Welcome to the updated version of the top 20 painters today. Let's discuss the main topics of consternation in the comments section from our previous video. 1) Lack of diversity: The list has been created by an algorithm (by Artfacts) that ranks artists based on objective data and career facts (such as shows at major institutions, auction results, biennials, collections, et cetera). In other words, the list does not discriminate; however, it illustrates the art world still does (please, don't shoot the messenger!)-or certainly when it comes to this 'older generation of artists with great longevity, which is valued strongly for this list. This tendency is shifting for the better, with our lists analyzing younger generations being much more diverse. Further, a surprising conclusion is the lack of diversity is at its strongest in this particular medium; painting. Performance is dominated by female artists, and other media, such as installation, photography, and video, have much more diversity. 2) Using an algorithm to select the top 20 painters today: The algorithm is able to provide a selection of the most prominent artists today. However, these top results still need to be interpreted with a critical pair of eyes and mind. The main reason why we adore using the Artfacts algorithm is that it enables us to approach fame/popularity/pertinence objectively. Otherwise, depending on the person who creates the list, it would be entirely different. If I made them, I would be imposing my personal opinion on you, which I don't feel comfortable with. Instead, with this algorithm, we can create these rankings in a very coherent and consistent manner. It crawls all artists in the world, so every artist is considered, and it can often show a discrepancy between our perception of the fame of a specific artist versus reality. Discover the algorithm here: artfacts.net/register?ref=596b983667cd4ef3ecd9afcb78629b0da0baa51e 3) Why are there so many Americans and Germans?: As with the lack of diversity, this results from the value the algorithm addresses to longevity-which is beneficial for the artists who were born in the 1930s and 1940s. And during that age, America and Germany provided some ground-breaking art and movements, which is reflected in these results. 4) Where is Banksy?: He might be very famous-particularly among people who aren't really into art, but the one artist they know will be Banksy-but when it comes to retrospectives, major art events, and even collections, he does not match up with these 20 artists. It is interesting to see how our perception of fame is often incorrect when one analyzes their actual pertinence in the art world. 5) Where is Jenny Saville, Luc Tuymans, Peter Doig, Tracey Emin, Julian Schnabel, Neo Rauch, ...: Sadly, the list consists of just 20 artists. And some of my personal favorite painters are not included. As a result, I invite you to write down your top 5/10/20 in the comments below. Looking forward to it! All my best, Julien
It is gratifying to see these artist and your thoughts as to their relevance. It restores my faith in the great push for modernity. There is one artist who is gone now but deserves honorable mention. Robert Colescott (8/26/1925 - 6/4/2009) was a black American painter. I. was fortunate to study under him at SFAI some years ago. He pushed (corralled?) modern ideas, concepts and systems into a very interesting place. His social wit is matched only by his ability to achieve a pictorial format- perfectly suited for that great push for his modernity.
Modernity, or the move away from technical ability for most modern artists, some here have amazing talent all around, most know a guy or girl who has some pull in the circles that determine value. There are an amazing amount of street artists who would give modernity a run for it's money.
Any one of these could be a student work on the wall in your local community college and no one would pay $5 for it. Someone throws a splash of color across a canvas..."this speaks to the human condition!"
While I appreciate your elegant explanations of this "art" -- most of it is hideous, and nonsensical. If a person needs a Ph.D in psychology to "understand" what they're looking at -- it is no longer useful as a mode of communication, which is what art ultimately is. I've noticed one thing in every major museum around the world that I've gone to, and I've gone to many -- people sit and linger and relax and enjoy themselves in the Impressionist and other representational wings of the museum, but literally run through "modern" art sections. Modern art is ugly -- and it goes against the tenets of beauty and truth. Please don't try to rebutt me -- you will not succeed in changing my mind. Ugly is ugly, beauty is beauty, and the moon is not the sun.
A collection of mostly old white men. I don’t doubt that their works fetch huge sums. But in 2023, collectors should start looking at the whole world of artists out there.
Absolutely. But this list focuses specifically on those iconic and canonized artists. Feel free to watch our videos on emerging artists as well, and thank you for tuning in!
I would definitely add these: (All of them are good, but if I ranked them from Awesome to Good, the list would be like this) Christopher Wool Carroll Dunham Andre Butzer Peter Halley Louise Bonnet Josh Smith Kerry James Marshall Peter Doig
Esta manhã, se eu fosse comprar Arte, como se estivesse numa feira de peixes, legumes e pães, compraria apenas o primeiro artista mostrado. Amanheci precisando de cores e dinâmicas estruturas! Obrigado, CAI! Só de olhar já me ajudei!
