A Path to Art World Fame & Fortune

[Pieter12]

Once people were happy to get a ribbon at the local fair. Now there is an industry built around encouraging people to try for stardom whether they have talent or not, all they need is money.
Large galleries are only interested in personalities. Smaller galleries are happy to show unknowns as long as you pay for it. Everyone I've known who spent a lot of time and money to get recognised has given up on their dream. Everyone wants to be special, but few are.
You can go to local markets and get a nice 8x10 print, matted and ready to frame for $30, you can buy a large painting for $100.
What's the point, don't need to work for $10/hr. I can do it as a hobby, don't have any expectations, have some fun.

Not at those prices in my part of the world.

It is recognition that people crave. That’s why there are hundreds of photo contests yearly, all requiring a submission fee. A good business model.

 

[Vaughn]

I appreciated that the study emphized that it was only looking at the measurable factors of success...not at an artist's satisfaction (and personal/artistic growth) with their art/lifestyle.

I have treaded a middle path. A very minor presence in the 'art world', with gallery representation and giving occasional workshops. My day jobs supported my art both financially and with inspiration. I enjoyed a National Park Artist-in-residency, which I would like to do again. I enjoy mixing art and education. At this point in time, I think my 'success' will be personally measured by making a few more good images/prints and getting all my stuff organized before I kick-off so it will be easier for my kids to decide what to toss out.

 

[Don_ih]

I know you're being sarcastic, but good luck with the Louvre. I don't think they have any art newer than the 18th or 19th century, much less any photography.

It was meant to be an outrageous example of a museum. It did occur to me that they probably don't show contemporary artists, but I didn't think it was important....

 

[Don_ih]

You can go to local markets and get a nice 8x10 print, matted and ready to frame for $30, you can buy a large painting for $100.

Not at those prices in my part of the world.

You definitely can here. There was a town fair a few weeks ago - matted original prints at more than one booth for $15. If you go to the East Coast of Canada, you'd pay less. Photography and paintings by unknowns are worth nothing here.

 

[koraks]

the study only researched artists who became famous because they first got recognition through galleries.

That's not a correct assessment. The artists who became famous for other reasons than exploiting exhibition network centrality would start out at the periphery of this network. Many artists in the study are/were at the periphery. Some may still be famous, and some may have become famous for other reasons than exhibitions at major venues. The ones who became famous like in your examples likely were included in the study and migrated towards more central regions of the network, but for reasons extraneous to the study. That the conclusions don't focus on them, doesn't mean they're excluded.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That's not a correct assessment. The artists who became famous for other reasons than exploiting exhibition network centrality would start out at the periphery of this network. Many artists in the study are/were at the periphery. Some may still be famous, and some may have become famous for other reasons than exhibitions at major venues. The ones who became famous like in your examples likely were included in the study and migrated towards more central regions of the network, but for reasons extraneous to the study. That the conclusions don't focus on them, doesn't mean they're excluded.

The summaries of the study that I read seem to only mention that if you want to be famous, you have to go through museums and galleries and not from other venues.

The conclusion should have included a statistic such as let's say 35% of those who eventually gain Fame through Galleries and museums first got their fame through other venues while 65% got it through museums and galleries initially. Something like that.

 

[koraks]

The conclusion should have included a statistic such as let's say 35% of those who eventually gain Fame through Galleries and museums first got their fame through other venues while 65% got it through museums and galleries initially.

No. The study wasn't about explaining success from a variety of factors. The scope of the study is very clearly limited to explaining success only in terms of network centrality.
Moreover, the kind of conclusion you proposed would be extremely problematic for many reasons and would never, in that formulation, occur in any academic report of any kind.

When you said "should have", what you omitted was "to take away my confusion". But that's really your problem, not that of the authors of the article. They can't and don't have to provide for readers who don't know how to interpret a text like this.

 

[faberryman]

Another flaw in the study is that it didn't contain any statistics on how many artists use crockpots.

 

[koraks]

Another flaw in the study is that it didn't contain any statistics on how many artists use crockpots. JFC.

Or their preferred ice cream flavors.

