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.
A very impressive list. I really love them all. Gerhad Richter, Anselm Kiefer and Hirst are my private favs. I would like to invite you to know at least two brazilian artists: Adriana Varejão and Beatriz Milhazes. I miss Latin and other African artists.
Oh my gosh, Mr Johns is still living? 30+ years ago I acquired his personal phone number (I had access at a job, I was not supposed to take it), along with some other minor celebrities. I only ever called Mr Johns - my roommate & I decided it would be fun to prank call him, but we didn't really expect *him* to answer. When he simply said "hello," I asked if he was Jasper Johns, he said yes, we looked at each other in panic, started shouting compliments "You're really great!" And hung up. Poor guy, that must have been very weird. I still have the phone number somewhere, it's probably the same lol, but I'll leave him be...
Hi Montana, thank you for tuning in and for sharing this hilarious anecdote. What a great memory, what a story! It is very possible he changed the number shortly after 😂
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
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!
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!"
Personally, I am not a big fan of those collaborations. On the other hand, there is a long-standing tradition of collaborations and mutual influences from fashion to art and vice versa, fashion designers collaborating with artists, and then there is also the Fondation Louis Vuitton as a major institute in the art world... I am not a fan personally, but I do believe art and fashion are natural allies. Greetings from myself an my assistant!
@@contemporaryartissue I liked the shop window ad that the brand came up with, because they showed the artist herself as a sculpture and I think this made them pay more attention to the aspect of art and artist and not just the product that was created in this collaboration. I agree with you that art and fashion are natural allies - beautifully said. I was also reminded that in the old days the church was called the patron of the arts but yet in these days of consumerism another way has been found 🥲🤐
Kusama is really awesome so contemporary and fresh still today. I vote for a special cai episode on her and other awesome Japanese lady artists like yoko onos conceptual art etc.
an artist or better say art is a philosophy of life that perceive the past understands it and captures the present displaying the future. An artist that is considered influential by the system is a system artist in other words a product of consumption, not really art, just the same as if you sell cars bred or beauty products, it follow the same path publicity . advertising influencers and the big philanthropy buyers who obtain his work for less and sells it for more . ask yourself a question , why cave men painted inside a cave rather than on the skin of a bull . and you will understand that only those that visit that cave would see the artwork exclusively & a way to preserved for a very long time .
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!
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!
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..
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.
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.
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.
lets note this is incorrectly titled....this is not about being "influential"....the algorithm measures "noise", not influence...i.e. exhibitions, publications/auction results...this is NOT influence....just a measure of how much noise has been created in the art market place...in fact we can say the algorithm is merely a reflection of the latest trends in art market enthusiasms for artists.....this bears no relation at all to influence of course nor does it reflect the quality or value of the artists in question....a subject the art market is incapable of considering as the market deems all who have entered its' arena to be a genius and all their works masterpieces, a necessary fiction of the art market designed to maintain market value...So as a measure of "noise" only, lets not pretend there is significance of any sort to the results of this algorithm...ranking artists by any means is of course fatuous, disdainful, repugnant, and insulting to all artists...disappointing but revealing in many ways about the philosophy and intent of c.a.i.
I believe a more accurate title would be 'the 20 most prominent artists in the art world'-but does not have a great ring to it doesn't it. However, it is interesting to measure trending artists, not only in the art market, but especially at the art institutions. It does bear relation to their influence and importance in the art world, because that is one of the main goals of the institutions in question when curating their program. It is to say, the algorithm is more focused on critical recognition than on recognition from the art market. So there is significance to this algorithm. It's not necessarily about the ranking, but the interesting selections we can create with this algorithm, cross-referencing various parameters in order to obtain a critical and objective selection of artists.
