A Path to Art World Fame & Fortune

[faberryman]

A few salient points from the research for me: the only artists they seemed to have considered are ones with museum shows.

"...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?

 

[Pieter12]

"...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?

The study says, as you quote, the information came from galleries, museums and auction houses. No one contacted any artists about their careers, so it is already biased toward those who have had a modicum of success.

 

[faberryman]

The study says, as you quote, the information came from galleries, museums and auction houses. No one contacted any artists about their careers, so it is already biased toward those who have had a modicum of success.

Why would they contact the artists to discuss their careers, in particular artists with fewer that five gallery shows? It was an empirical study. The title of the study - Quantifying reputation and success in art - and the fact that it appears in Science magazine gives you a hint. Would you be happier if they had set the bar at four gallery shows, or three gallery shows, or two gallery shows, or one gallery show, or maybe had a booth at a crafts fair? How would that have changed the conclusions. Besides, interviewing 496,354 artists would be quite the undertaking.

Have you read the study?

 

[Pieter12]

Why would they contact the artists to discuss their careers, in particular artists with fewer that five gallery shows? It was an empirical study. The title of the study - Quantifying reputation and success in art - and the fact that it appears in Science magazine gives you a hint. Would you be happier if they had set the bar at four gallery shows, or three gallery shows, or two gallery shows, or one gallery show, or maybe had a booth at a crafts fair? How would that have changed the conclusions. Besides, interviewing 496,354 artists would be quite the undertaking.

Have you read the study?

I would have had more faith in the study if they used more than empirical data gathered from institutions, as inclusion in such already indicates some sort of access and a modicum of success in the art world. The authors don't indicate any expertise in the area beyond crunching numbers. It reads more like an academic exercise than a knowledgeable, in-depth study. Numbers alone don't necessarily prove anything more than you can come to a conclusion based on numbers.

 

[faberryman]

I would have had more faith in the study if they used more than empirical data gathered from institutions, as inclusion in such already indicates some sort of access and a modicum of success in the art world. The authors don't indicate any expertise in the area beyond crunching numbers. It reads more like an academic exercise than a knowledgeable, in-depth study. Numbers alone don't necessarily prove anything more than you can come to a conclusion based on numbers.

Faith in the study? Did you read the conclusions? Is there something in the conclusions that is not supported by the data? Is there something in the conclusions that to you does not ring true? The conclusions sound like NSS to me, with some data to back them up. No surprises on my end.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The study seems to focus on institutions, museums and galleries. It leaves out a huge area of artists who have gained their notoriety from separate commercial institutions. Photographers like Avedon in the advertising industry. Or Lik who became famous and rich because of his own hard business acumen and work and his own galleries. Then there's Curry who gained fame through National Geographic and others from the photo distribution companies like Getty and Magnum.

 

[Pieter12]

Faith in the study? Did you read the conclusions? Is there something in the conclusions that is not supported by the data? Is there something in the conclusions that to you does not ring true? The conclusions sound like NSS to me, with some data to back them up. No surprises on my end.

I'll agree with you there. The conclusion is that successful artists are successful and have gallery, museum and auction house sales. They did not have to bother with a study to come to that conclusion. It reads like a dissertation that holds no interest except for the review board and to get published for points in the academic world.

 

[Pieter12]

The study seems to focus on institutions, museums and galleries. It leaves out a huge area of artists who have gained their notoriety from separate commercial institutions. Photographers like Avedon in the advertising industry. Or Lik who became famous and rich because of his own hard business acumen and work and his own galleries. Then there's Curry who gained fame through National Geographic and others from the photo distribution companies like Getty and Magnum.

Except for photo nerds, no-one looks at magazine and newspaper photo credits, or even knows about Magnum.

Curry and Avedon do quite well in the world of gallery and auction house sales. And Avedon gets exhibited on a regular basis, both in museums and galleries.

 

[Don_ih]

"...institutions were independently assigned grades from A to D by a team of experts at Magnus based on criteria including longevity, the artists exhibited, size and quality of exhibition space, and art fair participation."

"For each institution, we computed the maximum relative price taken across all the artworks exhibited, observing a high correlation between network-based ranks and economic value of the exhibited artists artworks"

That should not be surprising when you consider they based their "A" class partially on the fact they exhibited high profile artists (first quote above).

"A decade after their fifth exhibit, 39% of the high–initial reputation artists continued to exhibit (Fig. 2D). For low–initial reputation artists, only 14% remained active 10 years later."

Also needs to be noted that the "D" class is based on on the fact that those galleries are showing "low-initial reputation" artists - as in they housed and represented mostly unknown artists.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Except for photo nerds, no-one looks at magazine and newspaper photo credits, or even knows about Magnum.

Curry and Avedon do quite well in the world of gallery and auction house sales. And Avedon gets exhibited on a regular basis, both in museums and galleries.

You missed my point. Maybe I wasn't clear. The photographers I mentioned gained their reputation first outside of the museum and gallery realm through commercial occupations or hard personal work. Sure, after they became famous, galleries picked up people like Avedon, But the study only researched artists who became famous because they first got recognition through galleries. They didn't study the others.