 

[Don_ih]

The study purports to quantify success of artists within a network of institutions that exhibit and sell artwork. It doesn't need to extend past that to state its finding or make any disclaimer about what it excludes (unless it purposely excludes sources of a type that is relevant - being published in magazines or newspapers, for example, would not be relevant to the study).

There's no reason to be snide or insulting.

 

[faberryman]

The study purports to quantify success of artists within a network of institutions that exhibit and sell artwork. It doesn't need to extend past that to state its finding or make any disclaimer about what it excludes (unless it purposely excludes sources of a type that is relevant - being published in magazines or newspapers, for example, would not be relevant to the study).

There's no reason to be snide or insulting.

It is beyond exasperating when people criticize studies they haven't read, and the fact they haven't read the studies is evident by the nature of their criticisms.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I'd imagine the internet is a very small part of it. Anyone who buys any print sight unseen is a fool. Way back in the days of slow internet speeds I had one of the best sites around, and got compliments from almost every country in the world. But it didn't generate a single print sale. Back then a site was almost mandatory if you didn't want the IRS on your back in terms of business legitimacy. And I quickly verified what I already intuitively knew : web surfers and print collectors are entirely different animals. Every single print I ever sold is because that is exactly what the buyer saw in person. In the infamous words of Hannibal Lecter : "people covet what they see". And a well-done, well-framed print is an entirely different experience than looking at a web image.

Glad I was involved when gallery owners and exhibit curators looked at the real deal themselves, and didn't default to web presentation selection. But it still helped to have the right connections too.

I live in a city where there is zero support for the arts. I have not sold a print locally in 15 years. For 20 years I have sold work from my website to people in 35 countries, not one of whom had seen one of my prints in person. Sold two more this week. If it weren't for the internet, I would not have had the ability to support myself and my son without moving; and the cities where art sells have such outrageous costs of living that it would have made life untenable even if I sold more prints.

MY 26 year old son is a professional artist. He does commercial illustration work for aerospace companies. None of his clients are in Indiana. They all found him online. He's a software engineer for a local web design company. On top of the money that pays, he earned $40,000 last year doing illustrations in his spare time. We live in a place where the cost of living is so low that just his income as an artist would make it possible to support a family in a middle class lifestyle.

The internet made our success possible.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

"...seemed to have considered..."?

From the study:

Our dataset was collected by Magnus and combines information on artists’ exhibitions, auction sales, and primary market quotes. It offers information on 497,796 exhibitions in 16,002 galleries, 289,677 exhibitions in 7568 museums, and 127,208 auctions in 1239 auction houses, spanning 143 countries and 36 years (1980 to 2016, allowing us to reconstruct the artistic career of 496,354 artists...

Does anybody actually read information linked to anymore before offering a critique?

It is beyond exasperating when people criticize studies they haven't read, and the fact they haven't read the studies is evident by the nature of their criticisms.

Frank: I used your summary and the article and others posts to come to my conclusion about the study. By not including summaries of artists and photographers who were successful because of their commercial success first, or how that fame supported subsequent success in galleries and exhibitions, I think the study is flawed.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No. The study wasn't about explaining success from a variety of factors. The scope of the study is very clearly limited to explaining success only in terms of network centrality.
Moreover, the kind of conclusion you proposed would be extremely problematic for many reasons and would never, in that formulation, occur in any academic report of any kind.

When you said "should have", what you omitted was "to take away my confusion". But that's really your problem, not that of the authors of the article. They can't and don't have to provide for readers who don't know how to interpret a text like this.

You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions. But that's an insulting comment and uncalled for.

 

[faberryman]

Frank: I used your summary and the article and others posts to come to my conclusion about the study. By not including summaries of artists and photographers who were successful because of their commercial success first, or how that fame supported subsequent success in galleries and exhibitions, I think the study is flawed.

First of all, I did not write a summary of the article. If you thought any of my posts were a summary of the article, you could not possibly have read the article. Frankly, it is incomprehensible that you could have come to such a conclusion.

Second, the article is not, and does not purport to be, a comprehensive study of all the ways a photographer may become successful. The fact that it is more limited in scope does not make it flawed.

If you would like to write an article with supporting data about all the ways a photographer may become successful, please do so. Quit complaining that the authors didn't write the article you wanted them to write. Just read the article and learn from it what it intended to convey instead of dismissing it out of hand.

