Art as an Office Asset: Motivations and Collection Practices in Corporate Settings

August 31, 2026

Photo: I. Tarsis, Greenhouse Art

By Ian Silverstein

Born from humanity’s perpetual need to accumulate things of value and beautiful objects, the art market has gone through many phases. Once confined to the palaces of royalty and aristocrats, then hoarded by travelers in cabinets of curiosity, sold by vagabonds desperate for a space on a crowded salon wall, and now traded digitally like stocks and bonds, the value of art and art objects, both monetary and subjective, has set these objects of fancy in a market unlike any other. No one, or at least no one in the same way, covets exchange-traded funds or other corporate assets the way Napoleon coveted the Mona Lisa, a portrait he reportedly called the “Sphinx of the Occident” and “Madame Lisa.” ^{In contrast to Napoleon’s infatuation, approximately 37-40% of visitors to the Louvre, where the painting now hangs reviewed the portrait negatively, some even calling it “the world’s most disappointing masterpiece.” Yet the same painting that inspired imperial fascination now exists within a financial imagination: it was insured for $100 million in 1962, roughly $1 billion today, although despite this astronomical valuation, many would just say it is “priceless.” The tension between beauty, prestige, sentiment, and monetary value captures the central contradiction of the art market today.}

The art market has evolved from aristocratic patronage and private cabinets of curiosity into a global commercial ecosystem in which art is treated not only as a cultural object, but also as a store of wealth, a branding device, an employee-relations tool, and a diplomatic instrument. A 2025 report sponsored by Art Basel and UBS and authored by cultural economist Dr. Clare McAndrew estimated global art market sales at $57.5 billion in 2024, down from $64.1 billion in 2019. ^{Despite market contraction, art collecting remains vibrant, with a remarkable 488 individual lots sold at Sotheby’s, Christie’s, and Phillips’ New York locations in 2025, each valued at $1 million or more. While these high-value sales capture attention, they represent just a small fraction of the total lots sold across these prestigious auction houses in New York during the same year.}

Significantly, the collectors driving these sales are no longer only aristocrats and tycoons hoping to decorate the halls of their fourth home. The underlying structure of collecting has changed, and the new drivers of the market are collectors with investors, complex ownership structures, and atypical or non-art related structural motivations. In these corporate collections art increasingly functions as a vehicle for capital preservation, portfolio diversification, reputation-building, and institutional self-definition. Corporate and institutional art collecting is best understood as a hybrid practice: art is acquired because it can operate simultaneously as a financial asset, a statement of corporate identity, a workplace culture tool, a political symbol, and in the case of law firms, a uniquely personal expression of professional credibility and regional belonging.

Art as a Financial Asset

The financialization of art extends beyond individual collectors and museums. Some of the largest art collections in the world are held by corporations and financial institutions. ^{Corporate art collecting emerged as a significant phenomenon in the United States and Great Britain in the 1970s and became global by the late 1980s. Financial institutions were among the first organizations to establish corporate art collections and remain central to the field. By the mid-1990s, nearly half of Fortune 500 companies were collecting art, and later directories of corporate collections reflected hundreds of companies participating in this market.}

The appeal of art as a financial asset for high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors is also increasingly apparent. ^{In 2024, the Art Resources Team at the investment banking firm Morgan Stanley released a report on art as an asset, noting that art transactions accounted for more than $60 billion annually over the past decade, with an estimated $2 trillion in art held in private hands globally. The report references a comment by BlackRock Chairman and CEO Larry Fink, who identified contemporary art alongside real estate in major international cities as among the foremost international stores of wealth, noting the significance of art on individual balance sheets. The framing of art as a means to sequester wealth rather than merely an object of aesthetic interest reflects a broader functional shift in how the market views and transacts in art. These observations help explain why art is increasingly discussed in the language of capital preservation and portfolio diversification rather than solely in the language of the esthetic.}

