with black carbon fiber racing sails, Foggy headed off to Martha’s Vineyard and clocked the fastest time in last summer’s running of the 52-mile Round the Island race.
Next, Gehry and Cohen plan to take the boat to Miami, Cuba, and Panama, where Gehry will visit his recently finished Museo de la Biodiversidad, timing the trip to coincide with the historic opening of the Panama Canal’s third set of locks. (It will be a special visit: Berta Gehry is Panamanian, and the Gehrys have yet to visit the much-lauded museum.) Then, after transiting the canal, it will be on to Costa Rica, Baja California (site of another Gehry building), and into the harbor at Marina del Rey, where he plans to race Foggy on Sunday afternoons.
And then?
“We’ll do a spaceship,” Gehry says.
Five years ago this magazine published a feature about the glamorous lives of Atlanta couple Danielle and Glen Rollins. They were young, blond, and beautiful; Boxwood, their five-acre Regency-style estate in Buckhead, was “the house everyone in Atlanta dreamed about,” according to T&C. Glen was unusual: The third-generation inheritor of an industrial fortune (pesticide giant Rollins Inc., the $6 billion parent company of Orkin), he also had a bona fide track record as a businessman. He, his father Gary, and his uncle Randall ran the publicly owned extermination behemoth, with Glen as president and chief operations officer of Orkin. No other member of Glen’s generation worked for the family business. He was the golden boy and lived in appropriately high style, as the reader saw.
Around the time the story was published I got to know the vivacious Danielle, who was writing a coffee-table book on entertaining. We met at a dinner party in New York hosted by mutual friends, after which I imagined she returned to her dreamlike existence as Glen’s wife.
FRANCESCO LAGNESE
Around the time the story was published I got to know the vivacious Danielle, who was writing a coffee-table book on entertaining. We met at a dinner party in New York hosted by mutual friends, after which I imagined she returned to her dreamlike existence as Glen’s wife.
Most of my clients get divorced and that’s it, we’re done. [But] most of my clients are not like the Rollinses.
Around the time the story was published I got to know the vivacious Danielle, who was writing a coffee-table book on entertaining. We met at a dinner party in New York hosted by mutual friends, after which I imagined she returned to her dreamlike existence as Glen’s wife.
But earlier this year Danielle reached out to me on Facebook. She and Glen had split up. No longer living at Boxwood, she had temporarily moved into a house owned by her hairdresser while she struggled through arbitration following a vicious divorce that felt to her like “something out of John Grisham.”
I was not immediately convinced. After all, how much sympathy could either member of this once resplendent couple deserve? But one Sunday evening I found time to look at the deposition of Danielle’s former mother-in-law, Ruthie. It made for uncomfortable reading.
Ruthie had disapproved of Danielle, the daughter of a Dallas electrical engineer and a special education teacher, from the get-go. “I just did not feel they were the right match,” she testified. Danielle “had a pretty complexion,” but before her wedding to Glen, Ruthie offered to pay for a chin lift and a stay at a weight loss camp in Switzerland. Why? Ruthie claims it was “manipulation” by Danielle, who wanted the procedures; Danielle says it was part of her mother-in-law’s campaign to reshape and control her. In any case, according to Danielle, more mother-in-law-funded surgery—to her breasts, stomach, and legs—was to follow over the years. In her deposition Ruthie was also asked whether she had bought much of the decor at Boxwood, from rugs and chandeliers to the services of her longtime decorator, Gordon Little. “I don’t recall,” she responded. “You would have to check with my CPA.”
Exterior modifications weren’t the only changes the family sought to impose, Danielle says. Four times a year every member of the Rollins clan gathered in Atlanta on a Saturday for a compulsory meeting, and there was also an annual weekendlong retreat (usually at a resort such as WaterColor, on the Gulf Coast) at which paid lecturers drilled them in the pitfalls of inherited wealth. Glen’s grandfather the late O. Wayne Rollins had come from a modest farming background and was an apostle of solid, simple values. His sons Gary and Randall structured their children’s trust funds to deter entitled behavior, stipulating that distributions be received only by those engaged in “serious pursuits that are meaningful, respectable, and worthwhile.”
