Here are the 3 most prolific living artists in the contemporary world.
Damien Hirst’s work “For the love of god”, made of a platinum skull covered with 8601 diamonds, 1,106.18 carats each, was sold for £50,000,000.
Also, he is the richest living artist with his wealth valued at £215m in the “2010 Sunday Times Rich List”. At Sotheby's by auction exceeded all predictions, raising £111 million ($198 million), breaking the record for a one-artist auction.
Now my question here is what defines an art work as successful.
Who defines an art work successful?
Who defines an art work successful?
When the production of art has escalated to mass production.
Now, what really defines an art piece to be successful? Well actually it’s a combination of things that trigger the worth of an artwork. We have the artist which is by far the most important variable to the equation, art sells once the artist name has been established, and this is the struggle that some of the artists face at the beginning, unless a reputable collector starts the show and in this case Damien Hirst’s first work to be sold was “A Thousand Years” consisting of a large glass case containing maggots and flies feeding off a rotting cow's head and was bought by Charles Saatchi.
This purchase was the big step in Hirst’s life and from that point onwards has been a sell-out. Contributing to this point, given that Charles Saatchi is a very well-known Art collector and given the fact Charles Saatchi bought a Damien Hirst work adds plus five points to Damien Hirst’s art value and technically brings him up in the charts.
We live in a time where variety in art is endless consisting of different cultures, time periods etc. and the succession of art and the artist is based on the markets you’ve captured and the show’s you’ve sold. The more the artist sells, the higher the price tag gets and the higher the price tag gets the famous the artist gets and here’s the twist to the line that’s what defines an artist or the artwork successful is the tag behind it also the collector that holds it.
Art is a time based activity; the formation of art is purely based on time, the trend that follows and the trend to follow or maybe rebel. Now the declaration of who decides what artist work should be given the spotlight. The production (quality of the work) in this example the trend sets a new level and plays a big role in formation of an artist’s market reputation; fame and success in my opinion are two different things but are treated as one. But who decides whether what work to be given importance? The critics? Well for sure they play a great deal of acting as a catalyst. In this day and age where a personal opinion is rarely appreciated or given admiration too, so the audience just to be on the safe side sticks with what the general public agrees to, much like a case of majority is authority, and the reason could be the vast globalization of acceptance that the human kind tends to follow, and this is where the critics come in place and where their opinion so much so becomes direction that we tend to look upon. Us humans try so hard to be a part of the society and not have the feeling of being left out, well the idea of having a different opinion pretty much is based on the same principles consciously or un-consciously. And most of the critics work on the similar ideology and the ones that don’t have to bear with the similar rejection until the society gets bored of the previous ideology and decide to move on to another. And the ones who already are well known can either make a work, or break a work in terms of success. So the realization is that every art critic, critics a work on their personal vision and formal aspects based on their subjective understandings and to know that reputation works on a major influential level and are considered as magicians and their words magic. There are many theories about the strengths of art criticism: insider’s joke that all publicity is good publicity.
If there are people behind the major transformation of art as of what we see today, from what we did before, it’s the art collectors See, the art world is a cycle and the most important factor of this chain is the people who buy art. Without them, gallery owners wouldn’t eat; artists would be working in news companies or graphic design or selling stuff door to door.
Are collectors powerful because they really don’t seem to be visible of all those who make the art market economy. Collectors dispense the money, and it’s what they’re willing to pay that determines the line for what artists can make. The number of collectors out there in the art world is huge, and it’s one of their tactics/trainings to rewrite the economy of the art world and still stay anonymous. Dealers normally satisfy their business with clients and keep it confidential, but let the collector spectate.