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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Another flaw in the study is that it didn't contain any statistics on how many artists use crockpots. JFC.
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.
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.
"...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?
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.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.
You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions. But that's an insulting comment and uncalled for.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.
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.
You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions. But that's an insulting comment and uncalled for.
Unlike photographers, there aren't too many commercial jobs for unknown sculptors and painters. That's why most artists starve.
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.
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.
... 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 ...
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.
You didn't disagree with my conclusion or logic.
The study is an exercise in statistics.
It is observational
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?