founder and chief editor of the reference book "United Art Rating"
Ratings of artists: history and modernity
The following text was translated from the Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been edited.
So it can be used only for general introduction.
"The position of the artistic personality in relation to their colleagues
was always the subject of excitement, envy, and all sorts of passion"
Add the epigraph: the position of the artistic personality in relation to his colleagues it was always a factor, directly affecting the formation of prices works of art. And on the art market rating of creative artists in comparison with the work of their colleagues gets a very specific monetary value, because without this, adequately to define the price of works of art is impossible.
There is another factor pricing how a particular job characteristic or uncharacteristic creativity of its author, it is a good or bad, inspired or, as they say, "checkpoint", in which material is it created, what format, etc. (Let's call this whole set of characteristics of "quality work").
That is the basis of the price of any work of art should to lie the quality and significance of the artist's name. No one is arguing that, but there is the characteristic paradox: as the importance and quality concepts highly conditional even for specialists, and price the concept is unambiguous and clear for all, there is the temptation to rearrange in places cause and effect and consider price the main (if not only) indicator of the artist's significance and quality it works.
A certain logic in this approach, there are undoubtedly, as the art market for many decades (and in some countries and centuries) prices are formed in many auction houses, galleries, salons, etc. and if widely to include all these sales and to compile statistics for them, then theoretically it is possible to understand what the artist is more sought after by collectors, museums and public, a less what a artist of higher quality, some less. And this understanding, in turn, leads to more adequate pricing of the works of this artist. As like to say the supporters of the free market, "the market will correct". It is not surprising that the collection of information about the prices of the sales of works art is a major Western company.
For example, French "Artprice"
collects data of 4.5 million auctions from around the world (while that
The American company "Artnet" is not only aggregates of the auction price, but also cooperates with galleries (and, hence, gives a more detailed picture of the demand and proposals).
Auction house Sotheby's recently bought index Mey-Moses one of the oldest scientific methods to predict the value of works of art. A few decades ago, a University Professor in new York Jianping Mei and Michael Moses analyzed the sale of works over a long period of time, since 1875, and found that overall the growth of prices for works of artists was approximately the same as the growth of the stock market, and the demand for the art was more stable and did not depend on a situation in other markets. These findings are since then used by many analysts of the art market, trying to convince buyers that it is better to buy them than stock.
Not all here, of course, so simple. For example, picture of Pablo Picasso's "head of a woman" in 1935, when after 2 years resold, brought a loss of 20% per annum. But losses can carry and the holders of shares, so that investment risks in the art market is within norm.
To minimize these risks, the Agency for the basis of statistics on sales are the ratings of artists. Nowadays there is no need to explain what the rating is, the word entered our language, and its common sense anyway understood by those who utter it. All give the definition of rating is a numeric or ordinal indicator showing the importance or relevance of a particular object or phenomena.
Such ratings (let's call them "statistical") in the West there are many, and they all, to unfortunately, suffering the same "disease". And not "child", and chronic and so far incurable.
Explain the essence of this "disease" for example, rating, drafted in the 2015 Agency "Skate's Art Market Research" the basis of the information about the price of 10000 of the most expensive works of art, sold at public auction. The "tip" of this ranking looked like this:
1. Pablo Picasso;
2. Andy Warhol;
3. Claude Monet;
4. Francis Bacon;
5. Gerhard Richter;
6. Alberto Giacometti;
7. Mark Rothko;
8. Henri Matisse;
9. Jean-Michel Basquiat;
10. Pierre Auguste Renoir;
11. Amadeo Modigliani;
12. Paul Cezanne;
13. Vincent Van Gogh;
14. Willem de Kooning;
15. Roy Lichtenstein;
16. Joan Miró;
17. Fernand Leger;
18. Jeff Koons;
19. Zhang Datsyan;
20. Edgar Degas;
21. Marc Chagall;
22. Alexander Calder;
23. Paul Gauguin;
24. Gustav Klimt;
25. SAI Twombly...
Looks solid, all the artists are wonderful, collection gorgeous (as they say, good exposure could be obtained). But it's not so simple, and lovers, and especially art historians inevitably, a number of issues. For example, as a representative of the traditional Chinese painting Zhang Datsyan was higher Degas and Chagall? Why is known primarily to specialists Jean-Michel Basquiat was higher by Renoir and van Gogh, and even more narrowly the famous Alexander Calder above, Gauguin and Klimt?
The answer to these questions seems obvious: this is sales statistics. But then you can exclaim after Stanislavsky: "do Not believe!", and not because we have doubts about the fidelity of the source data, the method of their process or the integrity of the creators of the rating. Doubt the completeness and required representativeness of statistical collections. The reasons are many.
First, at least 30% (maybe more) sales goes through auction houses and major galleries with whom we cooperate rating Agency, and through the small gallery, no information about their sales is not providing (unless the tax authorities, but there is usually confidentiality).
Secondly, it is impossible to record data in the private sales for "black cash" (for example, with direct buying a collector from the artist himself, his heirs or other collector). It is 25-30 percent or more.
Third, a few percent of turnover works of art are "off-market" sales (e.g. target the state Museum and the purchase or installation of the monumental sculpture).
Fourth, a large number of works art is not sold, given away, donated, confiscated power structures and t.dIt's 25-30 percent.
It turns out that the statistics of even the most reputable art Agency covers a maximum of 10% market.
Fifth, some artists are represented in the market a large number of works, some small, and some do not presented. Accordingly, we very rarely see in any statistical ratings Gustave Courbet or Delacroix, and especially françois Boucher, Titian or Leonardo da Vinci. And in accordance with the results of the statistics it turns out that as these artists have no (or very few) auction sales, they worse (at least cheaper) de Kooning or Calder. Of course, it is not. And Van Gogh is no worse and no cheaper Basquiat, it simply works on the market much less.
Sixth, the most well-known masterpieces of van Gogh, Gauguin, Monet, and other "textbook" artists a long time ago in museums and the art market appear in the best the case of minor work, and at worst forgeries.