But this, apparently, did not go far enough. In 2010, according to Glen, Gary and Randall proposed amending the trust funds to include a program of credit checks, drug tests, and surveillance by private investigators.
Glen balked. For years, it turns out, he had been having extramarital affairs, including with prostitutes, as he would later admit in the divorce proceedings. He and Danielle sweated it out in therapy, with Glen receiving treatment for sex addiction. (He tells me he is fully recovered.) However, at a Rollins retreat on Amelia Island in 2010, around the time he was being asked to submit to intrusive inspections of his private life, Glen made an unpleasant discovery: Despite having devoted his entire career to Rollins Inc., he had been passed over for a key leadership position in a huge family foundation in favor of an older cousin. Eventually he and his siblings decided to sue the trustees, including his father and uncle, for breach of fiduciary duties related to the trust funds that his grandfather had created for the benefit of Glen and the other grandchildren.
“It wasn’t just for our sake,” Glen says. “We wanted to protect our children from having to live under draconian terms.”
It was in response to his intention to sue, Danielle says, that she strove to make the Boxwood spread, with its across-the- fold images of a koi pond and satin-lined living rooms, as fairy tale–like as possible. “I wanted Glen to see what he had,” she says, so he wouldn’t launch a family civil war.
It wasn’t enough. In September 2010, while T&C readers were still enjoying pictures of domestic bliss at the Rollins manor, Glen filed suit against his father and uncle, who immediately fired him from Orkin. His three siblings stood with him, his five cousins against. His mother swiftly made her choice, filing for divorce from Gary after 45 years of marriage. Glen’s suit is expected to roll through the courts for years.
At home Glen and Danielle fought more bitterly than ever, and in 2012 she too filed for divorce. She subsequently found herself, she says, without a single credit card or bank account she could control, nor any stock or other assets. Under pressure she signed an agreement she now regrets; it provided little that won’t be eaten up by legal bills, which is why she reached out to me. (Glen’s attorney disputes her account.) Her lawyer, Jeffrey Melcher, told me, “Most of my clients get divorced and that’s it, we’re done.” But, he added, “most of my clients are not like the Rollinses.”
So there you have it: the dark side of taking a company public and also attempting to pass it on within the family. One sympathizes with both sides. Nobody wants children to grow up spoiled so they dissipate hard-earned money, but trusts can be destructive to their beneficiaries even when the terms are less authoritarian than the ones Glen and his siblings recoiled at. Meanwhile, Rollins Inc. steams along like a juggernaut.
Gary and Randall, whatever one thinks of the family drama, have been remarkable stewards of the company. So there are no easy conclusions, except possibly this: Bill Gates, who says he wants to leave his kids pretty much nothing when he dies, may be on to something.
The scene: a funeral parlour in New York. Doors clang as a family relative, the ‘black sheep’, saunters in halfway through his brother’s eulogy and brazenly strolls down to the front pew, ignoring the scandalised glances. He’s late, a whisper spreads, because he had a meeting with director James Toback. Wait. James Toback? Lame! The hearse leaves, and the congregants assemble on the street. An attractive brunette in her late forties weeps desolately. Did she know the deceased well? Not at all: she has discovered that someone at the service walked off with her Christian Dior trench and left her with a shabbier coat from a chainstore.
All this happened — about two weeks ago on Upper East Side, where I live, and so, apparently, for a year or two, did Wednesday Martin, PhD. Martin’s controversial ‘memoir’ Primates of Park Avenuesupposedly takes us inside the author’s traumatic experience of moving uptown and trying to fit in to a neigbourhood full of razor-thin, rich, beautiful ‘mommies’ with financier husbands, second and third homes in Aspen and Southampton and children en route, whether they like it or not, to the Ivies. Part of the controversy has been that Martin seems to have made up some of the more scandalous details — not least the eyebrow-raising notion of a ‘wife-bonus’.