This morning, if I were to buy Art, as if I were at a fish, vegetable and bread fair, I would only buy the first artist shown. I woke up needing colors in dynamic structures! Thank you, CAI! Just looking at it helped me!
Most modern art substitutes weird for quality, narrow isms for scope, and trendy for depth. It also refuses to change or even talk about progressive ideas in art like those that follow Too many treat art as a marketing scheme. Modern art has become a trendy clique and the art now is mostly over promoted footnotes to greater art that was done 100 years ago. But art is too important to be reduced to a trendy clique. Post-ism, is art for a new century, not a continuation of last century trends. 1 Mass Market Paintings like Prints. When any art form is mass marketed it enters a golden age. This has happened with books, records, and film. Let's add paintings. Most art is in storage in museum basements. Mass Marketing allows art to tour in copies and allows artists to make royalties on copies. Why do you think the world gets so excited about a new great book, record, or film; but no one cares about a new great painting? All are mass produced except the painting. 2. End a Century of Isms. Dump the genres and formulas and let all kinds of art be a part of the art world. 3. Shift Emphasis From Trendy to Quality. Shift emphasis from the latest trendy art, to quality art in any style. Just because art is weird does not mean it is great art. 4. Free the Art From Museums and Galleries. Get the art out of the ivory elitist museum and gallery towers and back into the world. Have city art centers open to all artists. Make art that is relevant and communicates with people. Start with the first generation of artists online. 5. Postism is Part of a Bigger Revolution. Postism is part of the bigger art and media revolution out of Dallas, that includes art, music, lit, film, media, and a lot more. 6. Postism online: Online artists are the new wave of art. We had all the isms of last century. Now we have a free for all, of all kinds of artists, that are not sanctioned by any museum or gallery, displaying their work. Out of that comes the next wave and revolution of artists. Last century the goal was to fit the ism. This century the goal is to do great art - no ism, no boundaries. Fractionalized art then, synchronized art now. Even calling something modern art is a type of ism that separates that art from the art of the past. The 20th century was a century of experimentation in art. Now in the 21st we can choose from all those styles and / or start one of our own. Then too if someone devises a way to charge and collect a penny per view on a webpage, that would allow any great artist to get money for their art and have a career without any middlemen. Duchamp broke ground 100 years ago - but now his clones are just shoveling dirt. Weird art is easy, you put a strip of raw bacon across an expensive violin, but it's not good art. Join the art revolution and pull the art world out of last century. Musea since 1992..
Absolutelly, well said. The most of things he said is totall crap, atrist represented here are excellent for sure but his explenations show superficiall understanding with no essence. In my opignion if you dont paint draw and do art at certain level your self, all you can do is talk around with no understanding, not even a bit. Nothing he said is actually important if you try to discuss those works.
I used to think the the books on The New York Times Best Seller List were the best QUALITY books. ...like Valley of the Dolls ! This is the NYT list all over again .
I did enjoy this, but was confused when your criterion changed from the introduction 'influential' to 'important' - Baselitz 'one of the most important post war artists', to 'famous', Richter 'our most famous painter today'. How is importance judged? and of what artistic value is fame? By the way I recently visited a gallery in an English midlands town where a small framed painting of coloured dots was on display at a price of several thousand pounds. I asked after the artist and was told Damien Hirst. I said how do you know, there is no signature. The curator told me it was painted by one of his team of artists! I suppose that confirms your assessment of his 'ongoing search to paint as a machine'. You are right, the con trick is unnerving
These terms are often seen as interchangeable, but of course, they differ. For the sake of variation, they are being used, and there is an argument to be made that Richter is also one of the most famous artists today, and Baselitz is one of the most important post-war artists. In the end, it is about the most pertinent painters today. Concerning the Hirst picture, it should include a signed COA. Studio assistants are nothing new, actually, Rubens or Da Vinci did not paint everything back in their day as well, but of course, we prefer to own the touch of the master him/herself.
Ohhh what to say, disappointing in all of these, perhaps the only that can be rescued is Georg Baselitz. It is all an AutoCAD geometrical representation of nothing, they should all become photographers. Unless there is a socio-political story behind them, very little can be said. There are no Leaders, and what is clear is that there are many glimpses of earlier (1916) and late works (1932++) by Picasso. In a paradoxical Chinese term we could classified all this as a "Creative Revolution", ie lack of. There are no influential works here. Respectfully.
It saddens me, this top list...only 2 of the artists I can agree upon...In the renaissance mankinds population was about a tenth of what it is now: did we get a tenfold increase in artistic geniuses? ...can one genuinely say yes, really....what is the cause of this?...sth's wrong...