 

[Pieter12]

You missed my point. Maybe I wasn't clear. The photographers I mentioned gained their reputation first outside of the museum and gallery realm through commercial occupations or hard personal work. Sure, after they became famous, galleries picked up people like Avedon, But the study only researched artists who became famous because they first got recognition through galleries. They didn't study the others.

True, but galleries did not represent "commercial" photographers such as Avedon until relatively recently. Avedon had long wanted recognition from the art world, but really did not get that until his In The American West commission from the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth. Most photographers did do commercial assignments--Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Edward Steichen (I'm mostly familiar wit the careers of US photographers, I'm sure there are many form other countries)--but that wasn't what was acquired by museums or offered by galleries in the early days.

Commercially successful photographers often fall by the wayside once their style falls out of fashion in that world. As far as I can tell, few carry over to the fine art gallery and museum world with the exception of some editorial fashion, photojournalist and music photographers. Have you ever seen a photo taken for a Nike or Jack Daniels ad in a show of any kind beyond an advertising competition? Maybe the only exception I know of is Jim Krantz, who shot Marlboro cowboys and has exhibited and sold prints through Danziger gallery. Of course, that was after Richard Prince appropriated the images by blowing up the ads and selling them for millions.

 

[Don_ih]

While it's possible for a photographer to become very successful and well-known before ever being in a gallery show or having sold a print (outside of their work, that is), like Annie Liebovitz, for example, it's pretty difficult for a painter or sculptor to do that.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

True, but galleries did not represent "commercial" photographers such as Avedon until relatively recently. Avedon had long wanted recognition from the art world, but really did not get that until his In The American West commission from the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth. Most photographers did do commercial assignments--Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Edward Steichen (I'm mostly familiar wit the careers of US photographers, I'm sure there are many form other countries)--but that wasn't what was acquired by museums or offered by galleries in the early days.

Commercially successful photographers often fall by the wayside once their style falls out of fashion in that world. As far as I can tell, few carry over to the fine art gallery and museum world with the exception of some editorial fashion, photojournalist and music photographers. Have you ever seen a photo taken for a Nike or Jack Daniels ad in a show of any kind beyond an advertising competition? Maybe the only exception I know of is Jim Krantz, who shot Marlboro cowboys and has exhibited and sold prints through Danziger gallery. Of course, that was after Richard Prince appropriated the images by blowing up the ads and selling them for millions.

The point I was making was that the study only included the famous from their involvement with galleries and museums. So it's a limited study. They ignored artists and photographers who may have become famous due to their hard work elsewhere and experience commercially.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

While it's possible for a photographer to become very successful and well-known before ever being in a gallery show or having sold a print (outside of their work, that is), like Annie Liebovitz, for example, it's pretty difficult for a painter or sculptor to do that.

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

 

[faberryman]

I'll agree with you there. The conclusion is that successful artists are successful and have gallery, museum and auction house sales. They did not have to bother with a study to come to that conclusion. It reads like a dissertation that holds no interest except for the review board and to get published for points in the academic world.

I don't disagree. I did think reading through the data was interesting though. It is good to have data to support what you perhaps intuitively know. It beats making unfounded assumptions and expressing unsupported opinions.

 

[Don_ih]

there aren't too many commercial jobs for unknown sculptors and painters.

There are actually a lot. Illustrators and modellers are needed for all kinds of industries (maybe less now than before) but that work never almost leads to notoriety. Of course, photography almost never leads to notoriety, also....

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There are actually a lot. Illustrators and modellers are needed for all kinds of industries (maybe less now than before) but that work never almost leads to notoriety. Of course, photography almost never leads to notoriety, also....

That's a good point. My friend Mel Greifinger was an illustrator. He did ad campaigns, book covers, and story boards.

Mel Greifinger Art

Shop for artwork by Mel Greifinger. Purchase canvas prints, framed prints, tapestries, posters, greeting cards, and more. I grew up in the Bronx, New York and have been drawing since I was six years old. I used to copy picture's I found in books and magazines.I went to high school at The...

fineartamerica.com

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Anybody willing to collect 1,435,844 data points on a mere 5 factors in what seems to be an unquantifiable question in an attempt to glean some sort of pattern, gets a tip of my hat their way.

If I was a young lad seeking a fast path through the gallery realm, I'd take note of the more active nodes of connectivity and concentrate my efforts there.

 

[Pieter12]

Anybody willing to collect 1,435,844 data points on a mere 5 factors in what seems to be an unquantifiable question in an attempt to glean some sort of pattern, gets a tip of my hat their way.

If I was a young lad seeking a fast path through the gallery realm, I'd take note of the more active nodes of connectivity and concentrate my efforts there.

Probably working with grant money or an academic dissertation.

 

[Don_ih]

I'd take note of the more active nodes of connectivity and concentrate my efforts there.

Yes, why start anywhere less than MOMA or the Louvre.....

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Yes, why start anywhere less than MOMA or the Louvre.....

Well, you'd at least get a gold star for audacity...I'd start 4 or 5 nodes back.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, why start anywhere less than MOMA or the Louvre.....

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

I know you are being sarcastic. At least I hope you are being sarcastic.

 

[Pieter12]

I know you are being sarcastic. At least I hope you are being sarcastic.

As far as I know, except for special exhibitions, the Louvre only shows work from the mid-19th century and earlier.

 

[awty]

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. Like owning a fishing boat, there is no expectation that I will catch enough fish to justify the costs.