Jean-Michel Basquiat: The Making of an Icon

Legacies are complex things. We tend to form opinions about public lives as if they were our own – and in a sense, they do become shared narratives, carried across time and place. Through them, we often locate our own lives within a broader social and cultural fabric. Yet these stories are always more complicated than they first appear. In the case of Jean-Michel Basquiat – whose life was all too short, yet whose impact on cultural consciousness was and still is profound – that complexity is particularly striking. His work not only left a mark at the time but continues to resonate, perhaps even more strongly today.

As Doug Woodham quotes Miles Davis in his book Jean-Michel Basquiat: “‘Sometimes it takes a long time to learn how to play like yourself.’ Basquiat was a rare instance of someone who found his distinctive voice when still in his early twenties.” Woodham’s book unpacks the many layers behind that voice – the influences, the contingencies, and the deliberate shaping of a trajectory within the art world, itself a complex and often opaque system. A former economist and art advisor, Woodham offers a perspective that bridges cultural analysis and market insight, examining not only Basquiat’s life and work but also the forces that shaped his enduring legacy. In our conversation, he reflects on Basquiat’s rise, the psychology of the art market, and the making of an icon.

Nisha Merit
As a trained economist, art advisor and former president of the Americas for Christie’s, how did you come to write this book on Jean-Michel Basquiat? What is it about his work and story that fascinated you in particular?

Doug Woodham
I started following Basquiat back in 1982. My wife and I moved to New York after graduate school. We came from economics, not art history, but we were familiar with the contemporary art world. For about 40 years, I followed his career. I particularly liked his early work and was fascinated by the arc of his life – his sudden notoriety, his relationship with Warhol, and then the deterioration in both his life and work in his final years.

I was also familiar with the posthumous story, particularly because I used to be the president of Christie’s. I remember the night in 2013 when we sold Dustheads for just under $50 million to Jho Low – at the time, we didn’t know he was a fraudster. I remember thinking: something has fundamentally changed in the Basquiat market.

About six years ago, I realised I knew a lot about his trajectory, his work, and the forces behind his fame. Because I know the business side of art, I also knew that an artist’s reputation is often shaped as much after death as during life. So I wanted to write a different kind of book – one half revisiting his lifetime, the other focusing on his posthumous ascent. I interviewed over 100 people, including family members who had never spoken publicly. It was an attempt to help people understand, in a thoughtful and respectful way, what made Basquiat exceptional – and how that alone was not enough to place him in the pantheon.

NM
While researching Basquiat’s life and artistic practice, was there a moment that surprised you or that you didn’t expect?

DW Absolutely. Before my book, if you read any narrative about Basquiat, his mother, Matilda Andrades, never appears in a meaningful way. She’s usually reduced to a brief mention – Puerto Rican heritage, mental health issues – and then pushed into the background. I always felt there was much more to that story and wanted to understand why she had been marginalised.

The breakthrough was learning that for the first five years of Jean-Michel’s life, the family lived in a multigenerational household. His grandparents were on one floor, his immediate family on another, and his uncle on the top floor. This uncle knew him well and had been Matilde’s favourite brother. He described Jean-Michel as exceptionally bright – reading The New York Times in first grade – and deeply curious. That led me to interview scholars who study gifted children.

They explained that gifted children absorb and retain information unusually quickly, make unexpected connections across ideas, pursue interests intensely, and often develop strong self-confidence early. At the same time, because their emotional development may not keep pace, those experiences can also be overwhelming. Those insights opened up a new way of understanding Basquiat. I had always been puzzled by the density of references in his work. Once I understood his intellectual profile, I began to see those elements not as random but as deliberate quotations of what he knew. It also helped explain how quickly he grasped the mechanics of the art world – how to network, position himself, and advance his career at a very young age.

NM
A lot of our relationship to art is shaped by stories and interpretation. Now that you know so much more about Basquiat’s life, how has your relationship to his art changed?

DG
I’ll give you an example. There’s a painting called Masonic Lodge from 1982. After learning about his background and his mother’s schizophrenia, I noticed that in the upper left corner he had written “paranoid schizophrenia”, mostly scratched out. I realised the painting is in fact a portrait of his mother’s condition and its impact on both of them. That realisation made it one of my favourite Basquiat paintings. It’s extremely subtle, and I don’t think its meaning has really been recognised. More broadly, there are themes in his work that become clearer once you know more about his life. Jean-Michel was bisexual and sexually very active, yet women appear surprisingly rarely in his work. His male figures are often read solely through the lens of the Black male experience in the US, which they are, but sexuality and the love of the male body are also part of that story.