Even if you overlook the fabrications — and I’m not suggesting you should — the real problem with Primates is that it does not take us inside anything; not even Martin’s head. If this is a memoir our first job should be to get to know — and empathise with — its author. Martin steadfastly keeps us out: her voice is oddly impersonal and, worse, contrived. She seems unaware that she is as condescending to the ‘tribe’ of rich women she writes about as, she tells us, they are to her.
And what exactly are their crimes? They seem shallow. They drink. They take anti-anxiety pills. They look overdressed at school drop-off at 8 a.m. They compete fiercely for their children. They are terrified of getting fat. She tells us that she is different from them, but nowhere does she show us any evidence of this. Arguably, she behaves worse than her subject material. She dispatches her poor businessman husband all round the world in search of a Birkin bag; at her son’s school she flirts with a married man, a so-called Alpha Dad, in order to set up a play-date.
The insufferable superiority of Martin’s tone here is consistent, and is made worse by scattered lectures likening her neighbours’ doings to various chimp behaviours of the kind Jane Goodall observed. Sadly these interludes are even more boring than the outdated anecdotes she rehashes about certain Upper East Side women: one feels that they’ve been hamfistedly inserted to remind us that Wednesday Martin, is, as the dust-cover says, a PhD: she is an anthropologist. Which is good, because she is most emphatically not a writer.
Manhattan’s very rich, very selfish and very myopic inhabitants have been a treasure chest for writers, among them Henry James, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, Truman Capote, Tom Wolfe, Jay McInerney and, some might say, Candace Bushnell. What these have in common is that they showed the complexity underneath the nonchalant gloss. It’s a nasty fact that money drives absolutely everything in this town; but the city’s energy — its soul, if you will — comes from the friction created by the need to pretend it does not. New York’s most vivid characters are caught in flux, as if figuring out the answer to a question that hovers permanently and invisibly over their head: are they worth just a bank balance figure, or something more? The ways in which they manifest this quandary on a day-to-day basis are both heartachingly sad and very, very funny, depending on your point of view.
Martin tells us that the people she meets uptown don’t sleep at night because they are so troubled, whether about money, children, infidelity or being overweight. Right there you have the seed of something. Back to the funeral: what makes people cry over a missing raincoat that is so easily replaced? What makes them appear so consumed by the small stuff right after they’ve seen a hearse head for a cemetery?
The answers are not easy — nor, actually, silly. As the character ofGatsby’s Daisy Buchanan shows us, the unwritten role of a moneyed aristocrat is to keep the rest of the world guessing at what is going on internally. The joy of Fitzgerald is that he brings the reader close enough to feel the personal cost of such careful carelessness. The pain of Martin is that she’s far too far removed from her subjects to see anything beyond the surface.
The rumor sped through the crowd like a missile. It was December, and the art world had gathered under the sun for Art Basel Miami Beach, the industry’s last big celebration of 2014. On Tuesday there was the opening reception; while dealers were putting the finishing touches on their booths at the Miami Beach Convention Center, the Design Miami fair was kicking off in a tent next door, and that was where many of the week’s guests were (the organizers anticipated 73,000), chattering about the night’s dinner options, when the news landed.
Stephen P. Murphy, the fast-talking 60-year-old CEO of Christie’s, who was unexpectedly anointed in 2010—the first American to head the 250-year-old British auction house—had stepped down. Suddenly. He was scheduled to sit on a panel on luxury goods in Miami the next day, but apparently that was no longer happening. The story going around was that he had been fired by Patricia Barbizet, the auction house’s quick-witted 59-year-old chairwoman. Murphy’s tenure at Christie’s had been marked by massive sales of postwar and contemporary art, and supposedly his contract had just been renewed. Nevertheless, later that day a press release thanking Murphy for “his vision, leadership and commitment to Christie’s” went out, and that was that. Officially, no further word was uttered on the subject. Barbizet would take over as CEO, the auctioneer Jussi Pyllkkänen would become global president, and Stephen Brooks, known internally as “the money guy,” would become global COO.