Seventh, should not be considered a purely Russian phenomenon artificially inflated the purchase price to reduce the the taxable base and (or) the receipt by the employee of the company-purchaser of "rollback". In the West, this is also lacking. And the art market creates for such abuse exceptionally fertile soil, as with an enormous diversity works of art to "catch" someone selfish reasons overestimates prices, is very difficult. It had refrigerators or washing machines, there is a clear characteristics, which can assess compliance or noncompliancemarket prices, and on the art market, the price range is very large even for pictures of one and by the same artist. So, an employee of the company, the purchaser can substantiate the report almost any price and then the artist or gallery to "rollback". Therefore, even "absolutely free" prices at auction (and even more in private galleries or in public procurement) is actually not so "free".
Eighth, many buyers by appointment with artists artificially inflate prices just to their collection turned out to be more expensive and thus prestigious artist.
ninth, the market periodically appear works of art,
which is very difficult to find the price equivalent, and then their price is
completely arbitrary. Example the famous "Pink dog" by Jeff Koons,
made up of balloons. She has become a Museum piece, but she's got the author's
replay, only orange, and this "
Tenth, even a clear and reasonable price counterparts is very difficult to bring to a specific work of art. Even similar one and the same author sold in different ways, and their price depends on many reasons: economic situation, place of sale (country, city, auction house and etc.), "mood" in the market, opinions of respected people... And yet we know that more "ordinary" works valued self-portraits, images family members or loved ones of the artist, Nude, work, atypical for this wizard...
And all these problems are even more pronounced, when we move from Western sales statistics to Russian.
first attempt to create something like a "Russian Mayer" was made in
1993, when the sale of the directory "Art Media. Art Moscow`92"
published by the gallery "Art Media LLD" with the assistance of the
all-Russian artistic and restoration center them. Grabar.
This edition, of course same in scope and do not come close to the
"Mayer" that caused data 60 thousands of sales of works of modern and
antique art. But all was published a list of seventy
Of course, this year has been and absurdity, and error. For example, was given the ranking of most expensive paintings twenty contemporary Russian artists in the West, and it included the socialist realist Nikolai Sysoev, known mainly for his "Leniniana". And Yuri Leiderman was named Lieberman, Konstantin Khudyakov S. Khudyakov, Gor Chahal D. Gorchakova, etc. But all this can be corrected in the second edition, and it was expected that the Handbook will be issued 2 times a year. But then the first edition was a no-go, andthe problem there was not editorial, and system: failure and nepredstavleniem statistics.
If The West stats, as we showed above, covers about 10% of the art market, us due to the prevalence of deals for "black cash" at best on the order less, and at worst two orders of magnitude. And from data covering less than 1% of the market, a representative sample will not receive.
No wonder that appear repeatedly in the last two decades such books, despite the stated the periodicity disappeared shortly after. I remember approximately in the mid-2000s, the author of these lines on the counter saw one of them (to unfortunately, the name already forgotten, but I remember the claim of the editorial Board for the role "Russian Mayer") and revealed the letter "O", because shortly before consulted by a collector about the work of Alexander Osmerkin and decided to see maybe there's some new data on sales of his works? But Osmerkin in this "Russian" Mayer was not, but it was attended by Sergey Osmachkin. I relate well to the work of this Samara photographer, but since were not looking for it, and the classics of Russian art The twentieth century, to be honest, once I closed this book and as you can see, I forgot her name.
And buyers, too, everybody understands and "vote ruble". In other words, incompleteness and the inaccuracy of statistical reference books will inevitably lead to their loss.
In The Internet the cost of publishing is much less than the "paper" publications, and the loss ratio there is not so critical. For example, for many years the Russian the website "Artinvestment.ru" who can afford non-commercial projects among the collection of General statistics by sales and calculate ratings based on of this statistic.
Looks all this is very solid:
"Artinvestment.ru" handles auction prices for Russian painters and
graphic artists, and not only Western, but and internal, and on this basis
calculates the price indices for specific artists. These indices reflect annual
changes in the average auction prices of a fragment of the "conventional
painting" the artist at auction in
It looks very solid, but the problems are inadequate source data for calculation and the complexity of the approximation of "analog" to a specific work of art that requires evaluation. And these problem are impossible to solve in Western terms, or in Russian.
Butsome no the stats are still there, and immediately are tempted to count on its basis ratings, although serious and representative to call them as impossible as the original data on the basis of which they are created.
For example, the "tip" of the rating "Top-100 Russian artists" from the website "Artinvestment.ru" (this and all other mentioned in this article Internet rankingsgiven as of the end of April 2017). Everything seems to be clear, logical and transparently on the website even displayed (with up to a dollar let alone more impressive!) the price of the work on the basis of which the rating was calculated.
1. Mark Rothko (86 882 496 USD);
2. Kazimir Malevich (60 002 500 USD);
3. Chaim Soutine (28 165,000 USD);
4. Wassily Kandinsky (23 319 500 USD);
5. Alexei Jawlensky (18 515 688 USD);
6. Valentin Serov (14 554 892 USD);
7. Marc Chagall (13 003 750 USD);
8. Nicholas Roerich (12 137 125 USD);
9. Natalia Goncharova (10 890 964 USD);
10. Nicholas Feshin (10 866 388 USD);
11. Nicolas de Stael (9 434 627 USD);
12. Tamara de Lempicka (8 482 500 USD);
13. Ilya Repin (7 393 148 USD);
14. Konstantin Somov (7 331 668 USD);
15. Ilya Mashkov (7 891 299 USD);
16. Boris Kustodiev (7 063 619 USD);
17. Vasily Polenov (6 396 632 USD);
18. Yuri Annenkov (6 286 727 USD);
19. Vasily Vereshchagin (6 654 140 USD);
20. Zinaida Serebriakova (5 898 615 USD);
21. Ilya Kabakov (5 839 781 USD);
22. Vladimir Baranov-Rossine (5 375 804 USD);
23. Ivan Aivazovsky (5 217 819 USD);
24. Vladimir Borovikovsky (5 015 189 USD);
25. Alexander Yakovlev (4 636 550 USD);
26. Alexander Rodchenko (4 554 531 USD);
27. Mikhail Larionov (4 463 726 USD);
28. Sonia Delaunay (4 344 920 USD);
29. Mikhail Nesterov (4 296 000 USD);
30. Konstantin Makovsky (4 217 184 USD);
31. Vera Rokhlin (4 052 165 USD);
32. Mikhail Klodt (4 020 775 USD);
33. Pavel Kuznetsov (3 962 889 USD);
34. Boris Grigoriev (3 722 500 USD);
35. Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin (3 636 403 USD);
36. Liubov Popova (3 521 395 USD);
37. Aristarkh Lentulov (3 521 395 USD);
38. Alexander Deineka (3 450 313 USD);
39. Ivan Shishkin (3 628 323 USD);
40. Isaac Levitan (3 305 033 USD)...
In General, about this rating you can say the same thing about the above rating Agency "Skate's Art Market Research": all artists wonderful selection of gorgeous, good exposure could happen but there are a number of issues. For example, as Nicolas de Stael and Tamara de Lempicka was higher Repin and Borovikovsky? Baranov-Rossine the above Aivazovsky? Vera Rokhlin above Petrov-Vodkin, Deineka, Shishkin and Levitan? Carl Briullov, Alexei Venetsianov, Vasily Surikov, or in the "top hundred" and all not included...
Maybe it's just the results of sales known to the drafters of the rating? Maybe. But why then it was call this list a rating, claiming the status of "Top 100 Russian artists"? A call so it is not surprising that any more or less versed in the art of man, seeing that Rothko was the greatest Russian artist, de Lempicka "eclipsed" by Repin and Levitan, and roars, Brullov, Venetsianov, Perov and Surikov didn't even receive entry into the "upper hundred", just shrug and don't react to this rating as something quite serious.
The same can be said about several other rankings, which are based on the same grains information about auction sales is the site "Artinvestment.EN" (and there are ratings and living artists, and "the sixties" and the so-called "contemporary artists", women artists).
There are even more controversial
"statistical ratings" than listed on the site
"Artinvestment.EN". For example, in 2014, the ranking of "the 40
most expensive contemporary Russian artists fromnow
living" printed newspaper "The Art Newspaper
Everything seems to be too looks solid, but in the end that's what happened:
1. Ilya Kabakov (2 932 500 GBP);
2. Eric Bulatov (1 084 500 GBP);
3. Vitaly Komar and Alexander Melamid (657 250 GBP);
4. Simon Faibisovich (311 200 GBP);
5. Grigory Bruskin (424 000 GBP);
6. Oleg Tselkov (238 406 GBP);
7. Oscar Rabin (171 939 GBP);
8. Zurab Tsereteli (151 250 GBP);
9. Victor Brewers (145 GBP 250);
10. Alexander Melamid (145 GBP 250);
11. Francisco Infante-Arana (142 400 GBP);
12. Vladimir Yankilevsky (133 GBP 250);
13. Alexander Vinogradov and Vladimir Dubossarsky (132 000 GBP);
14. Sergei Volkov (132 000 GBP);
15. Group "AES+F" (120 500 GBP);
16. Leo Tabenkin (117 650 GBP);
17. Olga Bulgakov (100 876 GBP);
18. Sergey Tkachev and Alexey Tkachev (97 935 GBP);
19. Alexander Ivanov (97 250 GBP);
20. Ivan Chuikov (96 500 GBP);
21. Konstantin Zvezdochetov (92 446 GBP);
22. Natalia Nesterova (92 388 GBP);
23. Maxim Kantor (87 650 GBP);
24. Andrew Sidersky (90 000 GBP);
45. Alexei Morozov (35 000 GBP);
46. Mikhail Shemyakin (34 450 GBP)...
We see those same problem as with the rating of the site "Artinvestment.EN". If it were not the names "leaderboard" and "Top 50", it would have been more or less fine, although all still the question arises, why Ilya Kabakov, the only artist within both the above list, so very different auction data ("Artinvestment.EN" 5.8 million dollars,"The Art Newspaper Russia" 2.9 million British pounds, ie, about $ 4 million at the exchange rate in 2016). More precisely, it is not even the question is, and more proof of the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the initial data for these ratings.
But since the magazine's list of "The Art
For example, the fact that Alexander Ivanov
(1962 abstract year of birth is known primarily as a businessman, collector and
the Creator of the
And that Alexei Morozov (sculptor and painter born in 1974) "has overtaken" Michael Shemyakin.
And that this rating is Olga Bulgakova (the
newspaper called her a corresponding member of the The Russian Academy of arts
(RAA), she's actually already in 2012 academic), but not her husband, Alexander
Sitnikov, a classic of Soviet "recusancy," and now also the
academician of the
And that can we actually compare the sales of Grigory Bruskin and Oleg Tselkova (artists mostly auction) and Zurab Tsereteli (artist mainly unauctioned), and solely on this basis, to put Bruskin and Tselkova ahead Tsereteli.
And that in this ranking do not exist Sergey Andriaka, Ilya Glazunov, Pavel Nikonov, Tair Salakhov or Alexander Shilov (all of these artists can be treated in different ways, but in any case, their work is hardly cheaper than. Tkachev, Zvezdochetova or Sidorskogo).
And that in this ranking (as well as all ratings based on auction and gallery statistics) do not exist for those sculptors, monumental art, which are not put up for sale your pictorial, graphic or sculptural easel work. It turns out that Andrey Kovalchuk, Alexander Rukavishnikov, or George Frangulyan for the creators of such ratings generally would not exist.
In short, I can not agree with so many that we can only shrug our shoulders and to treat this rating as something serious. From such a rating even good exposure is unlikely to succeed. Well, say thanks to its creators at least nuggets of information on the auction sales.
And here's another one is "fresh" (presented in 2017) "statistical rating". Releases its "National rating Agency" (generalist the organization ranked banks, insurance companies, etc., and now artists). Is the Agency in the framework of the project "InArt" has developed two rating artists: "the Top 100 recognized authors" and "Top 100 young authors". Ratings calculated on the basis of complex mathematical models for 38 indicators, among which is the total volume of auction sales, exhibition activity of the author,received award and so While museums, auctions, galleries ranked by classes, and each class has its criterion weight. Therefore, the results for to the creators of the rating, "applying the maximum objectivity."