One Jeff Koons conceptual piece is three basketballs suspended in a fish tank. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Three_Ball_Total_Equilibrium_Tank_by_Jeff_Koons,_Tate_Liverpool.jpg Here is Koons' own ArtSpeak explanation of his floating basketball 'concept' verbatim: “ This is an ultimate state of being. I wanted to play with people’s desires. They desire this equilibrium. They desire pre-birth. I was giving a definition of life and death. This is the eternal. This is what life is like, also, after death. Aspects of the eternal” Rather lofty goals for 3 basketballs suspended in a fish tank!! It sold for $350,000. I wonder what it would have fetched without Koons' name attached to it.
I’m a little surprised Schnabel didn’t make your list even though you included several that worked with painting on antique and other pre-existing images. In my opinion, his films are much more significant than this paintings. See also ‘Miral’ of particular note as Netanyahu destroys what is left of Palestine.
The top 20 most media-hyped living painters to 'watch-the-birdie' everyone else as your friends leave, your wife, your car, your house is taken. Even today the are still promoting Black Square by Malevich, 100 years later. Look back at 70s/80s Artscribe and go round the degree shows and every girl painting Eileen Cooper, desperate for a piece of the pie, perceived to be around from that hype. Chris le Brun their knight in shining armour yah...
Reluctantly, I agree with your #1 position, that Richter is the most influential living painter today. Just as painters were forced to wrestle with the giant of early 20th century painting, Picasso, artists today must address Richter. Ignore him at your own peril. Still, because of pluralism, social media, and the democratization of culture, Richter doesn't have a lock on vision like Picasso once did. But let's address the elephant in the room. There’s one artist, long dead, that casts a wider net on 20th century and contemporary art more than any other. That artist is... Marcel Duchamp. Without him we wouldn’t have Warhol, Koons, or bananas stuck to walls with tape. I don't see Duchamp’s influence waning anytime soon.
It is just always very unfortunate that significant, influential and important is always equated with expensive. -If one considers that contemporary art is bought only to increase its value, that is a sad number in itself. -If one further considers that those who assess this value are ultimately only (mainly) women who did not manage to study something "real" because of the high study requirements, then switched to art history or art science and are now leading curators or museum directors, then this naturally casts a completely different light on the current art scene than one would normally think. -If one asks oneself why today's art is so incredibly flat, uniformly the same worldwide, banal and above all only decorative, one could almost get the idea that this trend of uniformity, this egalitarianism, is deliberate. So the real ability and the Geniehafte one would like in our today's time no more. These uniform-thinking and ultra arrogant rulers of the art scene, so ultimately determine what is so to speak "exhibition-worthy art" and what is not.
Hi Achim, it is a natural result that important art becomes expensive, of course, and I believe it should interfere with our experience or way of looking at it. Personally, I look with the same pair of eyes to a painting priced at €5.000 and a painting priced at €250.000. Concerning this feeling of uniformity and arrogant rulers of the art scene, I disagree. The art world is very diverse and also very democratic in a sense. At the start of the career of every successful artist, there was a natural interest and demand for their work from normal, private collectors, which resulted in galleries, followed by more collectors, followed by institutional interest, followed by established galleries, and so on. It is an organic process
@@contemporaryartissue normal private collectors buy art promoted by galleries as "important" as most people are confused as to what constitutes art nowadays. They are told that certain works are " important" and do not wish to appear ignorant and are thus persuaded. Importance is mainly determined by price hence the cliche "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing"
@@FrancoisMouton-iu7jt The mindset that needs to believe art has something resembling objective real value can’t distinguish between the money and “importance”. It’s the same mindset that is highly influenced by the professionalism of gallery spaces, or the professionalism of an artists presentation. Im sure it helps sell art, and further drive up sales and so-called “importance.” But so do counterfeits. So do wine scammers who can get away with more fakery by increasing the price. Of course a lot of terrific artist are found benefiting from this wealth-scape. It’s just worth noting the sterilizing counter currents, too.
Sample any description of any of these artist's works....but move them along the timeline by one or two artists either forward or backwards... and you will hear the complete utter BLX spouted, as it seems just as relevant !!!
well, what to say about the 20 artists presented here. This will be hilarious in the year 2099. If there is a 2099. I can see Hockney in this list and a few of the others like Richter for example. But, the rest are just shmoos. These guys just hired the best agencies, enjoyed their privilege, were lucky enough to hitch their ride on the right wave, lived and ran with the right people, are way too western for my taste and their works are only shown because the rich have way too much money. In the past, shells were considered valuable, people in india still worship cows, and there are 100s of artists living now that are not known because they are busy doing their thing. Nice try, but toss all of the "art" magazines and live for 50 more years. Make your list again. the video was entertaining but predictable. I think VR will grab all the attention unless it is immersive VR. Where in the viewer gets to walk into a moving breathing environment titillating the five senses.
