A Path to Art World Fame & Fortune

[MurrayMinchin]

Many of us are happy keeping our photography as very personal means of expression and will never seek fame & fortune through our images. Some, however, may be concerned about leaving more than an indistinct ripple in the Art World pool. If you crave the latter, you may want to understand some of the Art World's inner workings in order to negotiate a path towards success, fame, and maybe even fortune.

Turns out it isn't necessarily how good your work is, or who you know; it's the tendrils of influence from the people you know connecting them to the best/biggest/most prestigious galleries and institutions. The fewest number of connections is the fastest, but people do "make it" from the hinterlands.

The numbers have been crunched. Please find below several links describing one interpretation of what's going on:

"In areas of human activity where performance is difficult to quantify in an objective fashion, reputation and networks of influence play a key role in determining access to resources and rewards. To understand the role of these factors, we reconstructed the exhibition history of half a million artists, mapping out the coexhibition network that captures the movement of art between institutions. Centrality within this network captured institutional prestige, allowing us to explore the career trajectory of individual artists in terms of access to coveted institutions. Early access to prestigious central institutions offered life-long access to high-prestige venues and reduced dropout rate. By contrast, starting at the network periphery resulted in a high dropout rate, limiting access to central institutions.

Our dataset...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…

...52% of the artists had one recorded show, a few high-profile artists were exhibited at an exceptional number of venues (fig. S1, c and d). Although half of the auctioned artworks sold for less than $4000, the price for art was as high as $110,500,000..."

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aau7224

A quick explanation by an author of the study:



I've only shown my work in three cities on the north coast of British Columbia, Canada, so am far, far, far away from any gallery or collector with connections deeper into the Art World. One day I may go south with work in hand, maybe...

Do you care? Got a better idea/plan?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not what one knows, but whom one knows.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lucky connections is no.1. 2- it helps to know a voodoo priestess too. 3 - pontificators like to be flattered by displaying examples of their own superficial stereotypes of what art means. 4- in the long run, who cares anyway? If it helps you meet other talented people, and you do it for your own satisfaction without needing to pander to the system, well, why not? But fame is an awfully shallow aspiration, and hardly a ticket to happiness. I got some decent income out of showing stuff when I most needed it. But the gallery scene is not a lifestyle I'd want to pursue indefinitely, and didn't. I can be pretty stressful. I was happy with about a decade of regional recognition, including from some photographers who did achieve international fame. My aunt attained international fame as a painter before WWII, and then turned about face and entered a convent - still painted, but altogether different things.

But that article with all its statistics math? C'mon. Running away from that klnd of stuff is what make artists tick to begin with, unless your first name is Leonardo.

 

[Pieter12]

And being in the right place at the right time.

 

[Pieter12]

It all makes me think the internet works against an artist's success. How do virtual galleries and auction sites do vs. brick-and-mortar? Unless one is buying a print from a known artist, if you are going to be spending $4 grand and up, you want to see it in the flesh. Besides, you can't press the flesh online, there are no chance encounters and artist talks tend to be lacking over Zoom. The special treatment galleries (and some artists) give to VIP collectors--private showings, lending art, wining and dining--all are lacking online.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Reinhold]

“ I gave my mind to examining and exploring scientifically as to everything that is done under the skies—I saw all the doings that go on under the sun, and found it was all nonsense and chasing after wind ” —Bible in living English. Ecclesiasties 1:13,14

Reinhold

Re-Invented Photo Equipment

 

[VinceInMT]

“ I gave my mind to examining and exploring scientifically as to everything that is done under the skies—I saw all the doings that go on under the sun, and found it was all nonsense and chasing after wind ” —Bible in living English. Ecclesiasties 1:13,14

Reinhold

Re-Invented Photo Equipment

That sounds like a less generous version of Sturgeon’s Law.

 

[faberryman]

Without talent, creativity, hard work, and drive you will not get your first show in a gallery, or your second, or your third, or your fourth, or you fifth, and you will never have an opportunity to enter the network.

 

[Pieter12]

Without talent, creativity, hard work, and drive you will not get your first show in a gallery, or your second, or your third, or your fourth, or you fifth, and you will never have an opportunity to enter the network.

A suitcase full of money will rent many gallery spaces and hire PR and marketing experts, maybe even buy a critic or two. And if you have that kind of money, you might also already live in a world of people who have more money than taste or wits who might buy some of the work. Talent isn't always necessary, except for the talent of self-promotion.

 

[faberryman]

A suitcase full of money will rent many gallery spaces and hire PR and marketing experts, maybe even buy a critic or two. And if you have that kind of money, you might also already live in a world of people who have more money than taste or wits who might buy some of the work. Talent isn't always necessary, except for the talent of self-promotion.

Of the nearly 500,000 artists whose careers were tracked in the study linked to in the OP, how many would you estimate bought their way to the top and had a long and successful career?

Which is a different question than how many successful artists whose work you believe to be so utterly vacuous and devoid of talent they must have bought their way to the top.