Dom Emmert / AFP / Getty Images
As for Murphy, he was not there to defend himself against the deluge of allegations roiling in the South Florida heat. had some personal transgression been unearthed? Or was the reason the headline-grabbing deals, the red-letter names, and the steadily ascending earnings under Murphy’s leadership, which, in what appears to have been the worst-kept secret in the art world, somehow resulted in less than robust profits for the auction house?
Was something amiss beneath the glossy surface? No one needed reminding that the last time a head of Christie’s abruptly resigned (Christopher Davidge, in 2000), it was because Christie’s and its eternal adversary, Sotheby’s, were about to be laid low in a vast price-fixing investigation that would land former Sotheby’s owner Alfred Taubman in jail.
Months later people are still asking, and not out of mere prurience, what happened to Steven Murphy? And what does his fate—and that of Sotheby’s CEO William Ruprecht, who had announced his resignation just two weeks earlier—mean for the world’s two biggest auction houses?
Steven Murphy arrived at Christie’s during an era of seismic change in the auction of Willem de Kooning. The auction houses knew in whose homes most of these treasures lay, having painstakingly cultivated relationships with well-to-do families and their executors for centuries. (Christie’s was founded in 1766; Sotheby’s in 1744.) Selling art (and jewelry and furniture and watches and wine—the entire range of an estate’s luxury possessions) is not a short-term business. Guy Jennings, the former deputy chairman of Impressionist and Modern Paintings at Christie’s, explained it thus to a slightly different times. Put one person under each tree to catch the fruit when it drops. Shaking the tree will not bring it down any sooner. And rushing around from tree to tree in a mad frenzy when you think the fruit is about to ripen is not the most sensible way of doing it.” Jennings added, “Murphy appeared to think otherwise.”
To be fair, Murphy wasn’t hired to maintain the status quo. He was hired because François Pinault, the 78-year-old luxury goods magnate who owns Christie’s, agreed with both Barbizet and the company’s then-CEO, 54-year-old Brit Edward Dolman, that a “fresh pair of eyes” might be beneficial in a fast-changing business.
Dolman, a former rugby player with sandy hair and a gentle voice, had served Pinault well as CEO for 11 years. The two were close, even though they made an unlikely couple. Dolman has only “dinner-ordering French”; Pinault is not comfortable speaking English. Dolman’s frame is so big he looks awkward in an office chair; Pinault is slight. Dolman is classically British: dry, funny, understated, and seemingly (and only seemingly) half-asleep.
Pinault is openly alert, with a forensic French style. But it was Dolman who, after working his way up from porter to expert, then manager, steered the house through the upheaval of the price-fixing investigation. It was Dolman, furthermore, who quickly returned the house to profitability after the recession in 2001, and again after a dip in 2008.
In an interview in New York in January, Dolman explained that he, Pinault, Barbizet, and Pinault’s “finance team” would meet at least once every quarter to measure, among other things, their results against Sotheby’s. “The French are very scientific,” Dolman said. “I actually thought Sotheby’s [a public company] had an advantage because they couldn’t see our results, whereas I worked for someone who measured us directly with Sotheby’s. Anyone who thinks that Mr. Pinault somehow was so rich that he had no interest in whether Christie’s performed well is deluded. Mr. Pinault is a successful businessman because he wants to run businesses profitably, and that’s certainly what he expected of Christie’s.”
By 2010, Dolman recognized that new challenges faced the industry. A host of rich buyers had emerged in Russia, China, and Qatar. The new buyers wanted exclusively contemporary art, of which there is almost an infinite supply (as opposed to, say, Impressionism), and they didn’t want to wait for seasonal auctions to buy and sell it. As a result, both Christie’s and Sotheby’s increasingly found themselves in the business of private sales—transactions in which the auction house links buyers and consignors who do not want a bidding contest—which had several tricky consequences. One was that the in-house experts, who traditionally had been compensated for deals on a relatively flat basis, could now jostle for large commissions, which created friction. “Usually a sale doesn’t come about just because of one person,” Dolman says.