But just look at "top" of this "objective ranking of the 100 most recognized authors."
1. Ilya Kabakov;
2. Eric Bulatov;
3. Group "AES+F";
4. Olga Chernysheva;
5. Irina Nakhova;
6. Olga Kiselyova;
7. Valery Koshlyakov;
8. Vladimir Dubosarsky;
9. Paul Pepperstein;
10. Alexander Vinogradov;
11. Aidan Salakhova;
12. Natalya Nesterova;
13. Nikita Alexeev;
14. Elena Kovylina;
15. Diana Matchoulina;
16. Igor Mukhin;
17. Marina Koldobskaya;
18. Valery and Natalia Cherkashin;
20. Anatoly Osmolovsky;
21. Natalia Danberg;
22. Konstantin Zvezdochetov;
23. Tatyana Nazarenko;
24. Alexey Kallima;
25. Vitaly Pushnitsky;
26. Georgy Litichevsky;
27. George Kisenwether;
28. Alexei Kostroma;
29. Tatiana Antoshina;
30. Konstantin Batynkov;
31. Sergei Shutov;
32. Leonid Sokov;
33. Maxim Kantor;
34. Taisia Korotkova;
35. Alexandra Paperno;
36. Sergei Shekhovtsov;
37. Andrei Roiter;
38. Olga Tobreluts;
39. Dmitry Gretsky;
40. Dmitry Bulnygin...
So, with the permission to say "Top 100" even as you do not want to quibble over "details" like that Alexander Vinogradov and Vladimir Dubossarsky was "separated", and between them "wedged" Pavel Pepperstein. And even to that Mish-Mash (in the world Mikhail Leikin and Maria Sumnina) and Natalia danberg was higher Tatyana Nazarenko. Just again remember Zurab Tsereteli, Tahir Salahov, Alexander Shilov, Ilya Glazunov, Andrei Kovalchuk, Alexander Rukavishnikov, Sergei Andriyaka, George Frangulyan...AK a man not related to these artists they have exhibitions of hundreds, if not thousands, and huge sales volumes, and references in Media a lot... Remember them and try to find among this "Top 100". You will not find it.
Well, if someone thinks that Olga Tobreluts more recognized than Oscar Rabin and Dmitry Bulnygin than Zurab Tsereteli, arguing with them is pointless. Remains just shrug your shoulders.
After this "Top 100 award-winning photographers" I didn't want to talk about published by the same Agency the rating "Top-100 young artists" (the first three Tatyana Akhmetgalieva, Evgeny Antufiev and Sasha Pirogova). Sure, why not Akhmetgalieva, Antufiev and Pirogov? Only here Leykin, Comninou and danberg too old will not name, and they already hit the "Top 100 recognized", Tatiana Nazarenko pushed back, and Zurab Tsereteli and is replaced... Can we seriously to perceive any rating method "InArt"?
From what we have seen above, we can conclude: if West statistical rankings provide a semblance seriousness, representativeness and compliance with the foundations of art history (although and then, as we have seen, there are many questions), concerning the Russian statistical rankings that it is impossible to say. Even the visibility is not ensured.
In principle, it was already clear in the early 1990-ies, and then literally we came to the conclusion that the only possible principle of rating on the Russian art market are not recording and processing of statistics, and expert an evaluation of the ability and taking into account information about sales. Such evaluations allow to determine directly the base characteristics the significance of the artist's name and the quality of his work and the basis to calculate the recommended prices for works of art.
Now many believe that the first ranking based on expert evaluations, has become presented in the 1999 reference book "United art rating". But really it is not so. It was the first (and so far, unfortunately last) serious and long-lasting rating. But attempts to create "expert rating" were made earlier in 1999.
Maybe to be, someone will remember "list Gelman". But he was not the first. The first (in any case, the memory of the author of this article) such an attempt was made by the owner gallery "With'Art" Peter voice (seals). Somewhere in the beginning nineties he invited to his gallery several distinguished experts and invited each of them to write a list of the best to experts, contemporary artists. Then based on these lists, Peter was going to calculate the scores and uses them to reduce called experts artists rating. But something in him then "grow together" (maybe these lists have survived, and now, a quarter century later, they already have a Museum value).
Well, then, year around 1995, there was the infamous "list Gelman". Marat Gelman then came the idea of two lists "the national elite". In the first, officially referred to as the "project of organizing a market for contemporary art", includes 30 artists who, in the opinion of the gallerist, was the only noteworthy public museums, galleries and media, and also financial support. And the second list was even more global by design: it was to include one thousand of the most influential politicians in the country.
But the question we have about the rating
artists. The defendants in the "list Gelman", probably, do not
remember now even Marat himself (don't know whether to keep this list at least
in manuscript, and, if so, could also be a Museum exhibit). The author of this
article remembered only one of Marlen Spindler (by the way, really great the
artist-nonconformist, already seriously ill and soon deceased), and remember
just because around the same time the film came out Stephen Spielberg's
"Schindler's List" and "list Gelman" in consonance called
"Spindler's list". Well, I guess there was IlyaKabakov, Erik Bulatov
and Oskar Rabin how could a staunch modernist Gelman do without them? And who
is there just was not, is Zurab Tsereteli (at this time he how made in
But something is not "grow together" and Marat Gelman (perhaps the rating methodology was too primitive, and the other to develop he did not become carried away with new projects for example, such as primitive compiled by "rating neo-fascists").
So that the whole resonance (both positive and negative) from the introduction of new market instruments expert rating artists fell on the share of the reference book "United art rating" (EXP) and the author of this article as its founder and editor-in-chief.
As for a negative resonance, he was linkedbefore just not with the rating methodology, but with the possibility of ranking artists. Now this may sound ridiculous, but many leaders artistic life believed that bankers or athletes to rate you can, and artists is impossible.
