The pouring rain eased up Sunday last, just in time to usher Jamaica’s art dealers and collectors into the National Gallery of Jamaica for Art Auction for Haiti. In terms of attendance, the event could well be considered a success.

However, in terms of sales, seems executive director of the National Gallery of Jamaica, Veerle Poupeye was spot on when she told us a week ago that, “This auction will serve to measure the temperature of the art market right now.”

Her take on the timeliness of such an endeavour was noted too, “Everybody has been fund-raising for Haiti and there is a bit of donor fatigue, but we need to do our part, so this is a chance for people to own pieces at a better price, while contributing to a good cause.”

The relevance of the auction was also what made it feasible. The proceeds would be granted to a few projects identified by the Edna Manley Foundation in association with the National Gallery of Jamaica, Hi-Qo Gallery, Harmony Hall, the Mutual Gallery and Art Centre, and Roktowa, including assisting the reconstruction of Haiti’s devastated art scene.

Historically, when a social, political, economical, or infrastructural shift or change occurs in a civilisation, it is reflected in the art of that particular period. I will be so bold as to speculate that pre-earthquake Haitian art will be much different to post-earthquake Haitian art, as the Haitians step into a new era. The Edna Manley Foundation and all of its associates are making an imperative gesture as the artists in Haiti need to start creating again.

The world needs to see the artists’ interpretation of their new country, and the history needs to be perceptually documented for generations yet to come.

The auction, although well attended, failed to stimulate spend. Still, auctioneer William Tavares-Finson consistently indicated that interested patrons would be able to negotiate with the National Gallery if a piece had been withdrawn. In most lots, the opening bid was below that of the lower end of the estimate. Thirty-seven pieces of the 113 up for auction were snapped up by happy bidders with the lowest sale price being $14,000, and the highest $900,000.

It defied expectations that a rarity such as Three Spanish Jars by John Dunkley was passed over without so much as a bid, as the opening was $7.2 million with it having been estimated to fetch between $7.5 million and $9 million. Measured the temperature of the art market, it did, Ms Poupeye! I suppose the auction served to clearly illustrate that we are indeed in the middle of a recession, and the confidence that people have right now is not as it once was.

All is not lost however, this according to Miami-based attorney and veteran art collector Richard Rothman, “Art will always hedge against inflation. If you buy a piece now at auction, and conservatively we can say it’s 30 per cent less than what you’ll pay if you buy it outright, and you keep it for 10, 20, 30 years, you will make a profit at least on what you paid. If you sell it at that time for actual value, you will have made a great return on investment. No mutual fund will pay you that.”

But how safe is that? Do you put a lot of your money into art? What happens if when you need to sell is during a recession people aren’t buying? What happens if those who buy don’t share your taste? “Well,” Rothman adds, “it’s never going to be as safe as money in the bank and you need liquid cash, because some pieces may take longer to sell than others.” There is a factor of common sense that must be brought to bear as with all investments; you would never put all your eggs in one basket, your portfolio must be diversified. Surely, if you can afford to be called an art collector, you can weather the storm until people begin buying again. As for the differences in taste, at the auction on Sunday, I stood admiring Peter Dean Rickards’ Breakfast at Porus, when Jennifer Shaw-Wood, who was pre-viewing before the auction said, “They should turn that one around to face the wall, it is so violent. It [the pig] has a heartbeat, you know.”

I pointed out the name to her, and she went on, “What were they thinking about, bacon and sausage?” It is true that the photograph alludes to an extremely graphic depiction, and you know what the next frame would have been, but it also makes you think about what the photographer really was thinking about when he took it. Did he watch when the pig before this one got slaughtered too? Why didn’t he choose a different stage of the process? The point is, it’s art. Art is highly subjective. I liked it, but Jennifer Shaw-Wood didn’t. If you are willing to buy a piece, there will always be someone else willing to buy it as well. The only real difference might be what you’re willing to pay for it.