@@contemporaryartissue Thank you for your thoughts. Happy to agree algorithm measuring "prominence" but astonished you say "this doesn't have a great ring to it" and choose the untrue and misleading word "influential". You can't know/measure influence. By being misleading you deplete your integrity and diminish your authority. Moreover, I feel that the truth of the matter which is to do with a measure of "prominence" is extremely interesting and DOES have a great ring to it. By asserting and clarifying this as the meaning and result of the algorithm we open up the potential for an exploration/study of the question of prominence. We can then consider the nature of prominence, how it is achieved, the mechanisms by which an artist gains prominence, the question of whether attention begets MORE attention creating a snowball effect, and whether prominence can have a negative effect on the objective, critical appraisal of an artist's oeuvre. For example the deification that hardens around an artist with prominence seems to become sacrosanct. It is difficult to find a critical, and differing opinion on an artist in the market arena and I am not aware of such contrary opinions being permitted since John Berger wrote "The success and failure of Picasso" which offered a refreshing alternative to the obsequious hagiographies of the day. So sticking to the truth of the matter and considering it's reality seems far more valid to me that chasing cheap "likes" and true significance here, can only be found by being fully cognisant of the real implications of the algorithm. Lastly a quick point; I see not distinction between "critical recognition" and the "art market". It seems to me they can legitimately be considered to be one and the same. in as much as they are both drivers of "prominence".
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
In my own list I have Richter and Hockney as 1-2. Surprised not to see Tracey Emin or Jenny Saville. Just curious where do you and your algorithm rank them? Also, lots of German and Austrian painters but what about Neo Rauch? And Bridget Riley - she's surely a classic.
I can definitely agree on your top two personally. Yes, Emin and Saville are major absentees. I believe Emin was very close to being selected and Saville was surprisingly far away in the algorithm. Neo Rauch is another important figure that's missing, as is the case for Borremans and Tuymans. Thank you for tuning in!
That's a pretty good rating imho :) Personally, I just love so much of Hockney's art of the last few decades! I might have to put him #1 maybe. I might get flamed for saying that. Not saying Richter isn't awesome as all get out!
Agree especially on Neo Rauch, as he's been copied to death by the younger generation of painters. Peter Doig is another much imitated in grad school programs.
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.
I cannot see how an algorithm can tell us who the top 20 artists are today. It's impossible. Unless it can include every single piece of art sold ANYWHERE then it cannot possibly be conclusive. Even sold art is not a pure basis. If you say they are !influential" then more artists today would be influenced by them and their work would show it. Sorry I don't buy it (no pun intended). There must be millions of artists out there who, through circumstances cannot be pushed into the public, algorithmic eye and who's work may remain undiscovered for many years to come and most probably until after their death. So this is an over rated claim - HUGELY so, in my opinion.
I agree that sold art is not a pure basis-and this is not what the algorithm is based on. It focuses primarily on the exhibitions, and the better the institutions/events/museums/collections, the more valuable the exhibition is for its ranking. This metric works great. It shows us who the most prominent artists are today and who are currently being exhibited the most, giving us a very strong insight into their prominence, institutional relevance, and canonization for the future. There will always be some artists that become famous after their death, but these stories are exceptions, not the rule, and a misconception of how the art world and the artist's legacy functions. And how can those undiscovered artists be considered more influential than these 20 today? I also like to refer to my pinned comment here, paragraph 2, for more information on why we use this algorithm.
The moral of this vid is buy what you like and not for investment. Most of the art shown from these artists I wouldn't want in my house or office. Couldn't stand to look at it everyday and I'd drive myself crazy thinking what an idiot I am for spending the huge amount this crap demands. Just saying...
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.
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 !!!
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
I'm so glad representational art is making a comeback. Far too many of these need an accompanying explanation to provide value to the viewer
His dog is the only one that understand the decline of modern art
You are doing the art world the the general public a great service and you have captured the essence of these fine arts to a 't'.
Thank you so much for tuning in and for your comment!
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.
Great mention of Colescott, thank you. Other one black artist and great one, but had gone too is Sam Gilliam. I love his art.
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.
inspiring thanks again!! Keep them coming!! Stella is underrated in my opinion his sculptures are like no other so original!!
Thank you, will do! Absolutely, I am also stunned how he kept reinventing himself throughout the years. A true living icon!
With exception of richter looks like painting ugly is easy !
A very impressive list. I really love them all. Gerhad Richter, Anselm Kiefer and Hirst are my private favs. I would like to invite you to know at least two brazilian artists: Adriana Varejão and Beatriz Milhazes. I miss Latin and other African artists.
Dear Paulo, thank you for tuning in and for the two excellent suggestions!
I enjoy Alex Katz. I'm hoping to visit his exhibition at the Guggenheim. Thank you for this video!
The pleasure is all mine, enjoy the show and thank you for tuning in!
Most of these artists are not even good .. They just knew how to promote themselves.
Yup
I am a man, been painting for 50 years and I am totally ignored. Where do I fit?
Das ist sehr interessant, vielen Dank!
The pleasure is all mine, thank you for tuning in!
At most beautiful work, thanks you for sharing.
The pleasure is all mine!
Oh my gosh, Mr Johns is still living? 30+ years ago I acquired his personal phone number (I had access at a job, I was not supposed to take it), along with some other minor celebrities. I only ever called Mr Johns - my roommate & I decided it would be fun to prank call him, but we didn't really expect *him* to answer. When he simply said "hello," I asked if he was Jasper Johns, he said yes, we looked at each other in panic, started shouting compliments "You're really great!" And hung up. Poor guy, that must have been very weird. I still have the phone number somewhere, it's probably the same lol, but I'll leave him be...
Hi Montana, thank you for tuning in and for sharing this hilarious anecdote. What a great memory, what a story! It is very possible he changed the number shortly after 😂
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
This list is already deserving a new video. Simply a great and iconic selection in good taste. Thank you for tuning in and for sharing this anthology!
@@contemporaryartissue what about Tuymans? Probably the most influential figurative artist of last few decades.
@@benediktaszukas9691 Absolutely, Luc Tuymans would always have a place in my personal top 20, or even top 5.
That is one of the reasons why we have people so far from reality...if these doodles are classified as art...then war is a party?
Modern art is not art..its just spectacle at this point.
No George Condo?
Perrier 🐶 is so lovely! ♥
Good content. 👏 👏 👏
She's the best! 🥰 Thank you for tuning in!
All in all, pretty good stuff. But Damien Hirst is a first rate hack.
So was Picasso
@@gemmrk Early, no. Later years, yes.
Important information and search results ❤
We love the Dog!
She is the best!
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!
That's great Vicente, the pleasure is all mine!
Excellent selection. Not exactly the dream team.... but thats Art. Fun.
Thank you for tuning in. Indeed, that's art. Have a great day!
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!"
What do you think of Louis Vuitton's current collaboration with Yayoi Kusama? Is it art or capitalism? ( I like your Assistant : )
Personally, I am not a big fan of those collaborations. On the other hand, there is a long-standing tradition of collaborations and mutual influences from fashion to art and vice versa, fashion designers collaborating with artists, and then there is also the Fondation Louis Vuitton as a major institute in the art world... I am not a fan personally, but I do believe art and fashion are natural allies. Greetings from myself an my assistant!
@@contemporaryartissue I liked the shop window ad that the brand came up with, because they showed the artist herself as a sculpture and I think this made them pay more attention to the aspect of art and artist and not just the product that was created in this collaboration. I agree with you that art and fashion are natural allies - beautifully said. I was also reminded that in the old days the church was called the patron of the arts but yet in these days of consumerism another way has been found 🥲🤐
Kusama is really awesome so contemporary and fresh still today. I vote for a special cai episode on her and other awesome Japanese lady artists like yoko onos conceptual art etc.
Hockney, great artist.
The Dumas and Richter works i... by far the best of the the 20..
And now for # 1! Dog: time for a nap.😊
😂 That's her reaction to most things-nap time or lunch!
Adorei tudo e também o lindo e complacente cão que em certos momentos parece entender tudo.
an artist or better say art is a philosophy of life that perceive the past understands it and captures the present displaying the future. An artist that is considered influential by the system is a system artist in other words a product of consumption, not really art, just the same as if you sell cars bred or beauty products, it follow the same path publicity . advertising influencers and the big philanthropy buyers who obtain his work for less and sells it for more . ask yourself a question , why cave men painted inside a cave rather than on the skin of a bull . and you will understand that only those that visit that cave would see the artwork exclusively & a way to preserved for a very long time .
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!
Nice...very nice...artlife always i2f the artist...one love...blessings
Thank you for all your kind comments!
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!
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..
Please. I am in Love with Perrier.
She's irresistable! Thank you for tuning in. Greetings from us both!
Thanks a lot!!!!🙏😊
The pleasure is all mine! Thank you for tuning in
🙏🖼️🖌️🎨🎶❤️
Hockney is my favorite out of this batch.
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 .
What ever happened to David Reed?
Where are the young painters?
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.
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.
I'm knocking at the door...artlife always i2f the artist...one love...blessings
🙌
May I ask why The Art World seems so fixated on artists’s birth year?