So as not to seem unfounded, remember published in 2000 on the site "Artinfo.ru" open the letter then called "letter of five", as it was signed the heads of the five largest (and at that time much more authoritative than it is now) art organizations. It was:
A. I. Komech, the Director of the State Institute of art studies;
Z. K. Tsereteli,
A. I. Morozov, the Chairman of the Association of art critics (AIS);
V. M. Sidorov, Chairman of the Union of
V. A. Bubnov, Chairman of the Moscow Union of artists (USDA).
The signature is given in the order in which was located the letter. However, it turned out that Alex Ilyich Komech actually this letter is not signed, but four signatures exactly stood. Sorry, I saw the original of this letter only briefly to find him now he, too, could become a Museum piece... the Author and collector of signatures for its repeated personal statements, was known in while art historian, academician of the Russian Academy of ARTS Maria Andreevna chegodaeva, and who, as they say, "it was", I guess, but after so many years of not I want to say guesswork.
As mentioned in this the letter literally (all italics belong to the author of the letter):
"We put in popularity primarily artists, as well as all interested individuals collectors, gallery owners, employees museums and exhibition halls, patrons, sponsors, etc. Proposed Rating by centre (i.e. the editorial Board of the Handbook "Unified artistic rating" S. Z.) the idea of having a "rating" met with a very negative attitude of professionalswas rejected fundamentally as deeply flawed, initially completely arbitrary and obviously biased; having the nature of advertising designed in favor of someone's commercial interests or personal preferences, on the basis of arbitrary subjective assessments of individuals by anyone not authorized to hang on artists labels, thereby predetermining their fates. No references to the need to regulate the art market may not be justified attempt to reduce art to level of commoditieslisted in the trade catalogs according to GOST, market value and consumer demand. Such a practice, it can be taking place anywhere in the world, in rootcontrary to the humanistic traditions of the Russian culture... We are deeply angered immoral behavior of the members of the Rating center, their blatant attempt to mislead artists and a wide range of people interested in the fate of contemporary Russian art".
And then, in early 2001, the TV channel "
Probably, opponents rating sincerely hoped to intimidate its initiator. But in the end, as is often the it happens in the art world, they only made the EXP is great. And one might have hoped to intimidate the man who, although he was a a professional artist, a student of Tatiana Mavrina, but the restless and cruel time the 1990s- was engaged in business as a Director of subsidiary company one of the largest Russian banks Tokobank? If all sorts of "attacks" and "bandit hands" at the time, not intimidated, was it possible to be scared"letter of five" and a hoot harmless delegates of the Ministry of agriculture?
Besides the reference book "United art rating" was officially registered as a media Professional Union of artists of Russia, that is, any attack on him could be regarded as obstructing the activities of the media and interference in trade Union activities, which, by law, is independent from the Executive authorities, local authorities, political parties and other public associations, they are not accountable and controlled. Anyway,no judicial prospects opponents ranking was not, and "real" court no one ever rating is not filed.
Justice to say that many voices were heard not only "against EXP", and "for". For example, the Patriarch of Russian art criticism, the honored worker of arts of Russia Anatoly M. Kantor wrote:
"Rating in the area arts the most natural
and apparently most desired, whatever said his opponents, more worried about
the "artists labeled" (politicians and TV presenters can, not
artists). But the main problem lies in the fact that without all the rankings
hang on artist labels without it, there is not art criticism. The rating was in
the art world of
Such ratings have and in every gallery and every Museum, everywhere, where you buy and sell works of art. Such ratings exist in academic institutions, academies, art centres. Here they are not called ratings and usually wear a 'party' character, in their basis the division artists into "us" and "them", "those" and "other", "traditional" and the "modern". From the point of view of art and its history such a division pointless, but defend it with ferocity and uncompromising zeal, because without it the very existence of "centers" has no meaning and justification. Hence such excitement rating.
Meanwhile, it is split art at "the party" requires a single, overall rating does not know the parties and directions. It begs for a long time, especially due to the split can not be art history to write, no exposition of how to arrange, not to sell or to buy at a reasonable price.
Another reason the need for a common rating in
Of course, that every rating is accused of arbitrariness and subjectivity of assessments. Otherwise it can not be, because any evaluation of art and art criticism is subjective and therefore arbitrary. But the meaning any analysis is that it confirms and justifies conclusion intuitive judgments of taste. Without that intuitive judgments are not sense no justification. Checking the correctness of the judgment of taste first, the unity of the collegial judgement of the independent professional jury, and second, the time test the validity of this assessment. (My italics Sz)
Finally, "terrible" question dictated by bureaucratic indignation: who authorized independent the jury? The answer is clear: because it is independent and that no one was authorized. Otherwise, we will ask who commissioned Diderot to talk about Chardin and Greuze, who authorized Stasov, Alexander Benois, Jacob Tugendhold, Anatoly Bakushinskii judge the ways of Russian art.
Rating form criticism the time of formation
of art market in
And here's what he wrote doctor of arts, Professor Viktor Martynov:
"Criticism the initiatives of the Rating Center of the Professional Union of artists has a expressed ambitious, crudely masked by the opinion of a "most experts" that, not bothering to analytical assumptions, define the idea of the rating as deeply flawed, initially arbitrary and clearly biased having advertising character, designed for the sake of someone else commercial interests or personal preferences, on the basis of arbitrary subjective evaluations of individuals by anyone not authorized (here she, the "Soviet mentality" permit may be the only CC?), hang on artists labels....
The horror! Some "evil people" of the
Objective the need of structuring the artistic process in our country in the modern period can be felt in the medium and the artists themselves and patrons, sponsors, gallery owners, critics, and audience of the public. It the time requirement is due to implementation of methods of the exact Sciences in the field Humanities, the development of the creativity of new information technologies."
Give words and classic "non-conformist" art critic William Mayland:
"Practice shows that the rating is a little scary of successful people who are confident in yourself and your business. And nervous, scurrying around and shouting, as a rule, those who are not very well know what doing that is incapable of introspection and calm assessment of artistic phenomena.
A rating is not a lady the judgment of the artist on himself or a friendly favor to the individual comrades... the Rating is primarily a judgment expert, professional judgment based on knowledge and experience communication with art.
In a sense rating is a process and it's an incentive for the development of the artist. Conversely, if the ego is pathologically prejudiced if there is, God forbid, delusions of grandeur or any such deviation, the inevitable consequences, namely, the transfer of creative efforts in the field of intrigue and administrative thinking in a dubious area of the squabbles and anger, the result of which is first of all the creative impotence".
It and many other friendly feedback. But the end of "antiretroval campaign" whether put, whether marked the letter dated 27 September 2002:
"The Chairman of the
Professional Union of artists S. V. Zagraevsky. Mr Wolfowitz! Please accept my heartfelt
gratitude for the reference book "United art rating", which, of
course, it is of great interest and will be very useful in my practical work. I
wish You success, prosperity and happiness. Your M. E. Shvydkoi, Minister of culture of the
What was and still is the method of EXP?
Before any idea of any of the expert rating Russian artists began to "slip" when required to reduce successful and famous (i.e. deserving of being on the "top" rating) "innovators" and "traditionalists". Indeed, to put next to Ilya Kabakov's and Zurab Tsereteli, Erik Bulatov and Alexander Shilov, Natalia and Ilya Nesterov Glazunov, Leonid Berlin and Lev Kerbel, of course, it is possible, but would look to put it mildly, strange. Probably why Peter voice and Marat Gelman refused to continue work on their ratings.
But the author of this article in 1998, literally in my sleep came up with the idea: what if the "innovators" and "traditionalists" do not mix and create them if not individual ratings, a separate rating category?
And appeared in the EXP category "A" and "b". The artist category "A" (indicated by the first letter of the word "vanguard") primarily focused on the latest trends in the visual arts; the artist category (indicated by the first letter of the word "popular") is preferably focused on tradition, to work in accordance with the state and social order.
Since EXP is not conceived as "Top 50" or "Top 100", but as a Toolkit covering the entire art market, had to give up the strict order of "first, second, third, twenty - second, thirty-third..." and proceed to assign to each (that's each, without exceptions) the artist of one of the 10 rating levels combined with the letter "a" or "In". Here's how in the end, called rating category:
1 the artist world fame, tested with time (for more than a century).
1A an artist of world renown.
1B the artist world fame with outstanding organizational skills.
2A artist professional high class with a strong creative personality.
2B artist professional high class with outstanding managerial abilities unquestioned demand and popularity.
3A artist professional high class with a recognizable individual style.
3V artist-high-class professional, recognized and in demand in the art market and public.
And so further, up to category 10 artist-student.
And inside categories artists distributed just alphabetically. No "first", "second", "th"...
Single art rating includes artists of the two-dimensional space (painters, graphic, poster artist, theatre artists, Battiston, illustrators, animators, etc.) and artists in three-dimensional space (sculptors, jewelers, ceramists, porcelain, authors of installations etc.). In it highlighted two sections:
Russian art rating (United rating of artists of Russian Empire, USSR, "Russian abroad", the Russian Federation and republics of the former Soviet Union), about 51200 artists;
International art rating (all-world rating of artists XVIIIXXI centuries, forming the world art heritage). It includes artists of the three highest categories (i.e. 1, 1A,1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B).Represented Australia, Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Bulgaria, Bolivia, Brazil, Great Britain, Hungary, Venezuela, Germany, Holland, Greece, Denmark, Israel, India, Spain, Italy, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Russia and the republics of the former Soviet Union, republics of the former Yugoslavia, Romania, USA, Turkey, Finland, France, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Sweden, South Africa, Japan and other countries. On the basis of the International art rating is created the Internet project "the Greatest artists the world of the XVIIIXXI centuries" (about 10500 artists).
In the section "Russian art rating" included artists, related to levels 1 through 6 in the section "international art rating" to the levels 1 to 3.
Association in EXP modern artists and craftsmen all over the world XVIIIXX centuries decides the following tasks:
cultural-historical: the creation of a broad information base the artists and the determination of the place of each artist in the history of art;
social: protection of artists and customers from unfair transactions;
macroeconomicstabilisation of the market of the modern art by aligning it with the Antiques market and issue price recommendations;
awareness: overcoming the "psychological barrier" between contemporary art and "old masters";
international: comparison of art from different peoples and countries, positioning of Russian art in the international context.
Work over rated leads Rating center of the Professional Union of artists Russia, consisting of art historians and art critics, the status of which the professional jury, free in its judgments and estimates. Definition of rating categories is made on the basis public information about expositions, collections and sales of works art, catalogues and publications in the press and on the Internet, biographies of artists, the opinions of critics and art-managers, surveys of public opinion, any other information gleaned from open and public sources.
When ranking priority level art of works, their humanistic significance. Criteria include professionalism, active exhibition activity, availability of works in museums, known to the public, galleries and art critics in Russia and abroad, public and civil the significance of works, MERCHANTABILITY and price level of works.
The style itself not provided evaluation criterion. All rating categories are combined artists of all styles, trends and schools. Professionalism of the artist refers to the ability to use all necessary means plastic claimcctb forI achieve artistic goals. The presence of galleries and art managers, exclusive of "promoting" one or the other artist, as well as the consistently high price of his work, can be a reason to boost his rating. Age, state and public awards, prizes, titles, ranks, titles and positions of the artists counted in the ratings, but may not be a sufficient reason to raise or lower the rating. This applies to the achievements of artists in other fields.
Here some examples in order to learn about what artists are what categories rated:
1 Ivan Aivazovsky, Karl Bryullov, Ilya Repin and 189 artists;
1A Kazimir Malevich, Alexander Rodchenko, Zinaida Serebryakova and 130 artists;
1V Isaac Brodsky, Yevgeny Vuchetich, Alexander Gerasimov and 155 artists;
2A Yuri Annenkov, Eric Bulatov, Ilya Kabakov, Alexander Labas and 976 artists;
2B Ilya Glazunov, Lev Lagorio, Zurab Tsereteli and Alexander Shilov and 998 artists;
3A Albina Akritas, Varvara Bubnova, Leo Lankinen, May Miturich-Khlebnikov and 3512 artists;
3B Fyodor Buchholz, Alexander Litovchenko, Leonid Soifertis, Evgeny Charushin and 4561 artist;
4A Anatoly Belkin, Lev Zhemchuzhnikov, Aron Zinshtein, Clara Kalinycheva and 7974 artist;
4B Viktor gubko, Boris Diodorov, Yuri Zloty, Grigory Yastrebenetsky and 10658 artists...