In the modern financial market, the viability of art as a multifaceted asset available to wealthy collectors and corporations reinforces the framing of art as an asset. Art can serve as collateral for loans, enabling collectors to access liquidity without triggering the significant tax consequences that arise with a sale. ^{Long-term capital gains on collectibles held for more than one year are taxed at 28%, and are taxed at 37% for items held for less than one year. This exceeds the maximum 20% long-term rate on other financial assets. In an effort to avoid this significant tax burden, collectors also engage in complex estate planning, including the creation of limited liability companies (LLCs), family limited partnerships (FLPs), charitable remainder unitrusts (CRUTs), and intentionally defective grantor trusts (IDGTs). While not explored in great depth here, these instruments serve to manage art holdings in ways that mirror the treatment of any other significant financial asset and aid a private collector in managing the distribution and tax liability of their estate. These alternative management structures are not without their risks. The IRS closely scrutinizes valuation discounts claimed on art held within LLCs and FLPs, underscoring a central point: art may be emotionally powerful and culturally meaningful, but it is increasingly managed like a sophisticated financial asset by corporate art market participants.}

Deutsche Bank illustrates the tension between stated cultural motivations and unavoidable financial realities. The bank has long emphasized that its collection is intended to support creativity, diversity, and corporate identity, and its public materials describe art as a way to inspire people and open new perspectives with the bank’s Art Advisor, responsible in part for managing the collection and new acquisitions, going so far as to state that the bank would “categorically not buy for investment” purposes. ^{Yet a collection of tens of thousands of works installed across hundreds of offices necessarily has financial consequences. Even when a company does not buy “for investment,” the works may appreciate, appear on balance sheets, support client hospitality, and strengthen institutional reputation.}

Art as Corporate Identity and Brand

Corporate collecting has also developed as a tool of identity formation. The origins of modern corporate collecting are often traced to postwar and late twentieth-century programs, including banking collections that used art to project sophistication, modernity, stability, and cultural seriousness. As companies grew larger and more impersonal, art became a way to make institutional values visible.

Deutsche Bank’s collection is especially useful because it shows how corporate image and internal identity overlap. Employee surveys discussed in scholarship on the bank’s collection identified projecting corporate identity and stimulating employee creativity as central functions of the collection.^{The collection’s focus on contemporary art allows the bank to associate itself with innovation, internationalism, diversity, and openness to new ideas. It includes works by John Baldessari and Georg Baselitz in the bank’s New York offices, along with countless other pieces housed in the towers of their headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany where the artwork is arranged by region, with each floor dedicated to a different artist.}

Externally, art affects client perception. A serious collection can make an office feel less transactional and more considered, signaling that the company has taste, permanence, judgment, and cultural literacy. Art consultant Jo-Ann McCluskey has made this point in the law-firm context, arguing that a well-chosen collection can become part of a firm’s branding because it communicates personality and values before a formal pitch even begins. ^{The Financial Times has similarly observed that corporate collections often operate as both financial assets and relationship-building tools, deepening client engagement while improving institutional image.}

Art as Organizational Culture

Art also shapes organizational culture. In office settings, collections are not only seen by clients; they are encountered daily by employees. Companies use art to create a more engaging workplace environment, encourage creativity, and distinguish offices from generic commercial space. ^{The cultural argument is that art can make employees feel that they work in an institution with imagination, depth, and public purpose.}

Microsoft provides a clear example of this cultural function. The company has described its collection as a way to build customer and community relations and to educate and involve employees, customers, and local communities in contemporary art. ^{It has also touted the collection as creating an inspiring work environment that fosters creativity and innovation. In this sense, art becomes part of the workplace infrastructure, conversation, and atmosphere. This cultural function also supports talent recruitment and retention. In competitive professional environments, office design can communicate whether a company values creativity, community, and intellectual life. Art may not determine whether an employee joins or remains at a company, but it contributes to the broader impression that the workplace is thoughtful rather than merely functional.}

Political and Institutional Collections

Beyond banks, institutional collecting extends to non-governmental organizations and non-profit entities. For example, the United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York City houses an estimated 296 gifted and commissioned works of art, of which 236 are on display, and 60 are in storage. ^{The vast majority of them are donated gifts from the various member states. The UN has a full-time art committee dedicated to overseeing the collection and reviewing and accepting the various gift items offered each year. The committee’s role reflects the political sensitivity of institutional collecting: a gift is never just an object, but a statement by a member state and a message displayed within an international forum. Because space, maintenance, symbolism, and diplomatic balance all matter, collection policies become essential. On guided tours of the UN collection, the collection practices are made clear. The works of art and gift items must be related to the UN’s three ideological pillars: Peace and Security, Human Rights, and Development. Gifts and other works of art that fall outside of these three pillars will not make it into the collection.}

The United Nations’ collection, therefore, differs from a corporate collection in motivation but not in strategic effect. Its works advance humanitarian messaging by visually reinforcing peace, human rights, development, diplomacy, and cultural diversity. In this setting, art functions as institutional speech, making the organization’s ideals visible to delegates, staff, visitors, and the public.