An even bigger problem, however, was the so-called “guarantees” both Sotheby’s and Christie’s were offering to discourage private sales. With the guarantees—promises to sell items for a minimum price—the houses enabled sophisticated collectors and dealers to exploit the companies’ desperation to create headlines and outgun each other in the public arena. Quickly the demand for guarantees became unaffordable, forcing a dependence on third parties (often top private dealers, sometimes financiers) and leading to industry scuttlebutt about how top collectors had found new ways to enrich themselves and screw the auction houses in the process.
For example, there were tales of friends bidding up each other’s works, and of sellers bidding on their own guaranteed property, all of which was legal as long as the guarantees were disclosed either in tiny legal print in the back of a catalog or in the rushed words of an auctioneer before a sale started. At both houses the staff knew they needed to stay one step ahead of their clients to ensure that they were not fleeced. “You have to be very conscious of the market manipulation that goes on in sales,”Dolman says. It was a new world of sophisticated and abstruse dealmaking, as confusing—perhaps intentionally so—as the world of credit default swaps.
With this in mind, in 2010 Dolman and Barbizet reached out to Steven Murphy. Murphy’s career had been a bit odd: From 1991 to 1998 he helmed the record label EMI. Then he moved into publishing; from 2002 to 2009 he was first president, then CEO, of Rodale Inc., a publisher of wellness magazines and books. (Like several of Pinault’s businesses, it’s a family-owned enterprise.) In 2003 Murphy greatly enhanced Rodale’s bottom line when he released the best-seller The South Beach Diet, which reportedly raked in $100 million. He also published Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. People who worked for him by and large loved him. Josh Deutsch, chairman and CEO of Downtown Records, worked with Murphy at EMI and says he was “the best boss I ever had.”
Dolman thought that, given this history, Murphy would understand the challenge of managing brilliant creative people—in this case the in-house experts, for whom “bagging a public deal, selling a painting in public, and the accompanying cocktail party chatter” are “life and death,” but who are not paid to consider whether a deal’s terms increase or decrease the house’s profits. As Dolman saw it, the CEO’s job was to balance what a 2009 Harvard Business Review article called “irrational” decision making (“decisions made for ego, for public consumption,” as Dolman phrased it) against “rational” decisions that quietly and boringly make money.
That Murphy, an outsider, was unversed in the weblike intricacies connecting contemporary art buyers and dealers (for example,the Mugrabi family is friendly with publisher Peter Brant; between them they control most of the world’s Basquiat and Warhol market) did not overly concern his supporters, not least because when Murphy was hired, Dolman, who was being promoted to chairman,was there to hold his hand. “Murphy was hired to turn us into a great big global brand,” says a very senior executive at Christie’s who always liked Murphy. “He understood media, the internet, PR. He was an aggressive business-getter. But Ed Dolman was the one with decades of experience in the business. Ed was the art world insider. The idea was they’d be a dream team.”
The dream ended quickly. In June 2011, nine months after Murphy’s arrival, Dolman left Christie’s to become director of the Qatar Museums Authority. He now says he quickly found he didn’t like being chairman after all. “I preferred being CEO,” he says. He also wanted to become a shareholder. “One of Mr. Pinault’s great strengths is that he’s very sure about these things, and we had no equity plan at Christie’s,” Dolman says diplomatically. Qatar was “a great opportunity.”
Some of Dolman’s former colleagues are more blunt, saying that, under Murphy, Dolman saw irrational business decisions at Christie’s that he didn’t feel were sustainable. Guy Jennings, the Impressionist expert who would leave Christie’s in 2014 after clashing with Murphy, says, “He wanted to maximize revenue now, now, now, or yesterday if at all possible. I asked him what he was doing for our children, but he wasn’t interested in the long term.”