Cute dog
The cutest! 😊 Thank you for tuning
Painting is as alive as rock and roll 😔
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.
Schnabel just fell short here. Great artist of course deserving of a spot here. Thank you of tuning in!
amazing video! thank you so much!!
Artlife always i2f the artist...one love...blessings
🙌
What !!! Prince, Hirst, Keiffer
No black artists...artlife always i2f the artist...one love...blessings...I'm knocking on the door...
And where am I on that list, sir? lol
😅 Go for it! Thank you for tuning in
lets note this is incorrectly titled....this is not about being "influential"....the algorithm measures "noise", not influence...i.e. exhibitions, publications/auction results...this is NOT influence....just a measure of how much noise has been created in the art market place...in fact we can say the algorithm is merely a reflection of the latest trends in art market enthusiasms for artists.....this bears no relation at all to influence of course nor does it reflect the quality or value of the artists in question....a subject the art market is incapable of considering as the market deems all who have entered its' arena to be a genius and all their works masterpieces, a necessary fiction of the art market designed to maintain market value...So as a measure of "noise" only, lets not pretend there is significance of any sort to the results of this algorithm...ranking artists by any means is of course fatuous, disdainful, repugnant, and insulting to all artists...disappointing but revealing in many ways about the philosophy and intent of c.a.i.
I believe a more accurate title would be 'the 20 most prominent artists in the art world'-but does not have a great ring to it doesn't it. However, it is interesting to measure trending artists, not only in the art market, but especially at the art institutions. It does bear relation to their influence and importance in the art world, because that is one of the main goals of the institutions in question when curating their program. It is to say, the algorithm is more focused on critical recognition than on recognition from the art market. So there is significance to this algorithm. It's not necessarily about the ranking, but the interesting selections we can create with this algorithm, cross-referencing various parameters in order to obtain a critical and objective selection of artists.
@@contemporaryartissue Thank you for your thoughts. Happy to agree algorithm measuring "prominence" but astonished you say "this doesn't have a great ring to it" and choose the untrue and misleading word "influential". You can't know/measure influence. By being misleading you deplete your integrity and diminish your authority.
Moreover, I feel that the truth of the matter which is to do with a measure of "prominence" is extremely interesting and DOES have a great ring to it. By asserting and clarifying this as the meaning and result of the algorithm we open up the potential for an exploration/study of the question of prominence. We can then consider the nature of prominence, how it is achieved, the mechanisms by which an artist gains prominence, the question of whether attention begets MORE attention creating a snowball effect, and whether prominence can have a negative effect on the objective, critical appraisal of an artist's oeuvre. For example the deification that hardens around an artist with prominence seems to become sacrosanct. It is difficult to find a critical, and differing opinion on an artist in the market arena and I am not aware of such contrary opinions being permitted since John Berger wrote "The success and failure of Picasso" which offered a refreshing alternative to the obsequious hagiographies of the day.
So sticking to the truth of the matter and considering it's reality seems far more valid to me that chasing cheap "likes" and true significance here, can only be found by being fully cognisant of the real implications of the algorithm.
Lastly a quick point; I see not distinction between "critical recognition" and the "art market". It seems to me they can legitimately be considered to be one and the same. in as much as they are both drivers of "prominence".
Brice Marden
Great painter indeed! Deserving of a spot here for sure. Thanks!
What about Jeff Koons?
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.
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.
Marcel Duchamp is indeed ubiquitous up to this very day. Thank you for tuning in and feel free to stay tuned for more 🙌
Except painters who "wrestle" with Richter rarely produce anything that isn't dully derivative of his work.
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.
nobody needs a phd in psychology to understand these paintings, you are just uneducated in art. you are the problem, not the artist.
...only richter can actually paint (and the "art world" wonders why no one cares about art anymore, lol)
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...
Peace.
George Condo?? Where is he??😢
Great artist!
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...
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.
Thank you for sharing your honest thoughts, I appreciate it-although I must disagree. Wishing you a great day however!
In my own list I have Richter and Hockney as 1-2.
Surprised not to see Tracey Emin or Jenny Saville. Just curious where do you and your algorithm rank them? Also, lots of German and Austrian painters but what about Neo Rauch? And Bridget Riley - she's surely a classic.
