Just looked myself up on this site. I didn't expect to be there - but I am. My value is falling, from 8000ish in 2008 to 12000ish. The graph looks like the value of the UK Pound against the Australian dollar. What a weird way to think about artists and art. But I feel put in my place, that's for sure. I'm nowhere's ville...
For what it's worth, the top rated artist who routinely uses digital media is probably Andreas Gursky at 32. However, he's not a digital artist as such. He uses the computer as a tool, not a medium. I doubt he considers computational processes as essential to the conceptual nature of his practice or the resultant artefacts. Christian Marclay is similar, at 96, as is Muntadas at 254. The highest ranking artist who I'd consider a practitioner who does emphasise the computer in their practice is Peter Weibel at 358. But that is strange as he is better known as an educator, administrator or curator than a practitioner. Cao Fei is more like it, at 418. Lozano-Hemmer is at 751 and Otto Piene at 843. But none of these artists are really digital artists in the sense I understand that term. Manfred Mohr appears to be the top rated artist who uses computation as central in his work, at 1119. So, it's nice to know that a digital artist almost gets into the top 1000. That is reassuring. Manfred gives us hope. Not sure why Ai Wei Wei is at 401 when he recently topped the art power list? The list seems arbitrary, with major names quite far down and people I've never heard of near the top (although I do not read art magazines anymore as they are just full of advertising). Oh well, that was 15 minutes of my life wasted - but it saves me reading the magazines, I hope. best Simon On 2 Nov 2011, at 16:53, Eduardo Valle wrote: > Dear Rob, > > Thanks for you comments. > > I agree that is a question of scale and also time, if you think that one of > the majors Festivals related to the digital art > is about 30 years old (Ars Eletronica), but the pattern is already repeating > on a diferent scale. > > About the data they came from sites on the web : > > the galleries dedicated to digital art and their casting : bitforms , Bryce > Wolkowitz, Postmastersart, Numeriscausa, Fabio Paris, DAM Berlin, DAM Cologne > and Island6 (Shangai) > > the data from Ars Eletronica - from the site of ars eletronica > > The data about artists ranking on the investor site: www.artfacts.net > > The data about collectors: www.artnews.com > > * Here is point obscure where i can find data about collectors on digital > art ? > > Fairs: ArtBasel and SP Arte - from their sites > > As you can see on the Conceptual Map: The Web of Art there are lot of others > instances and players to be explored in terms of data and i didnt analyse the > relationship > between them , i just showed some data about 5 instances and players. It is > also important to say that the data is not analysed in a scientific way (stat > tests, big samples) it was only a "scan". > > The work that i develop is about conceptual maps and in this case i separate > the one called The Web of Art and analyse that in geopolitical terms and made > a comparison about contemporary and electronic. Another important point is to > notice that in the two conceptual maps about The Fairs , is that i am showing > that what can be periphery in one place can be a center in another place. > > Looking forward to hear from you. > > best regards, Duda Valle > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 20:37:50 +0000 > > From: r...@robmyers.org > > To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Is the history of art repeating itself ? A > > geopolitical analysis and comparison of contemporary art and electronic art > > > > On 30/10/11 13:28, Eduardo Valle wrote: > > > You will find attach a presentation on the Rewire conference in Liverpool. > > > > > > If this is not the correct procedure and if the subject is not relevant > > > in this list , please let me know. > > > > It's entirely correct and relevant. :-) Thank you for sending this. > > > > The complaint that digital artists always make about the difference > > between the contemporary and digital artworlds is that there is > > precisely no money in the digital artworld. Looking at your presentation > > that looks like a simple product of relative scale. Do you think that's > > right? > > > > I'm very interested in analysing art and the artworld using data at the > > moment. Did you use any particular sources for your statistics or are > > they the product of trawling through the paperwork? > > > > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh www.eca.ac.uk/circle www.elmcip.net www.movingtargets.co.uk
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