 

[Pieter12]

Of the nearly 500,000 artists whose careers were tracked in the study linked to in the OP, how many would you estimate bought their way to the top and had a long and successful career?

More than you might imagine.

 

[faberryman]

More than you might imagine.

That's pretty vague. Can you name 5-10 well-known photographers what have had long and successful careers who bought their way to the top?

 

[Pieter12]

That's pretty vague. Can you name 5-10 well-known photographers what have had long and successful careers who bought their way to the top?

The data is vague, too in that respect. But then again, I don't think I could name 5-10 well-known photographers who have had long and successful careers. Most who catch on young die before their careers could be considered long or drop out of style and favor at some point. Others struggle in the beginning for quite a while before becoming successful. Some photographers success is linked to their patrons' influence (be it commercial as in a magazine art director, journalistic as in an important agency, or fine art, as a true patron), a currency of sorts.

 

[faberryman]

The data is vague, too in that respect. But then again, I don't think I could name 5-10 well-known photographers who have had long and successful careers. Most who catch on young die before their careers could be considered long or drop out of style and favor at some point. Others struggle in the beginning for quite a while before becoming successful. Some photographers success is linked to their patrons' influence (be it commercial as in a magazine art director, journalistic as in an important agency, or fine art, as a true patron), a currency of sorts.

So you can't name any who bought their way to the top? I thought you said there were more than I would imagine?

 

[Pieter12]

So you can't name any who bought their way to the top? I thought you said there were more than I would imagine?

How many can you imagine?

 

[faberryman]

How many can you imagine?

I thought it was fair to only ask for 5-10 names, though I can imagine that there would be more than that. I wasn't trying to make it hard for you. Maybe just the 5-10 whose names would be most recognizable. I am beginning to wonder why you are being so evasive after making such a bold statement.

 

[Don_ih]

I seriously doubt very many successful artists of any variation have genuinely "bought their way to the top". But plenty have insinuated their way into the appropriate society, in one way or other. Is there any other choice? You can do great work but you need people to think there's a reason to look at it. "Great work" doesn't have anywhere near the value of "great name".

 

[Pieter12]

I thought it was fair to only ask for 5-10 names, though I can imagine that there would be more than that. I wasn't trying to make it hard for you. Maybe just the 5-10 whose names would be most recognizable. I am beginning to wonder why you are being so evasive after making such a bold statement.

I cannot think of any right now, mostly because those who may have bought their way to the art world's attention are not necessarily those whose work is lasting. General knowledge of such occurrences may not be common, mainly because the perpetrators are not necessarily proud of how they have been able to achieve such access. I certainly recall a number of mediocre (even talentless) photographers and artists whose practice has been totally financed by independent means and who have shows at vanity galleries and friends with money as collectors of their work. Not a photographer, but someone like Pia Zadora comes to mind.

On the other hand, there are collectors who cannot or will not pay the price for some art who amass second-rate collections for the most part, possibly giving it more legitimacy. J. Paul Getty comes to mind. And the Marciano Art Foundation reminded me of an art school MFA show. Of course all my opinion.

 

[Vaughn]

Thank you for the link. I found it interesting.

One factor not mentioned is the connections made teaching, and how that also influences one's path, in addition to the first five shows.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Then there are the commercially successful photographers like Lik who are thought abhorrent by most dealers and "experts". They became famous or successful by the voting public and their business acumen. Best part is they got rich before they died.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Thank you for the link. I found it interesting.

One factor not mentioned is the connections made teaching, and how that also influences one's path, in addition to the first five shows.

That would be interesting, to research life experiences of artists in the years before their first show. I wonder what patterns or similarities would emerge.

As for me, I took the foundation year at a fine arts college (no photography in the course, but used 4x5 B&W contact prints for my admissions portfolio) before going to another college for photography several years later.

 

[Pieter12]

A few salient points from the research for me: the only artists they seemed to have considered are ones with museum shows. It can be quite difficult to get a museum show without connections or prior notoriety. And at the same time it can be limiting and quite political: some insitutions go out of their way to exhibit underrepresented groups as well as well-known and often light-weight celebrity artists that will draw visitors. So the quality of the work becomes a secondary consideration.

The connection between success and schools with well-respected, well-known art programs is a no-brainer. Good teachers are attracted to such schools and talented artists can make valuable connections there that can lead to opportunities in the art world that would be out of reach for most others.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Life experiences before art school is what would be interesting to me. Are there patterns? Nature vs nurture level stuff.

 

[Pieter12]

Life experiences before art school is what would be interesting to me. Are there patterns? Nature vs nurture level stuff.

This makes me think. On one hand, many artists come from artistic families, that could be both nature and nurture, being surround by art and art being accepted as a passion or career path. Others seem to become artists despite their family's opposition. On the other hand most of the artists I know either do not have children or pretty much leave the nurturing to others. Could it be that art is the only child they can devote their time and attention to?

Living in the shadow of a well-known and respected artist has to be a bit of a burden, even if one is talented. I think Bret Weston struggled to not be seen as doing just what his father did.