I can definitely agree on your top two personally. Yes, Emin and Saville are major absentees. I believe Emin was very close to being selected and Saville was surprisingly far away in the algorithm. Neo Rauch is another important figure that's missing, as is the case for Borremans and Tuymans. Thank you for tuning in!
That's a pretty good rating imho :) Personally, I just love so much of Hockney's art of the last few decades! I might have to put him #1 maybe. I might get flamed for saying that. Not saying Richter isn't awesome as all get out!
Agree especially on Neo Rauch, as he's been copied to death by the younger generation of painters. Peter Doig is another much imitated in grad school programs.
What's with these names?
Chuck Connelly?
Very strong painter! Thanks for the suggestion!
Kind regards from Munich Germany, Conceptual artist Cornelia Steckhan Horn.
Why do RUclips speakers "dive in" to every damn thing they do? / ". . . life versus death . . ." ?
What old master gonna say to this list?
Wanna see some Jonathan Meese
Love Jonathan Meese and his K.U.N.S.T!
On pourrait presque rajouter George Condo, non ?
Odd Nerdrum
Yes, terrific artist!
Richter delivers
Is everyone doing abstract geometrics? Doesn't anyone paint stuff anymore?? Most of this art is basic. ouch.
Most of them can be call hampartist.... overrated by the art "experts" nowadays. Very disapointing
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.
Banksy???
He's more of an graffiti artist.
I cannot see how an algorithm can tell us who the top 20 artists are today. It's impossible. Unless it can include every single piece of art sold ANYWHERE then it cannot possibly be conclusive. Even sold art is not a pure basis. If you say they are !influential" then more artists today would be influenced by them and their work would show it. Sorry I don't buy it (no pun intended). There must be millions of artists out there who, through circumstances cannot be pushed into the public, algorithmic eye and who's work may remain undiscovered for many years to come and most probably until after their death. So this is an over rated claim - HUGELY so, in my opinion.
I agree that sold art is not a pure basis-and this is not what the algorithm is based on. It focuses primarily on the exhibitions, and the better the institutions/events/museums/collections, the more valuable the exhibition is for its ranking. This metric works great. It shows us who the most prominent artists are today and who are currently being exhibited the most, giving us a very strong insight into their prominence, institutional relevance, and canonization for the future. There will always be some artists that become famous after their death, but these stories are exceptions, not the rule, and a misconception of how the art world and the artist's legacy functions. And how can those undiscovered artists be considered more influential than these 20 today? I also like to refer to my pinned comment here, paragraph 2, for more information on why we use this algorithm.
Only three women made the list? This surely requires a major systemic update of the art world dynamics.
We address this issue in the pinned comment. Feel free to give it a read. Have a great day!
u da best
🙌 🙏
No Neo Rauch? Or did I miss him? 😂
Neo Rauch would be included in my personal top 20 for sure! A major absentee here-as is the case with Luc Tuymans or Peter Doig
Interesting subject dreadfully presented.
The moral of this vid is buy what you like and not for investment. Most of the art shown from these artists I wouldn't want in my house or office. Couldn't stand to look at it everyday and I'd drive myself crazy thinking what an idiot I am for spending the huge amount this crap demands. Just saying...
This should be titled,
"I like talking about Art because it sounds like I know something."
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.
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 !!!
So Miquel Barceló and Julian Schnabel are not among the top 20 most INFLUENTIAL living painters? Get out of here.
Many on this list was not really an artist😢
Damien Hirst you say 65 years old but you write 56
Well, it is very interesting because most of them are just explorers. No one of these guys will remain in the art history, they are so ephemere.
Erratum: maybe hockney and richter will remain. Not sure.
Nice. Now take her for a walk!
Absolutely! Well-deserved walk and a nice meal after :)
I paint houses not in the way you think
I don’t like any of these artworks…
I own an original painting by Francis Wheatley, which is more than 200 years old. Whoever wants to buy, leave a message.
Primero segundo y tercero Hockney
Hockney is one of the best for sure! Thank you for tuning in
So few female artists
Scully's work bothers me. Sloppy Rothko knockoff. It has to be said. I just dont see anything else there.
Dog : " not easy being a dog ...."
Exactly 😂
All of these are pretty boring... the emperor has no clothes
AI WEI WEI. ?
is it me or did the dog look very bored ?