The market for original, high-end art is sputtering. Auction houses are reporting soft conditions, in part due to economic forces: higher interest rates, persistent inflation, geopolitical turmoil. This comes after several boom years for art purchases, especially pieces by young and emerging artists.

Blake Gopnik is an art critic, regular contributor to The New York Times and author of “Warhol,” an award-winning biography of the artist. He spoke about the current state of the art market with “Marketplace Morning Report” host David Brancaccio. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

David Brancaccio: You and I were on this show a while back, talking about a boom in interest in young artists. What has happened here?

Blake Gopnik: That boom seems to be un-booming as we speak. First six months of 2024 were just a disaster for the art market. One dealer said, literally, no one is buying art. Hot young artists who were selling for a ton are now selling for a third or a quarter of what they were getting just a few years ago. Small and midsize galleries are closing like crazy — really good galleries that don’t deserve to close. And they’ve been in real pain. Those dealers have been suffering, and I understand that and feel for them.

But … but … I think the art market correction is too small. I want it to be bigger. The pain for the art market’s actually a really good thing because the market that we’ve been having has really been just plain, old-fashioned bad for art itself.

Brancaccio: Well, you use that word, often applies to discussions of, for instance, stocks — a “correction.” I’m hearing from you it went too high for the wrong reasons. And this is some sort of rationality that has come back?

Gopnik: You know, there’s no such thing as rationality in the art world. Doesn’t exist. The very idea of paying anything serious for a piece of fabric covered with a bit of paint is kind of insane. So there can’t be rationality. All there can be is, hopefully, an art market that actually helps art.

The global art market is worth, depending on which estimate you hear, $45 billion to $65 billion, which actually means it’s a totally trivial industry. That’s the same amount as cosmetics packaging. And the only reason you and I are talking about it on “Marketplace” is because art itself matters to us. And if the art market is bad for art, then we’ve really got a problem on our hands. And it’s not like corrections in other markets. This is about art. This is stuff that really matters, and with that thriving market, the art was just unbelievably terrible.

Brancaccio: Look, when fancy people find their investments in art has declined, it’s a little bit hard for some people to gin up much sympathy. But, you know, I want artists to do well, I suppose, because they help us see the world in new ways. And they can sometimes — I mean, it’s artists who help us see the future, you know, when they’re really firing on all cylinders.

Gopnik: Exactly, David. Couldn’t agree with you more. The problem is that the market is actually supporting the wrong artists for all the wrong reasons. Instead of work selling well because it’s considered excellent, it’s been flipped on its head. Now, if something sells well, that’s a sign of its excellence. And what’s selling, and what’s even being shown in museums, is really splashy, superficial stuff. It’s mostly — frankly, almost entirely — big, colorful paintings that look good over a sofa. And if that market almost disappears, no one will really suffer. Because the artists who were making really good art — maybe videos, maybe performance, maybe even really challenging paintings — they’re not being supported by the market anyways. They won’t suffer with the market going downhill.

Additional Reporting by: