Exactly the conclusion I made. The study is deficient in scope. It's like studying famous photographers who only do landscape photography and ignoring those who do street photography.
@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.
Fraiberger et al. used an extensive record of exhibition and auction data to study and model the career trajectory of individual artists relative to a network of galleries and museums.
Exactly the conclusion I made. The study is deficient in scope.
Well, it's nice to know I'm naturally stupid and there's nothing I can do about it. That makes me feel a whole lot better.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.
It's right there, in the opening paragraphs second sentence, before the abstract:
By limiting the scope of the study and collecting a dizzying number of data points, patterns emerge, which can be interesting.
No further explanations or apologies needed.
Arguing against it for what it doesn't proclaim to be is like accusing a red rose that it ought to be white.
The reason I feel it's a bad study (and a bad thread title) because it presents a view that the only way to reach fame is through the gallery and museum approach. An up-and-coming future artist may starve his family thinking that's the only path to success as an artist not realizing that many famous artists made a lot of money commercially before they became famous and could afford to send their children to Ivy League colleges in the process. It may be advantageous to learn an artistic trade and sell yourself commercially first in that trade. You don't have to be a starving artist.But it isn't deficient in scope. It doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is.
The title of this thread maybe mislead you.
The title of this thread maybe mislead you.
The reason I feel it's a bad study (and a bad thread title) because it presents a view that the only way to reach fame is through the gallery and museum approach. An up-and-coming future artist may starve his family thinking that's the only path to success as an artist not realizing that many famous artists made a lot of money commercially before they became famous and could afford to send their children to Ivy League colleges in the process. It may be advantageous to learn an artistic trade and sell yourself commercially first in that trade. You don't have to be a starving artist.
Sigh...The reason I feel it's a bad study (and a bad thread title)...
Sort of like an analysis of major league baseball players, and how they might become successful at hitting major league pitchers.
- and such an analysis would not include minor league baseball players.
it presents a view that the only way to reach fame is through the gallery and museum approach
It doesn't present that view.
It deals only with artists who are already within a particular subset of artists, and analyzes that subset.
Sort of like an analysis of major league baseball players, and how they might become successful at hitting major league pitchers.
It makes no attempt to discuss how one may get to the major leagues in the first place - that would be a subject for another study.
Sigh...
It's entitled A Path to Art World Fame & Fortune, not The Path to Art World Fame & Fortune.
Well, it's nice to know I'm naturally stupid and there's nothing I can do about it. That makes me feel a whole lot better.
It would have been helpful if they showed the breakout between those artists and those who just gained fame directly through galleries, museums and patrons.
I'd suggest "A pathway to success from within the Art World".
It's not your fault Murray. But wouldn't it have been better if the study allowed you to title the thread The Many Paths to Art World Fame and Fortune?
Funny that no-one has mentioned a path to success that includes genius, talent, sensibility, great ideas and luck . And what about posthumous success, like that of the nanny street photographer Vivian Maier? She has clearly entered the pantheon, no thanks to a "sugar daddy," only someone who stumbled on her archive and recognized it for what it was worth. But somehow I fear I'm changing the subject.
Yes.You guys are treating the study as if it were some sort of guidebook. It isn't. It is an analysis of past events that don't necessarily apply to today's set of circumstances (for example, the internet was not a factor in a great part of the study's time period, the worldwide economic situation was different), nor does it imply that its conclusions are the only true answer.
No, Alan. That's not what I said at all.
We're discussing an academic publication. The primary audience of such publications are people with an academic background, and in fact, the target audience is mainly people actively working in academia or closely related fields. That someone without an academic background would struggle with the meaning of the text in various ways is not a surprise, nor is it a shame. At the same time, it's still not a reason to expect that authors would accommodate such an audience - it's just not what the publication is aimed at.
This is very much like entering a marathon, untrained, and breaking down at the 20km mark (which, if I'm generous, is what I would about give myself on a good day). At that point you can get angry with the organization for not shortening the event to a much saner distance of let's say 10 miles, or not handing out bikes to participants. But there's very little point to that anger. Neither is it insulting if people point out to the hypothetical untrained runner that their lack of success is due to a lack of proper training. It's just stating a matter of fact.
To an extent, they did. It's figure 2F. What that doesn't say, because it's out of scope of the research, is what the determinants for the career success was for those who started out from a less promising place.
Funny that no-one has mentioned a path to success that includes genius, talent, sensibility, great ideas and luck . And what about posthumous success, like that of the nanny street photographer Vivian Maier? She has clearly entered the pantheon, no thanks to a "sugar daddy," only someone who stumbled on her archive and recognized it for what it was worth. But somehow I fear I'm changing the subject.
Is there a course on not being easily offended? Because you need a thick skin to succeed in the world.You did it again. For such a smart guy, you must have missed the course on The Art of Communicating Without Being Offensive.
You did it again. For such a smart guy, you must have missed the course on The Art of Communicating Without Being Offensive.
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?