“In discussing Jackson’s work with Sidney Janis, Lee spoke of “economic symbolism,” by which she meant a market price as opposed to a painting’s true value. The market price was imposed on a work by outside forces and limited to a specific time and cultural climate. It reflected the dealer’s eagerness to make a sale and the buyer’s appetite for risk. Lee identified a painting’s “value” as intrinsic. She believed that with a painter like Jackson dealers and buyers had not had enough time to evaluate his work and attach the appropriate “economic symbolism” to it. Nor did they have the proper perspective on the movement within which he developed. Lee did. She had been there from the beginning and recognized the value of their work. She refused to think “in terms of a current market, only a future market,” said Bob Friedman, who observed Lee’s discussions with Janis. She also refused to take anyone’s advice. “Unlike most women, she had no trouble asking for what she wanted,” said Jenny Van Horne. The masters of the art trade were “a tough bunch, but they met their match in Lee.” After assessing the situation, Lee calmly instructed Janis to quadruple Jackson’s prices and impose strict controls on how many of his works could be sold and to whom. Her directive stunned the art world. One could argue that it has not been the same since. Before Jackson’s death, Alfred Barr had been interested in buying Pollock’s painting Autumn Rhythm for the Modern. Told at the time that the price was eight thousand dollars, Barr couldn’t raise the funds. A few weeks after Jackson’s funeral, he came back to Janis and said the museum was still interested in the painting and would now consider paying that price. Eight thousand was the most Pollock had ever received for a painting, and that had only happened once. The Modern sale would be significant. Lee, however, said no. She told Janis to raise the price to thirty thousand. “Do you think that’s the right thing to do?” he asked. The amount was unprecedented for a contemporary American. While alive. Jackson had not made that much from all his sales combined. She responded with three words: “Jackson is dead.” Lee’s seemingly reckless decision was not simply a grieving widow’s roll of the dice. Though untrained in the business world, “she was a businesswoman on the DNA level,” said gallery owner John Lee Post, who worked for Lee one summer. Janis wrote Barr saying that if he was still interested, the painting’s price had risen. “Barr was livid,” Janis said. “He was so upset that he couldn’t answer the letter.” He grew angrier still when the Metropolitan Museum agreed to Lee’s terms. The transaction represented the first time a major museum had purchased an Abstract Expressionist work for the price it might pay for a European painting. “We didn’t believe anyone would spend that kind of money on a painting. Thirty thousand dollars?” recalled Irving Sandler. That single sale reset the entire market for modern American work. “We had a little less trouble selling a de Kooning for $10,000 than we had a month earlier trying to sell one for $5,000,” Janis said. The Stable’s Eleanor Ward said Lee’s “handling of the estate was the most brilliant thing that’s ever been done – without her those price levels never would have happened.”” ― Mary Gabriel, Ninth Street Women: Lee Krasner, Elaine de Kooning, Grace Hartigan, Joan Mitchell, and Helen Frankenthaler: Five Painters and the Movement That Changed Modern Art