 

[koraks]

You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions. But that's an insulting comment and uncalled for.

It was not an insulting comment. It was an accurate description of where the problem with your conclusion is.

I recall that just a few months ago you expressed yourself quite disdainfully of the merits of higher education. I can't help but feel cynical about your 'conclusions' in the light of those comments.

 

[Arthurwg]

Unlike photographers, there aren't too many commercial jobs for unknown sculptors and painters. That's why most artists starve.

I'm always impressed by the number of commercial illustrators, like Edward Hopper, who made it into the first rank of fine arts.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

First of all, I did not write a summary of the article. If you thought any of my posts were a summary of the article, you could not possibly have read the article. Frankly, it is incomprehensible that you could have come to such a conclusion.

Second, the article is not, and does not purport to be, a comprehensive study of all the ways a photographer may become successful. The fact that it is more limited in scope does not make it flawed.

If you would like to write an article with supporting data about all the ways a photographer may become successful, please do so. Quit complaining that the authors didn't write the article you wanted them to write. Just read the article and learn from it what it intended to convey instead of dismissing it out of hand.

Leaving out commercially successful artists in their conclusions makes it a flawed study. It's too limited in its scope. It slants artists into thinking that finding a sugar daddy in a museum or gallery is the only way to success. That having success commercially first isn't an important method. They should update their study.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It was not an insulting comment. It was an accurate description of where the problem with your conclusion is.

I recall that just a few months ago you expressed yourself quite disdainfully of the merits of higher education. I can't help but feel cynical about your 'conclusions' in the light of those comments.

You didn't disagree with my conclusion or logic. You personally attacked my intelligence and mental abilities. There's a difference. Your second paragraph is just another personal attack. And you're using it to justify your personal attacks.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... I have not sold a print locally in 15 years. For 20 years I have sold work from my website to people in 35 countries ...

"No man can be a prophet in his own country."

In 40 years of consulting I have only had one client in the Cleveland area.

--

Two movies I have fount to have a bearing on the art world: "The Horse's Mouth" with Alec Guiness and "The Magic Christian" with Peter Sellers.

 

[faberryman]

Leaving out commercially successful artists in their conclusions makes it a flawed study. It's too limited in its scope. It slants artists into thinking that finding a sugar daddy in a museum or gallery is the only way to success. That having success commercially first isn't an important method. They should update their study.

I would encourage you to read the article. Nowhere in it do the authors suggest that "finding a sugar daddy in a museum or gallery is the only way to success."

 

[Don_ih]

@Alan Edward Klein -- the study is a mapping of the relationship between artists, galleries, museums, and auction houses, to quantify the success of the artists in terms of the relationships they initially form and how those play out over time. So fame is only secondary to that and it really has nothing to do with anyone who became successful as an artist prior to any relationship with the studied institutions. Avadon was already famous and any association with a gallery at that point would have bolstered the gallery's ranking in the study (by association with a successful artist).

The study really doesn't have anything to do with artists that exist outside those institutions. And it doesn't claim it does. It's only talking about success as defined within that particular world.

 

[Pieter12]

The study is an exercise in statistics. They could have been examining the relationship of hot dog vendors to food poisoning for all that matters. Someone said, hey, is there a connection between commercially successful artists and the insitutions that promote them? Let's crunch some numbers. It is observational and of little use to anyone.

 

[koraks]

You didn't disagree with my conclusion or logic.

Yes, I did. But apparently you misunderstood that bit, too.

Look, I'm sorry your feelings somehow got hurt in the process of trying to explain where the various flaws in your reasoning and comprehension of the article are. It's not a shame that you don't understand these things. However, this lack of understanding makes your criticism vulnerable to scrutiny and rebuttals. That experience can be painful, sometimes.

 

[koraks]

The study is an exercise in statistics.

In part. For the most part, the way I read it, is actually a rather insightful and effective way of putting a conceptually sound foundation under the sentiment that @Sirius Glass expressed very early on in this thread. By only mentioning the exercise in statistics, I think you're ignoring the conceptual groundwork that underlies this publication - which is scantily discussed, admittedly, in favor of the empirical work.

It is observational

No, it's explanatory.