An article in today's New York Times comments on Artfacts.net, "a privately owned, London-based guide to modern and contemporary art" which has the audacity to rank artists according to their "attention income." If you aren't a Chicago economist, you are probably asking, "what is attention income?" It's another phrase for "fame." The author, Ms.Sarah Boxer, snarkily says at the outset:
Forget about quality. Forget about sales. Let's pretend we're in junior high and rank artists by popularity. Let's see how much attention they're getting and whether it's coming from the cool kids.
Cute, but basing an artist's popularity on his...well... popularity is not a new idea. In this day and age when the average person has no way to tell if art is "good" or 'bad," what else do you have to go on? Here's how Artifacts.net ranks artists:
To rank these international artists, the staff of Artfacts.net starts by looking at exhibition announcements, newsletters and Web sites. Then the point toting begins.
Solo shows are worth more than group shows or art fairs. Documenta, in Kassel, Germany, is worth more than the Venice Biennale. Public museums count more than galleries. And different museums have different weights. Those in cities like Paris or New York count for more. Small museums and university museums count for almost nothing. "Exhibitions held in a museum with a great collection of famous artists, like the Centre Pompidou, will receive more points than a relatively unknown private gallery," the Web site says.
Ok, sounds like a reasonable way to do it. But if you read this method correctly, it's not so much about popularity as it is about prestige. Which museums think Picasso is cool, which International Expos think Warhol is worthwhile. And, yes, I'm sure money comes into it, because you don't want to show someone no one will come to see. But the whole thing is circular, because people will only want to see it because it's at that exhibit. Ms. Boxer mentions this circular reasoning in relation to defining "famous museums:"
And how is a famous gallery or museum defined? Circularly. An institution with famous artists is famous, and a famous artist is one who shows in a famous institution.
If you think about the whole thing too much, your head will explode.
Ms.Boxer mentions that Artfact's system is flawed - artists move up and down in bizarre ways, sometimes even falling off the chart completely. In my opinion, that's not the only wonky thing about the system. It seems rather odd to have two dead artists up at the top followed by many living ones struggling to achieve their greatness. It hardly seems fair to mix the two. And as I said just last week, modern art is not in the same category as contemporary art, not anymore.
I have to say that I like the idea of "attention income," perhaps because of my ties to Chicago economists. On one hand the idea sounds reasonable, as good a way as any to define an artist's impact on the art world. On the other hand, it's highly flawed in that the way an artist gains attention is often arbitrarily decided by a few powerful gallery owners and museum curators. Perhaps we should have a People's Choice award for up-and-coming artists? One where those who have a financial stake in an artist's reputation would be barred from voting. I think that would give us a truer view of an artist's "attention income."