Murphy embraced the modern way of doing business. He was unafraid of issuing vast guarantees; in fact, he was unafraid period. In 2011 he added Loic Gouzer, 34, to the contemporary art department. A good-looking Breton, Gouzer until 2009 had been at Sotheby’s, where he was seen as a loose cannon, but he was aggressive and had a roster of hip young clients, including neophyte collector Leonardo DiCaprio. Murphy felt Gouzer’s presence was good PR. In May 2014 Gouzer held his own contemporary art sale, called “If I Live I’ll See You Tuesday” (the title was inspired by a Richard Prince painting), which was widely written up—not because it made spectacular profits (it was reported to be a heavily guaranteed sale) but because of its slick packaging, which included a YouTube video of skateboarder Chris Martin maneuvering through Christie’s back offices to the music of Awolnation.
In all, Murphy spent a reported $50 million beefing up Christie’s marketing while modernizing the venerable firm with online auctions and its first public sale in Shanghai. In interview after interview, on television and in print, he also became the public face of Christie’s, and he seemed to revel in his iconoclastic reputation. He spoke often about “democratizing the art business,” which Dolman now calls “sound bite bullshit. How do you democratize a $20 million Warhol?” Yet it all seemed to be working. Starting in 2012, Christie’s contemporary art auctions started to roar.
In the summer of 2013, I met with Steven Murphy. It was a radiant day in London—one of those days the British, strangers to air conditioning, find too hot. Full disclosure: He was interviewing me, not the other way around, for a job, that of “chief content officer,” which he subsequently gave to someone else. Truthfully, I didn’t mind this outcome, not because the job wasn’t worth doing but because to do it well you’d need to be near Murphy, who was based in London. (He and his wife, parenting guru Ann Pleshette Murphy, had relocated there from New York.)
Murphy was dressed in a beige summer suit, and he had the spirit of a playful young Labrador about him. He talked fast and jotted down ideas. Like many Americans new to London he name-dropped a bit, but not annoyingly. He was passionate about taking Christie’s into the publishing business, both digital and print, and the time we spent bouncing ideas around was pleasurable. The meeting concluded with the two of us, both English literature majors, comparing favorite books and him promising to tell me in detail what happened to him during his “gap year,” the time he had spent after leaving Rodale for various parts of the Third World.
I left thinking he’d be a fun person to work with, but also that the job would be all-consuming, rather like a marriage. Barry Diller, the chairman of IAC, famously said a business leader must keep chucking ideas at the wall to see which ones stick. Clearly, this was Murphy’s approach. But I wasn’t sure of the stickiness of his brainwaves. “Maybe this will turn out to be a hugely important conversation,” he said during our meeting, whichI felt was an odd thing to articulate aloud.
I wondered how this effervescent fantasist got on with the taciturn and deadly practical Pinault, who had phoned him in the middle of our interview. “We get on fine,” Murphy had told me, but I was not convinced. I have spent time with Pinault in New York, Paris, and Venice, and I’ve seen the Frenchman’s blue eyes light up, but usually this happens when he sees a piece of modern art, its creator, or a luxury deal. Steven Murphy was none of these.
Hindsight makes it clear that Sotheby’s CEO William Ruprecht reacted all wrong to what he perceived as Murphy’s success. Like Edward Dolman at Christie’s, Ruprecht was a lifer who had ascended from the bottom of the auction house (in his case, a summer job as a typist). Like Dolman, Ruprecht, 58, was a former expert (in rugs). Both men had assumed the stewardship of their respective institutions in 2000, at the start of the price-fixing investigation. Both were seen as having risen to the challenges of corporate management.
But in December 2012, after he had been president and CEO for 12 years, Ruprecht was elected chairman of the Sotheby’s board. Many close to the business talked of being shocked. “Bill has never been a big outside presence,” says someone who has worked with Ruprecht for many years. “It was the ideal moment to get a complement to him, a fantastic, high-profile person. When that happened instead, I thought, They’re in for a management change one of these days.”