Law Firms as Hybrid Collectors

Law firms occupy a hybrid position within institutional collecting. They resemble corporations because their collections can support branding, client confidence, talent recruitment, and workplace culture. But they also differ from ordinary corporations because ownership, taste, and decision-making are often more personal. Partners may have genuine ownership stakes in the firm and may treat the collection as an extension of professional judgment rather than as a facilities or marketing project.

A September 1995 New York Times article noted the growing trend of law firms building serious art collections and identified dozens of American firms with collections ranging from modest holdings to more than a thousand works. ^{The motivations were mixed: personal passion, community engagement, client relations, office beautification, and reputation. Attorneys quoted in such discussions often disavowed purely financial motivations, even while acknowledging the value of works by artists such as Warhol, Hockney, and Lichtenstein.}

Minnesota firms illustrate the point. Maslon LLP, Dorsey & Whitney, and Best & Flanagan have all maintained significant collections that reflect both professional identity and regional culture. ^{Maslon’s collection originated with the personal holdings of founder Sam Maslon and his wife Luella, who began collecting in the 1930s and assembled works by major twentieth-century artists. Dorsey & Whitney’s collection includes prominent modern and contemporary artists and was shaped by partner involvement. Best & Flanagan’s commitment to Midwestern artists reflects a deliberate regional identity.}

These examples show why law firms are unique institutional collectors. A law-firm collection can reassure clients that the firm is stable, discerning, and culturally engaged, while also giving lawyers and staff a workplace that feels less anonymous. Because partners often shape the collection directly, the art can express regional loyalty, personal conviction, and professional confidence at the same time. For law firms, then, art is neither purely decorative nor purely financial. It is a hybrid asset, simultaneously a cultural object with monetary value, a branding device with personal meaning, and a workplace feature that can influence both client perception and internal identity.

Conclusion

Whether motivated by morale, political symbolism, financial planning, client perception, or a passion for beauty, the collections profiled here show that art in office and institutional settings is rarely one-dimensional. The same object can be an investment, a recruiting tool, a diplomatic gesture, a brand statement, and a source of daily aesthetic experience.

The broader implication is that institutional collecting will likely continue to expand as organizations search for ways to make value visible. In a market where art is increasingly financialized, digitized, and professionalized, corporate and institutional collectors will face greater pressure to clarify why they collect, how they manage their holdings, and what messages their collections send. The future of institutional collecting will therefore depend not only on acquisition budgets, but on governance, transparency, cultural purpose, and the ability to balance financial value with public messaging. Regardless, whether for morale, political favor, financial investment, or just a zeal for collecting, the corporate, law firm, and non-art institution collections profiled here suggest that when businesses, NGOs, and lawyers collect with intention, the results can be every bit as compelling as what one might find in a dedicated arts institution.

Suggested reading:

1. Appleyard, Charlotte. Corporate Art Collections: A Handbook to Corporate Buying.
2. Woodham, Doug. Art Collecting Today: Market Insights for Everyone Passionate about Art.
3. Check out the numerous publications from the International Association of Corporate Collections of Contemporary Art and its members.
4. Read the Bank of America 2026 U.S. Art Market Report.
5. Check out the catalog of works housed in the United Nations Headquarters in New York.
6. Read more about the Deutsche Bank Art Collections.

Select References:

About the Author:

Ian Silverstein (Center for Art Law Summer 2026 Legal Intern) is a dual-degree candidate at Rutgers University, pursuing a J.D. at Rutgers Law School alongside a graduate degree in Cultural Heritage and Preservation Studies, with a certificate in Intellectual Property Law. He is a painter and visual artist and has conducted separate research on emotional and aesthetic responses to art, subsequently working at the Norton Simon Museum, the Autry Museum of the American West, and the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures. His museum research has been supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, and he holds a certificate in Art as a Global Business from Sotheby’s Institute of Art. Ian’s illustrations can be seen in the New York Times shortlisted book by Andrew Shtulman, titled ‘Scienceblind: Why Our Intuitive Theories about the World Are So Often Wrong’.

Facebook
Twitter/X
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Tumblr
Email