Imagine this is either Damien Hirst or his work because guess who topped ArtReview’s Power 100 list this year? Unfortunately, we’ve already reached our encased shark, unicorn and butterfly reproduction limit.
ArtReview releases their seventh Power 100 issue, a special “titan” assessing month in which they rank the art world elite by their “genuine influence over the production of art, international weighting, art-market relevance and contribution to the art world over the past 12 months.” In case anyone had any question about the authority of this list, let’s be clear: this is no Fortune 500. This isn’t meant to indite the magazine, but rather point out the difficulty of putting together a power list for the art world that is based on more than stock performance. There are simply too many mysterious variables. How does artreview quantifiably determine who takes 70th and 71st place particularly when comparing the achievements of two entirely different professions? What is the nomination process? Which editors are doing the judging? These are questions readers would probably benefit from knowing.
Still, presumably come this Wednesday when the issue is released, we’ll get a few more details on why Jerry Saltz and Roberta Smith dropped more than 10 points in influence while Peter Schjeldahl, who wasn’t on last year’s list at all, is now more important than Saltz. (I suspect this has to do with the horribly titled “Let’s See”, a book released this May of Schjeldahl’s collected writings at the New Yorker. ) We’ll also learn about why the Jasper Johns retrospective at MoMA outranks Takashi Murakami’s auction performance, and if we’re lucky, glean insight on Nicholas Bourriaud’s failure to make the list despite this year’s relational aesthetic heavy Whitney Biennial, and theanyspacewhatsoever, an exhibition opening at the Guggenheim this month highlighting work he labeled as such.
Most importantly we will all be given the chance to discuss the rationale behind those taking the top three positions; 1. Science –Damien Hirst (artist), 2. Larry Gagosian (dealer) and 3. Kathy Halbreich (Associate Director of MoMA). I know very little about Halbreich, and to be honest, the careers of a few others on this list, so it will be good to get caught up. With all this ranking, it’s pretty easy to forget the real use of Power 100 lies in its summary the careers of art world figures, and what they’ve been doing of note recently.
{ 17 comments }
why so hard on the title ‘let’s see?’ I am a bit of a fan of the bloke, and think it is rather appropriate w/r/t his style/work.
why so hard on the title ‘let’s see?’ I am a bit of a fan of the bloke, and think it is rather appropriate w/r/t his style/work.
Oh I like him too, but I can’t stand puns like that.
Oh I like him too, but I can’t stand puns like that.
I love kitties and want a 5′ X 5′ of that kitty you display here.
Next, your article provoked in me, who is supporting or critically promoting these people?
Similarly, do you have any sources on demographics of the art world? I mean something a little detailed like how many art students in the US exist. How many practicing artists are in NYC and the US as a whole? I realize categorical identities like painter, performance, photographers, artists using photography, etc might not exist, but someone like an Artforum, Artnet or a Utrecht must have some data bases on who they market to. It would be nice to know in order to understand how the above people arrive at conclusions like the influence of reviewers like Saltz/Smith.
I love kitties and want a 5′ X 5′ of that kitty you display here.
Next, your article provoked in me, who is supporting or critically promoting these people?
Similarly, do you have any sources on demographics of the art world? I mean something a little detailed like how many art students in the US exist. How many practicing artists are in NYC and the US as a whole? I realize categorical identities like painter, performance, photographers, artists using photography, etc might not exist, but someone like an Artforum, Artnet or a Utrecht must have some data bases on who they market to. It would be nice to know in order to understand how the above people arrive at conclusions like the influence of reviewers like Saltz/Smith.
Did Thomas Kinkade really make that list? I’ve read that on a few other blogs and was… shocked.
Did Thomas Kinkade really make that list? I’ve read that on a few other blogs and was… shocked.
Yea. Number 100. I think it’s a stretch. His influence on the art world reached its peak in 2005.
Yea. Number 100. I think it’s a stretch. His influence on the art world reached its peak in 2005.
Well, they do have fun with the list I think. Kinkade though? His prints can be found at yard sales for under $10! I’d say his reach is more influential on the home shopping crowd than within the art world itself. I just don’t like the guy. 🙂
Well, they do have fun with the list I think. Kinkade though? His prints can be found at yard sales for under $10! I’d say his reach is more influential on the home shopping crowd than within the art world itself. I just don’t like the guy. 🙂
Well, but three years ago, about a year after that wildly popular 60 minutes special aired on the man, you saw all sorts of art in galleries inspired by his work. Everyone I knew was talking about him, so I do think he’s been very influential. But only as a passing trend in the art world.
Well, but three years ago, about a year after that wildly popular 60 minutes special aired on the man, you saw all sorts of art in galleries inspired by his work. Everyone I knew was talking about him, so I do think he’s been very influential. But only as a passing trend in the art world.
I learned that I should not pick on Kinkade. Kinkade has a posse. 🙂
I learned that I should not pick on Kinkade. Kinkade has a posse. 🙂
I learned that I should not pick on Kinkade. Kinkade has a posse. 🙂
Comments on this entry are closed.