Research says artists will become famous through their friends, not through the uniqueness of a 9-minute piece to read.

Research says artists will become famous through their friends, not through the uniqueness of a 9-minute piece to read.

Steve Schapiro
Andy Warhol, Edie Sedgwick and Entourage, New York

Fahey / Klein Gallery

In a 2012 exhibition on the origins of abstraction at the New York Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), curators emphasized the way in which artists may have affect each other. With the title “Inventing the Abstraction: 1910–1925”The show illustrated over 80 artists to move them away from the representative art tradition and unfolded with a large diagram depicting the network to show who has known each other (an interactive version online), with the most connected people, like Pablo Picasso and Wassily Kandinsky, towards the center.

“Inventing the Abstraction: 1910–1925”

What is Abstraction?

The effect used to reflect the image of the subject in the real world. This effect is tricky, and sometimes it takes a bit of a break in using colors, shadows, body language, and other forms of success.

While doing the program with colleagues and curator of the exhibition Leah Dickerman (currently MoMA’s chief editor and content strategist) was partially influenced by the course she took with Columbia Business School professors and Senior Scholar Chazen Paul IngramIt is about how curators can use their professional networks to achieve success. Ingram helped develop the early iteration of the network of abstraction pioneers, and later, he used similar data to embark on a new investigation.

Ingram and colleagues Mitali Banerjee, of HEC Paris, used MoMA’s findings to examine the role of creativity and social media for these artists, in the relationship and level of popularity they gain. In a 2018 article, they forwarded their findings – including those that for successful artists, making friends could be more important than creating novel artwork.


Andy Warhol
Andy Warhol, Photograph of Jean-Michel Basquiat, Bryan Ferry, Julian Schnabel, Jacqueline Beaurang, Paige Powell, and a few others at the party at Julian Schnabel’s apartment, 1985

Hedges Projects

Ingram and Banerjee Begin their research by quantifying the artists’ reputation, creativity and social network “Abstract invention”. To determine the names of each artist, they turned to Google’s database of historical texts in French and English (by artists mainly living in France and the US) and recorded the number of hits. mentioned that each artist had between 1910 and 1925. They were looking in terms of popularity for the artists’ popularity beyond their own social circles, Ingram note, “And we are basically talking [rằng] how often you appear in writing is an indicator of that.

To check the artists’ social networks, they relied on MoMA research, relying on sources such as artist biographies and correspondence to identify relationships. Ingram and Banerjee analyzed the artist’s social circles, which also included data about each artist’s nationality, gender, age, and location, as well as the media they use and the school. they study. (The two did not consider the artists’ exhibition history or the market for their works, despite their future research. Banerjee may include such factors, Ingram to speak.)

In order to understand the creativeness of the artists’ work, they used two methods. First, the two use machine learning to analyze and evaluate the creativity of thousands of artworks by related artists; how unique was the computer program compared to a set of representative works of art from the 19th century. They also asked four art historians to rate the works of art. each artist is about their creativity, based on factors such as originality and innovation. (They found that the scores artists earned from machine learning and art historians were quite correlated.)

What it found

Peer-to-Peer Network of Artists in “Inventing the Abstraction”. With permission from Paul Ingram and Mitali Banerjee.

While previous studies have suggested that there is a link between creativity and popularity, vice versa Ingram and Banerjee found that there is no such correlation for these artists. Instead, artists with a wide and diverse network are more likely to become famous, regardless of how creative their art is.

Specifically, the biggest prerequisite for an artist’s popularity is having a network of relationships from many different countries. Ingram This news indicates that the artist is international and has the ability to reach different markets or develop ideas that are inspired by foreign cultures. He added, “The backbone of the network grid“Is Kandinsky. They also found that popular artists tended to be older, possibly because they were already famous when abstraction was slowly emerging, Ingram explain.

On the creative front, they found that neither the computational nor the expert opinion of art historians were strong signs of an artist’s popularity. In other words, if an artist has a high creative score, they may not be famous.

Ingram to speak: “An important implication of research is to show that diversity networks are not just as important as a source of innovation… but possibly other benefits, he says. emphasize. “That even separates from creativity … artists benefit from an international identity.”

What does it mean

Wassily Kandinsky with a group of artists from Blue Rider. (Image by Fine Art Images / Heritage Images / Getty Images)

With the modern need to meet new people and network in professional sectors to open up career opportunities and advancement and discovery of Ingram and Banerjee not surprising. However, they offer important reminders – that we are not going to be meaninglessly popular and should seek to diversify our social circles.

By illustrating the findings, many researchers pointed to the example of two artists in the group, Vanessa Bell and Suzanne Duchamp. Although neither of them have a family name, they share the same background and have very famous siblings (Virginia Woolf and Marcel Duchamp, respectively), and have a similar creative point – but Bell is more famous.

“Both artists are members of influential artist groups – Suzanne Duchamp is part of the circle Dada while Vanessa Bell is part of the Bloomsbury group, ” the authors write. “However, the social circle of Duchamp limited to Dada artists only; in fact, even in this circle, her best friends are older brothers Marcel, her husband Jean Crotti and artist Francis Picabia, a friend of the family. Vanessa Bell’s social world, by contrast, includes the Bloomsbury group, a broad collection of artists from the London Group, collectors and patrons outside the UK such as Gertrude Stein as well as theater producers and artists affiliated with Les Ballet Russes’s Sergei Diaghilev. ” Ultimately, Bell’s more diverse circles correlate with her greater popularity.

Ingram explain: “What we know from different types of research is that diversity in the networks fosters creativity, which is also important for artists.“. Having such a network makes sense, he added “You can gain a foothold in a market, and be more interesting and remarkable, if you are connected with many other people.“. And while the research focuses on a particular context dating back centuries, he predicts that these findings still hold true for artists today.

Translator: Nam Vu

Source: artsy

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *