Art Stars/ Top 100

The dual articles about Art Stars and also the newly posted top 100 really drive home the cause and effect in play here. If you notice on the top 100 list, there are actually very few artists- mainly it is collectors, curators and museum board members. The power lies not with the individual talent of an artist, but instead with who decides the said artist has talent in the first place. And to suppose that talent is the foremost decider is probably wrong too. It's about what is new or fresh- ie: what will make the gallery or dealer the most money. If you look at where most big name artists got their start it is usually behind a big name collector or gallery. A majority of the YBA (Young British Artists) got MFA's from Goldsmiths sold their first big piece to Charles Saatchi and had their first solo show at the Tate- it's not coincidence.
The Guerrilla Girls put out a great guide "The Art Museum Activity Book", which outlines the nepotism and hand-holding in the art world. In it they outline how most shows are actually from the private collections of board members and by giving the work press they increase it's value so they can send it to auction and make a tidy profit. Again, looking at the Top 100 list. Richard Serra went from #73 last year to #19 this year- which just happens to coincide with his huge Retrospective that was at MoMA this year. It also just so happens that over half the works were lent by private collectors. My guess is their investment just increased substantially with that jump. As long as we all just realize that it has nothing to do with talent and everything to do with economics we can all relax. There are thousands of artists in this world that 99% of the people haven't heard about but still have successful and fruitful careers. Personally, i would rather have consistency than a momentary flash.