Total EXP now includes 60128 artists. Reference has already endured 23 printed release, their combined circulation was more than 90,000 copies. Also available in an electronic version directory.
And yet, very importantly, in EXP with the aim of social protection of professional artists, their heirs, art-managers and buyers are given price guidance for the sale and acquisition of works of art. Prices are "tied" to the same rating category.
In General speaking, if there is a clear and reasonable system of categories, to develop pricing recommendations (at least at the level recommended social low, as in EXP) turns into a purely technical (although still very difficult) question.
In short, EXP, as they say, she lives and works. Any monopoly position it never claimed, and its founder has repeatedly said to colleagues: don't like methodology EXP create your ratings and promote them! Nobody questioned the usefulness of the ratings for the art market, no one will to sign up against any "letter of five" and kick you from the creative unions, so the path is open, go for it!
But somehow it is not the creators of new ratings. Whether the authority of the "United art rating" is too much pressure, or more effective methods that no one yet can not develop. Let's see, what else there are expert ratings, except for EXP.
Since 2004, several times published the "Top 20 most influential artists in the Russian art." Published his first journal "ArtChronika", then (after this log was stopped) the website Artguide. There are three "the professional jury of the rating" in one of them are journalists and art critics, the second collectors and staff of museums and art centers third artists. Experts offered two lists for voting: one of them are the curators, Museum staff, gallery owners, publishers,art managers, etc., in other the artists. The results of the voting are exhibited points, and the amount of the determined position in the ranking.
Everything looks very solid, but what happens in the end? What artists, according to the website Artguide, are the most influential? For example, data for the year 2015:
1. Peter Pavlensky;
2. Paul Pepperstein;
3. Eric Bulatov;
4. Irina Nakhova;
5. Evgeny Antufiev;
6. Group "AES+F";
7. Irina Corina;
8. Anatoly Osmolovsky;
9. Dmitry Gutov;
10. Yuri Albert;
11. Elena Elagina and Igor Makarevich;
12. Ilya and Emilia Kabakov;
13. Andrei Monastyrsky;
14. Andrei Filippov;
15. Vadim Zakharov;
16. Boris Mikhailov;
17. Arseniy Zhilyaev;
18. Olga Chernysheva;
19. Gregory Bruskin;
20. Sergey Bratkov.
So. It turns out that Pavel Pepperstein influential Erik Bulatov, Irina Korina Ilya Kabakov, and Peter Pavlensky generally influential of all. Well, the degree of influence of the President Russian Academy of ARTS Zurab Tsereteli or the Chairman of the Union of artists of Russia Andrei Kovalchuk, apparently, even before Sergei Bratkov does not hold...
All it would be funny if it were not so sad. Going after not one, but three "professional jury", voted, then they the voices are processed, then the results are published, all this wasted time and power...
And here is the rating according to the website "Archiv" (artchive.ru). Everything looks even more impressive. Stated huge figure 70608 artists. However, with their list to see is impossible (which is already causing some suspicion), but you can choose the country and region and see the rating of local artists, and it is possible and common, global to say.
1. Ilya Repin;
2. Rembrandt van Rijn;
3. Joaquin Sorolla (Sorolla);
4. Edgar Degas;
5. Mikhail Vrubel;
6. Hieronymus Bosch...
Well, and so on. Not knowing what attitude to
1. Hieronymus Bosch;
2. Odilon Redon;
4. Frida Kahlo;
5. Zinaida Serebryakova;
6. Nikolai Modorov (this artist really from
7. Yakov Shapovalov (
8. Valentin Serov;
9. Paul Cezanne...
"Regional ratings of artists" all clear, left to look at the overall rating:
1. Edgar Degas;
2. Claude Monet;
3. Vincent Van Gogh;
4. Isaac Levitan;
5. Mikhail Vrubel;
6. Ilya Repin;
7. Rembrandt van Rhine;
8. Pierre Auguste Renoir;
9. Gustav Klimt;
10. Pablo Picasso;
11. Alphonse Mucha;
12. Alexander Khakimov...
Probably "their" artists can be promoted. But not to bethe same degree to put them right for Alfons Mucha!..
Some websites give a rating of only those artists they checked in and sell through them. For example, made on "Artonline.ru":
1. Pavel Efanov;
2. Alexey Shalaev;
3. Alexander Sarychev;
4. Robert Andersen;
5. Victor Merkushev...
And on the website of the Ukrainian "Independent producer centre Boyko" given "operational rating" of artists with whom this production center:
2. Vitaly Tarasov;
5. Vladislav Metelkin...
At least, such ratings are more honest than "global" in which Peter Pavlensky is influential Zurab Tsereteli and Alexander Khakimov immediately after you Alphonse Flies...
Comment on another expert survey, presented recently, in April of this year. It's called "Russian investment art rating 49ART" and, according to the statement its founders createdto increase public interest in modern Russian art and more investment attractiveness is part of the program "Russian Art Quality", aimed at promoting contemporary Russian art for a wide audience and promoting the Russian art market is brand new tool of an estimation of investment attractiveness creativity of contemporary artists that have no analogues on the market today art.
Again, we see a lot beautiful words (however, in which them out a little?). And the experts which gathered (at least, according to the creators of the rating "49ART") Joseph Backstein, Leonid Bazhanov, Alice Bagdonaite, Alexander Borovsky, Marina Gisich and a number of members of the Museum community, artists, gallerists, curators. Even the Director of the Russian representation of "Christie's" Matthew Stevenson is included in this list.
And what artists, on the opinion of respected experts, have the greatest investment appeal?
