A Path to Art World Fame & Fortune

[Alan Edward Klein]

@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.

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.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

It's right there, in the opening paragraphs second sentence, before the abstract:

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.

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.

 

[Don_ih]

Exactly the conclusion I made. The study is deficient in scope.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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 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.

 

[MattKing]

The title of this thread maybe mislead you.

Bingo!
Not that I blame Murray.

 

[MattKing]

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.

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.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

The reason I feel it's a bad study (and a bad thread title)...

Sigh...

It's entitled A Path to Art World Fame & Fortune, not The Path to Art World Fame & Fortune.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

 

[MattKing]

I'd suggest "A pathway to success from within the Art World".

 

[MattKing]

- and such an analysis would not include minor league baseball players.

correct!

 

[Don_ih]

it presents a view that the only way to reach fame is through the gallery and museum approach

It doesn't. It's only about perseverance and success within the institutional art world. Fame and fortune outside that world are not concerns of the study. It says noting about them.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Their study apparently included commercially successful artists in the half a million data points who went on to sell in galleries and museums. 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. That would be helpful for those looking for success in which avenues to take.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sigh...

It's entitled A Path to Art World Fame & Fortune, not The Path to Art World Fame & Fortune.

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?

 

[koraks]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

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?

Sorry boys, just not sexy enough for the front page editor who likes to splash spicy, attention grabbing hot sauce on all the titles I come up with.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

That's pretty much the path to success for any artist, just maybe add connections--social or through art school. Ms Maier lacked the last two and luck. That's why her success was posthumous.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

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.

Yes.

Much like a sociological research paper, it burrows into a portion with no intention of describing the whole.

Similar to looking at leaf structure to better understand a tree.

Instead of poo-pooing this paper, one might better spend their time looking for a study which better suits their interests?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

You did it again. For such a smart guy, you must have missed the course on The Art of Communicating Without Being Offensive.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Good points. You missed hard work which reminds me of the saying that success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

 

[Pieter12]

You did it again. For such a smart guy, you must have missed the course on The Art of Communicating Without Being Offensive.

Is there a course on not being easily offended? Because you need a thick skin to succeed in the world.

 

[MattKing]

You did it again. For such a smart guy, you must have missed the course on The Art of Communicating Without Being Offensive.

Alan:
I struggle with the meaning of the text in the threads in Photro here that are specialized discussions between the trained chemists.
That is because I'm not a trained chemist.
And I wouldn't be offended in any way if someone noted that struggle.
Nothing in anything you have posted here on Photrio indicates you have experience in the academic realm that the study referenced inhabits.
Why do you expect not to struggle with it? I do! It is hard, hard work to read it! And I have at least some academic background.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Shows the importance of having a good agent.

But that's after you have art worth representing.

It's the same in every endeavour.