« Raw Talent | Main | Buy Art That Speaks to You »
The Great Masters: If they were painting today, how would they stack up?
By Deborah | November 14, 2007
In the November issue of ARTnews, Sarah Bayliss and Ann Landis asked industry experts throughout the world who they thought would be famous artists 105 years from now. The article ran the gamut of marquis experts from the Director of the Carnegie Museum of Art, the senior curator of Asian Art at New York’s Guggenheim Museum, the curator of Contemporary Art at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Dean at the Yale School of Art and the curator of Barbican Art Gallery in London, just to name a few. Their answers were just as diverse, Jasper Johns, Andy Warhol, Robert Rauschenberg, Paul McCarthy, Louise Bourgeois, Lorna Simpson, Mike Kelley, Anselm Kiefer, etc.
The point is—do we really know—which artists will be considered historically important in the year 2112? If the great masters of art were alive today would the industry readily recognize their talent? Or, is their talent a product of historic review—considered edgy and provocative looking back at that moment in time. Certainly, quality and good technique play a vital role in accessing an artist’s work…but what about style? Would their work be considered important or relevant if they were painting today?
The ARTnews article represented the opinion of over 30 experts. From that group of industry leaders across the globe, approximately 170 artists were named. Only six artists were mentioned more than once.
Andy Warhol (6)
Bruce Nauman (5)
Jasper Johns (3)
William Kentridge (3)
Yoko Ono (3)
Kara Walker (2)
Andy Warhol’s Pop Art led the pack with Bruce Nauman’s contemporary American sculptures as a close second. It will be interesting to see how these names play out 105 years from now.
Hopefully, someone is jotting this down in their calendar!
Topics: Blog Content | No Comments »