Hi Sabine, Rosemarie Trockel has been presented in several of our top list videos. However, here we focus on paintings-hence Trockel not being included. Thank you for tuning in
Wow, artists of color don't exist in that rarified world I suppose. I can think of quite a few in my own neighborhood that are as impactful and meaningful as any one of these artists.
After two years, I am aware that I am still learning and improving when it comes to editing these videos. Feel free to share specific and constructive feedback at any time. Thank you for tuning in!
Thanks for the video. I would like a less pyramidal choice, and more transversal on 20 contemporary artists. It would provide a less capitalist view of art. 👍🏼
Please make sure to read the pinned comment where we expand on the selection process and its main flaws in terms of diversity. Thank you for tuning in!
The list has been created by an algorithm (by Artfacts) that ranks artists based on objective data and career facts (such as shows at major institutions, auction results, biennials, collections, et cetera). In other words, the list does not discriminate; however, it illustrates the art world still does (please, don't shoot the messenger!)-or certainly when it comes to this 'older generation of artists with great longevity, which is valued strongly for this list. This tendency is shifting for the better, with our lists analyzing younger generations being much more diverse. Further, a surprising conclusion is the lack of diversity is at its strongest in this particular medium; painting. Performance is dominated by female artists, and other media, such as installation, photography, and video, have much more diversity.
I am Nick Rodis. I am the greatest, happiest and richest living artist in the Philippines. Thank you for this amazing life as an instrument artist for peace. WE BECOME WHAT WE THINK ABOUT
@anthonymarcus455 After I got up to $300k trading with Mrs Mary Lynn Crawford i bought a new House and I'm now able to send my kids to a better school in the states thanks to her. When someone is straight forward with what he or she is doing people will always speak up for them.
Yes, especially with painting the top list is not very diverse... It is a surprising conclusion actually that this is the medium with the least diversity. But when analyzing more recent generations, things are changing for the better!
Much as I am fan of a lot of the artists listed, it doesn't seem to be a list that has changed that much in the last 30 years. One hopes (and I think it will) that it will get a lot more diverse in terms of race and gender in the next 30.
I could care less about increase in diversity of race and gender in the next 30, just would hope to see less derivative painting in our galleries in the next 30. Far too much generous borrowing today from this list of living, but quite old painters, AND then rarely in gallery handouts do we read mention of the old artists' work that "inspired."
A list of total, utter BLX. The actual art involved is within the BS words describing this assortment of over-hyped media queens, and thus getting them to believe what they hear. Some artworks are nice pretty, and thought-provoking and will look great on your wall. Buy a poster instead!
Parece que no existeran mas artistas que los yanquis! Que estres! No pueden mirar un poco mas alla del pais de las hamburguesas?? Que pobres referencias.
Richter has been far more influential than Hockney since the 1990s, although his influence has produced little but decades of poor copies of his work. Art world desperately needs a ten year moratorium on paint-smeared imagery, both representational and abstract.
Does it not occur yo you that museum show, exhibitions, art sales have quite a bit to do with attracting audiences with a common educational background, for whom commonality through familiarity with representative artists of the oast results in revenue for them? What symphony orchestras do not have tk rely on accasional offerings of chestnuts annually for their patrons to survive---even contemporary composers whose works have become familiar and popular? Does this familiarity make their works cutting edge or greater than those of a less promoted composer? The very fact of a severe lack of diversity and inclusion of female artists seems to me it is not artists or their art of greatness the algorythms identify but the the insecurities of the business of using art to support the viability of institutions, their day to day finding or commercial concerns. Todays young artists are living in a time of uncertajnty that AI is about to make all creators obsolete. Artists of the past did indeed live on the edge in dire times, as hungry as artist today, but were isolated enough, even in small groups to form art of identity or art movements of influence. Those times belonged mostly to men as women were mostly ignored or sqeezed out, as well as were minorities. What AI will your algorythm choose in the future as yhe best artist, when the art of himans is no longer able to "compete?" For the five star best artist listing?
Of course, there are! Jenny Saville, Bridget Riley, Tracey Emin, Julie Mehretu, Vija Celmins, Chantal Joffe, Elizabeth Peyton, ... Sadly they did not make the top 20 here. Feel free to read the pinned comment for more information. Thank you for tuning in
Indeed, when it comes to women in art, it shows a minimal existence of them, the majority being male artists in this selection just shows how sexist this market it is. It will be interesting to see who represents the new generation of women in art and how successful they are.
Very few artists here, if any. These works begin and end as manifestations of ego- centric daubles hence it's appeal to a shallow and ego- centric society.