1. Victor Alimpiev (1973 year of birth);
2. Evgeny Antufiev (1986);
3. Art group "Recycle" (created in 2008);
4. Art group Elikuka (created in 2007);
5. "Art-group ZIP" (created in 2009);
6. Tatiana Akhmetgalieva (1983);
7. Peter White (1971);
8. Alex Buldakov (1980);
9. Rinat Voligamsi (1968);
10. Aslan Gaisumov (1991);
11. Ilya Gaponov (1981);
12. Ivan Gorshkov (1986);
13. Alexander Dashevsky (1980);
14. Ilya Dolgov (1984);
15. Anna Acorn (1981);
16. Arseniy Zhilyaev (1984);
17. Julia Zastava (1982);
18. Alexey Kallima (1969);
19. Irina Korina (1977);
20. Taisia Korotkova (1980);
21. Egor Koshelev (1980);
22. Olga Croitor (1986);
23. Kirill Who (1984);
24. Andrey Kuzkin (1979);
25. Vlad Kulkov (1986)...
As we see, the founders and experts this rating has decided to focus on the works of young artists declaring them a more attractive investment than the "hyped" ( and is clearly preferred by experts "49ART" category "A" for EXP, Andresidential Kabakov, Erik Bulatov, Natalia Nesterov, Grigory Bruskin, etc.). Well, the promotion of youth, even if "their" is a noble, nothing say. Moreover, the theory of attachment in a young and little-known artist maybe in a few decades to bring large dividends when (or rather if) this artist will become famous.
In theory this is true, but in practice investors generally invest the money primarily in the "unwound", there is a "proven" artists. And not because investors inert thinking or they are afraid of "long" investments, but because the young artist is famous may not be.
As we saw them and see young, talented, budding... Tnly then, unfortunately, most of them somewhere, and from hundreds of beginners on the art market remain one.Someone throws creativity in the family reasons (e.g. getting married, giving birth to children, and it becomes not art), someone- for reasons financial (for example, finds a more reliable source income), some for reasons of purely personal (for example, becomes an inveterate drunkard, to unfortunately, not uncommon among the "Bohemian youth"), someone just change life circumstances (e.g. moving to another town or country)... And "the art group" even less stable than the "art of personality". For example, quarreled, parted, and wept money investors...
So prevalent in rating "49ART" a call to investors to invest in young artists although it looks impressive, but from the point of view of reliability of investments more than doubtful. Questionable youth and many are listed in this ranking artists for example, Rinat Voligamsi and Alexei Kallima under 50...
And if so, then this the rating is unlikely to be taken seriously by investors and will remain a tool (and not the most effective) "promotion" a few of "their" artists. Is such a result is the effort of the founders and experts?
In the West attempts the creation of the expert ratings are also taken. For example, his version "Top 200 artists of the twentieth century" presented in 2011, the newspaper "times" in partnership with the gallery "Saatchi". However, the "expert" this rating can be called only conditionally, because the results were obtained through a survey of more than 1.4 million readers of the newspaper. So to speak, "the voice of the people".
Here's a "tip" this rating;
1. Pablo Picasso;
2. Paul Cezanne;
3. Gustav Klimt;
4. Claude Monet;
5. Marcel Duchamp;
6. Henri Matisse;
7. Jackson Pollock;
8. Andy Warhol;
9. Willem de Kooning;
10. Piet Mondrian;
11. Paul Gauguin;
12. Francis Bacon;
13. Robert Rauschenberg;
14. Georges Braque;
15. Wassily Kandinsky;
16. Constantin Brancusi;
17. Kazimir Malevich;
18. Jasper Johns;
19. Frida Kahlo;
20. Martin Kippenberger;
21. Paul Klee;
22. Egon Schiele;
23. Donald Judd;
24. Bruce Nauman;
25. Alberto Giacometti;
27. Auguste Rodin;
28. Mark Rothko;
29. Edward Hopper;
30. Lucian Freud;
45. Roy Lichtenstein;
46. Edvard Munch;
47. Pierre-Auguste Renoir;
50. Cindy Sherman;
51. Jeff Koons;
52. Tracey Emin;
53. Damien Hirst;
54. Yves Klein;
55. Henri Rousseau;
56. Chaim Soutine;
57. Archil Gorki;
58. Amedeo Modigliani...
The ability of the newspaper The
times poll, almost half a million people, of course, deserves respect. But no more. If these "elected for two hundred"
was located in alphabetical order more wherever he went, but again we see the
ranking on the principle of "first, second, twenty-second...", and
again there are questions similar have not once asked us. As, for example,
could Willem de Kooning to be higher than the Paul Gauguin? Martin
If this rating was fine, burnt by the art of
the classics and always looking for something the new art criticism of
conceptual sense, it could be to somehow understand. But here, the idea is that
"people consciousness," which tend to "cling" to the names
familiar from childhood! As one would say I feel sorry for is from hamlet,
"something is rotten in
In short, I would like this a rating to be taken seriously and not to cry after Stanislavsky: "do Not believe!", Yes, unfortunately, it does not...
And the TV channel "CNN" in 2014 was
the "ugliest monuments", which included a sculpture of Alexander
Kibalnikov "Courage" in the
But any the monument is not self-sufficient a work of art, and the perpetuation of memory, i.e. the perception of the monument is always superimposed the memory of who or what is this monument dedicated. This is the specificity of this area monumental art. And you can Express regret that the channel, making "the rating of the ugly monuments", did not consider these basic things that are understandable not only professional critics, but also any cultural people. To be called, the more publicly, any monument ugly is not only an insult to him of the author, but an affront to historical memory. Especially if we are talking aboutto perpetuate the memory of the rescue dog or popular songs (because there are some monuments), and thousands of fallen heroes.
However, it is necessary to give credit to the channel "CNN": the next day he apologized. But really it was impossible to think about it before to publish such a rating, for which you had to apologize?..
To summarize. Anyone who believes that the rating of artists you can do without serious art criticism and legal training, without large organizational work, without significant financial investments the wrong. Rating of artists it is no less delicate and responsible, rating than, for example, banks, and so closely associated with the investment not on the banking market and the art market.
So, you can only re - applies to: not satisfied with the method of United art rating create your ratings and promote them! The path is open, go for it! Only go for it seriously and soundly!
We started with an epigraph from article by William Mayland "Rating, rating, rating", and finished his poem. It seems to be a joke, but as you know, in every joke there is joke.
The commemoration of the dead
Good work, gentlemen.
None of them I do not vozropschem,
They not from harm.
But about the living, perhaps, is
To double-check everything a hundred times,
Not like a beast, Creator of howl,
Or, like a child, tears from the eyes
Will omocha mournful page
Where mentioned it in "6B",
And certainly no one will doubt
In his tragic fate.
© Sergey Zagraevsky