NM
Why was it important for you to place his story in a broader context of time and place, especially when thinking about legacy? You describe the social and economic situation of New York City but also compare Paris, Berlin and London within this context.

DW
Because art may be expressive, but it also needs context. Artists endure because they do something distinctive in relation to their peers, and you can’t understand that without knowing the conditions in which the work was made.

In the 1970s, New York was unstable, cheap and, in many places, physically decayed – conditions that, much like Berlin in the 1990s, attracted artists of every kind. When Basquiat left home in 1977 and moved into downtown Manhattan, he entered a world that was intensely creative but also brutally competitive. His first creative endeavour was actually music, not art. He ultimately moved towards art for reasons that I talk about in the book. That gifted child absorbed that environment quickly and understood what might stand out in the marketplace, how to present himself, and what kind of work to produce. Understanding the environment he placed himself in, and how he used that moment in time to learn from what was being created across different disciplines, is key to understanding his work.

NM
You write that at the time of Basquiat’s death, opinions about his relevance in the art world were quite divided. Today, his work is widely seen as prolific and deeply resonant, particularly in relation to current discussions. When did that shift occur? And how is his legacy viewed today – both culturally and within the market?

DW
When Basquiat died in 1988, his market was still relatively modest. The most one of his paintings sold for in his lifetime was $30,000, which, for a young artist, was a meaningful amount. It rose briefly after his death, but in the early 1990s the art market fell apart. The U.S. entered into a deep recession and the art market plummeted.

Over the course of the 1990s, that’s when he actually became relevant as a major figure in the art world and also began his transition into a pop culture icon. So the four factors are: one, in the early 1990s there were three collector-investors who really adored Basquiat’s work and thought he had potential, and they bought something like 300 to 400 works by him. They were essential figures in bringing him attention.

The second was that, in the 1990s, very successful and wealthy creatives like members of U2 and Lars Ulrich of Metallica learned about Basquiat and began to think of him as the Jimi Hendrix of painting. A Basquiat hung in the dining room of U2’s studio headquarters, a place where many people saw it – that’s where David Bowie learned about Basquiat too. The third was the shift towards identitarian views of art. It’s the predominant ethos around which people evaluate contemporary art today. In the 1990s, that was a nascent view but not the only one. Basquiat became anointed as the Black artist to own, and collectors attuned to that perspective felt they had to have a Basquiat.

The fourth was a film about Basquiat, directed by Julian Schnabel and financed by one of his major collectors. In the 1990s, a museum retrospective might attract 50,000 visitors, but one to two million people saw the film. That marked the beginning of his recognition beyond the insular contemporary art world. By 1998, a Basquiat at Christie’s broke the million-dollar barrier – a major milestone at the time. Even then, few understood that this was only the beginning of his ascent. There was a real risk that Basquiat could have been forgotten without these developments. While his talent was recognised, it took another couple of decades for him to become a $100 million artist.

NM
How do you see the art market today? And do you see a Basquiat-type artist today?

DW
There’s an exceptionalism associated with the Basquiat story. Because he died young, has social currency due to his relationship with Warhol and figures like Madonna, and because he became central to identity-based readings of art, it’s hard to replicate the Basquiat playbook.

That said, elements of it are being applied. Investors acquire work in volume, promote it institutionally, and support exhibitions. You can see aspects of this in some artists’ careers today who have attracted significant investor interest. The art market today is still fairly soft. I think the issue it is facing now is cultural relevance. The next generation of collectors – those in their 30s and 40s with the means to buy expensive art – have many alternative ways of spending their money. Thirty, forty or fifty years ago, there was a certain social cachet associated with collecting. There were also unique experiences tied to that world, and the process of learning and forming taste was part of the appeal. That still exists, but the art world’s footing feels less stable. To be a serious contemporary art collector requires time, study, and enough knowledge of art history to distinguish genuine originality from minor variation. That has always been true.

What puts people off is that galleries can be difficult and unwelcoming. Newcomers are often treated dismissively and given little transparency around pricing. The art world has long relied on exclusivity to signal value. But in a world where people have many choices about how to spend their time and money, that approach can be limiting. If it remains highly exclusive and expensive, it will continue to function as a boutique industry. That said, great works by acknowledged masters will continue to perform well – a great Mondrian, Kandinsky or Basquiat. Basquiat is one of the few artists whose market has remained strong during the recent downturn. His broad base of collectors has made him something of a bellwether for the market – I think that would have amused him.

_______

Jean-Michel Basquiat: The Making of an Icon
by Doug Woodham Published by Thames & Hudson