One person who took careful note was Daniel S. Loeb, owner of the hedge fund Third Point. Loeb has a record of buying stock in public companies he sees as needing a shake-up, then putting himself on the board, raising the share price, and cashing out. His most famous turnaround has been Yahoo, whose CEO he forced out in favor of current head Marissa Mayer. (A year later he sold his initial stake in Yahoo at a profit of 129 percent.) Loeb, 53, is a New Yorker and a contemporary art collector. He owns works by Warhol, Basquiat, Cindy Sherman, and Richard Prince. He is also friends with Tobias Meyer, then Sotheby’s principal auctioneer.
In the summer of 2013 Third Point bought 5.7 percent of Sotheby’s shares, which many saw as indicating that Loeb intended to supplant Ruprecht and replace him with Meyer. The commanding, German-born Meyer ran Sotheby’s contemporary art department—the division getting walloped by Christie’s booming sales of balloon dogs and squeegee paintings—and the frustration in the department was thought to be all-consuming.
“To the outside world the headlines of’Christie’s blows everybody away’—it was completely ridiculous,” says a well-placed Sotheby’s insider (not Meyer). “Christie’s was giving away most of their earnings for a big flash of market share and huge numbers. They don’t care what the net results are.”
The auction house’s secret strategy may have been exposed last year by megacollector Peter Brant, who admitted to the New York Times that when he sold a balloon dog to Christie’s in 2013, the auction house not only waived its standard commission fee (which for the $58.4 million piece could have been a whopping $5 million) but also gave him a large share of the fee it normally would have collected from the buyer. In other words, Christie’s was prepared to sacrifice much of its profit for the gloss and glory of coming in first.
“They do not disclose the deal structure, so you don’t know how much has been given back,” the Sotheby’s insider says. If Christie’s loses money on deals, no one outside the company knows; there are no shareholders and no publicly issued profit-and-loss statements.
When Loeb began accumulating shares, some assumed he intended to empower his friend Meyer to fight back using similar tactics. In fact, Meyer left Sotheby’s shortly afterward, and when, in October 2013, Loeb did finally call for Ruprecht’s resignation, he castigated Sotheby’s for trying to blame its problems on “predatory behavior by Christie’s.” It was Sotheby’s, Loeb wrote in an open letter, that had “most aggressively competed on margin, often by rebating all of the seller’s commission and, in certain instances, much of the buyer’s premium to consignors of contested works.” By then Third Point had amassed 9.3 percent of Sotheby’s stock, becoming its largest shareholder. Loeb also criticized Ruprecht for receiving a lavish salary of $6 million per year, including such perks as a driver and country club memberships, while his company suffered “chronically weak operating margins and deteriorating competitive position.” Sotheby’s, he famously added, was like “an old masterpiece in desperate need of restoration.”
Ruprecht reacted quickly, initiating a poison pill that stopped Loeb from amassing more shares. And something that arguably should have been done in 2012, when the board chairmanship was open, finally happened: Domenico De Sole, the renowned co-founder of Tom Ford International who transformed Gucci in the late 1990s, joined the Sotheby’s board as lead director. De Sole, 70, a Harvard-educated lawyer, met with Loeb and made it his business to stay friendly with him throughout what would become an all-out war. In February 2014 Loeb asked for board seats for himself and two others: Harry J. Wilson, a former U.S.Treasury official, and Olivier Reza, the head of Alexandre Reza, a Paris-based luxury jeweler. Ruprecht responded by putting up his own three candidates, the so-called “Sotheby’s slate.”
In late April the two sides headed to court in Delaware, and over a weekend in May—just before the house’s spring auction of con-temporary art, which set individual records for sales by Julian Schnabel, Keith Haring, and Matthew Barney—a compromise was hammered out, thanks to back channel diplomacy by De Sole. Loeb, Reza, and Wilson would get their seats (as would the Sotheby’s slate), and Loeb would get $10 million to pay his legal expenses.
Officially, order was restored. Loeb was often seen in the Sotheby’s headquarters on the Upper East Side. So was De Sole, who joked to me that he joined the board because he had thought it would be “interesting—but I hadn’t quite realized how interesting. “Loeb also complained to friends that Sotheby’s was more time-consuming than any of his other investments. He had gotten himself onto the board, but now what? “How do you think you can fix this, Dan?” he was asked by people on the Sotheby’s staff. If he had answers, he wasn’t revealing them. Since Loeb joined the board, Sotheby’s stock price has spiked several times, but overall it has been stable.
