This project is a list of every artist whose work has been listed as collateral for a loan by a trustee of the Museum of Modern Art in documents filed with the New York Secretary of State from 2000 to 2022. An art-backed loan is a loan which is secured by an artwork, or a pool of artworks. These loans are only accessible to the ultrawealthy; the threshold for securing an art-backed loan from most banks is $1 million in art assets. Art-backed loans are a growing industry; there are currently between $29 and $34 billion in art-backed loans, worldwide.¹

One reason that a collector might take out an art-backed loan is tax avoidance. The very wealthy generally do not receive a salaried or hourly income; they are not paid for their labor, which would be subject to taxation. Instead, they can leverage their assets to generate liquidity, living off money from loans. Since loans are not considered income, this money is untaxed. You might ask, “But don’t they have to pay back these loans at some point?” No, not really. One name for this financial strategy is “Buy, Borrow, Die.” The borrower rolls over their loans indefinitely, until the time of their death, at which point their estate might sell off some assets to settle up. The banks are happy to facilitate these indefinite lines of credit, because they are able to collect fees and charge interest.

The list of names reproduced here is not comprehensive. The names were derived from filings identified in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) database maintained by the New York Secretary of State, and were downloaded in May 2024. UCCs are voluntary, public filings that function as a registry of debt. They name a creditor, a debtor, a date, and provide a space to list collateral. They do not list a loan amount. UCCs are often used by banks to document art collateral in art-backed loans. If the borrower defaults, the bank can take this document to a court as proof of legal ownership over the collateralized artworks.

In this work, I have chosen to reproduce every instance that an artist’s name is listed as collateral in a loan. These names have been copied directly from the source document; they retain the typographic idiosyncrasies (including some egregious misspellings) of the original filings. Many of these UCCs were filed more than once; lenders might file continuations, or borrowers might choose to refile, adding additional artworks to the pool to secure a larger loan. So, the list you see does not represent one individual artwork per name, but rather, certain artworks and artists are re-filed over and over. Repetition points not only to multiple artworks, but also to multiple filings. Additionally, this list does not represent loans for every trustee of MoMA; of the 51 trustees, 10 individuals were identified in the UCC database.² Not all of the UCC filings appear to represent monetary loans; in a few instances, the lender is another individual or art institution. However, the majority of the filings reproduced here name financial institutions as the lender, including Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Sotheby’s, and Fleet.

This artwork reproduces the filings of MoMA trustees. I do not have any particular animus towards MoMA, but they were a natural place to start given the wealth and power of their board. UCC filings provide a small window into the private art collections and buying habits of these influential art world figures. Understanding the private interests of powerful collectors sheds some light on the activities and agendas of public-facing art institutions; museum trustees often sponsor exhibitions of the artists they collect. For example, Daniel Sundheim, who is a major collector of Jeff Koons and Christopher Wool (he has repeatedly borrowed against their art), has funded major museum exhibitions of both Koons and Wool at The Whitney and The Guggenheim.³ Museum exhibitions shore up the value of art, securing the artist’s legacy within the canon. Sponsoring a museum exhibition is often framed as philanthropic activity; however, these exhibitions also function to increase the value of the private collections of board members. In another industry, these kinds of activities might be called self-dealing.

I have chosen to reproduce only the names of leveraged artists, because I am interested in the experiences of individual artists within financial systems. When I first started working with art-backed loans, another artist asked me, “Is it good or bad for your work to be loan collateral?” In one way, to appear on this list is a marker of power: this might be the pinnacle of art-world success. Your work, and more importantly, your name, is valuable enough to function as a banking product. On the other hand, to be collateral – to be leveraged – is to become an instrument in the service of other interests. Your work, your vision, your creative energy—the most fundamental parts of your identity—are one tool in an array of banking products designed to benefit the ultrarich, at the expense of everyone else.