The King has led national tributes to David Hockney, hailing him as a ‘giant of the art world’ and a champion of British creativity. For once, the Palace and the market are in agreement. Hockney’s career is a case study in brand equity.
From the swimming pools of California to the Yorkshire Wolds, he has monetised his vision with the precision of a FTSE 100 CEO. His works have consistently outperformed the FTSE All-Share over the past 50 years. Investors who bought a Hockney in the 1970s have seen returns that would make a hedge fund manager blush.
The King’s tribute is not just sentimental; it is a recognition of an asset class that has defied inflation, Brexit, and the bear market. Hockney’s prints alone have generated more value than many mid-cap companies. Yet the government’s tax policies on art remain as muddled as a quantitative easing programme.
The capital gains tax exemption for heritage assets is a loophole that benefits the ultra-wealthy, not the creative economy. If Hockney’s legacy teaches us anything, it is that art is a store of value. But the Chancellor seems determined to treat it as a luxury rather than an investment.
Meanwhile, gilt yields remain stubbornly low, pushing investors towards alternative assets. Hockney’s market is a bellwether for the broader economy: when confidence is high, his prices rise; when uncertainty looms, collectors hoard. The King’s tribute is a reminder that British creativity is an export we cannot afford to undervalue.
But without proper fiscal support, the next Hockney may well decamp to a more tax-friendly shore. Capital flight in the art world is a silent crisis. If we want to keep our creative giants at home, we need a budget that treats art as infrastructure, not indulgence.