Still, on November 20 it was leaked that William Ruprecht was stepping down. The announcement came 10 days after a triumphant auction at Sotheby’s of masterworks belonging to Bunny Mellon that fetched $159 million, exceeding estimates, but only eight days after Christie’s trounced its rival yet again in the latest contemporary sales, $853 million to $344 million.
Sotheby’s board had reached a “mutual decision,” the press release would read. Ruprecht would receive severance totaling $6 million, and he’d stay on until June 30 while a search committee led by De Sole looked for a successor. Prominent headhunting firm Spencer Stuart (which had brought Marissa Mayer to Yahoo) was engaged; there has been talk of a very long short list that inevitably included Tobias Meyer; Amy Cappellazzo, another friend of Loeb’s and the former international chairman of Postwar and Contemporary Art at Christie’s; LACMA head Michael Govan; and MoMA chief Glenn Lowry.
If ever a time had come for Steven Murphy to celebrate, this was it. Sotheby’s was way behind in contemporary sales, its management in disarray. Indeed, at dinner parties with his close friend Lady Fiona Carnarvon (owner, with her husband George Herbert, 8th Earl of Carnarvon, of Highclere Castle, the setting of Downton Abbey), Murphy seemed relaxed, confident. According to friends, he and his wife were trying to figure out where to stable their horse and whether or not to rent a weekend cottage on the Highclere estate. And so he was caught utterly off guard when he was summoned to the now famous meeting on December 2. “He simply had no idea,” his wife told friends.
One person not surprised was Edward Dolman, who had returned from Qatar the previous summer and assumed the stewardship of Phillips, the so-called “third auction house.” “I think,” he mused, “what you are seeing is the rational side of the business taking over from the irrational. Pinault makes decisions quickly. He doesn’t have to answer to a board,” Dolman adds. “When he makes up his mind, he executes.” Others speculated that Ruprecht’s departure, since it left Sotheby’s in a bad spot, offered the Frenchman an opportunity to let go of Murphy. “He’s concerned a downturn is coming in the luxury goods sector,” says someone close to him. (Ten days later Pinault’s son François-Henri fired both the CEO and the creative director at Gucci.)
While the relative timing is striking, the changes atop the auction houses are not comparable in that Christie’s, unlike Sotheby’s, is perceived as extremely stable. Patricia Barbizet is widely considered capable, as are Pylkkänen and Brooks. “It may be the business has gotten too tricky for just one person to run it,” one senior executive at Christie’s says. Barbizet is said to have scheduled four meetings with Pylkkänen in the first 10 days of January. Sotheby’s, meanwhile, has witnessed little easing off in dealmaking on the part of its competitors. “If [Murphy’s firing] was supposed to be some sort of smoke signal—we’re going to make more sensible, profitable deals—well, we’re not seeing that,” says a Sotheby’s insider.
Whoever comes in at Sotheby’s, a complete remodeling of the business is in order, according to Dolman. “Sotheby’s and Christie’s are so big they’ve become institutions,” he says, adding that in the current era, when contemporary art “takes up two-thirds of the business,” it may not make sense to have huge overhead elsewhere. Phillips, of course, has the advantage of being lighter and nimbler than its counterparts. “I like the idea of a small, high-end, high-quality business, focusing on particular areas of the market without trying to be all things to all men,” Dolman says. A flow of applicants from both houses came to his door during the current uncertainty.
As for Steven Murphy, he appeared to recover quietly. He sent e-mails to old friends wishing them a Merry Christmas. He still visited Fiona Carnarvon on weekends. He held a farewell party for Christie’s staff at his Chelsea townhouse, but there was no sign he was leaving London for New York.
“It was unfortunate he was let go the way he was,” says a former Christie’s colleague. “I don’t know why it was necessary. I liked Steven.”