Single feature ranking

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от uriart

NATA NOVA, you subscribe paid?

No, I'm free pop up, and now comes out that 0 sales (and in spring it was ..)

For example, Lisa Yushkenazi spring were painting (sales through auctions) and now the only info about the schedule ...
Or this information is kept only a certain time? Then what does it depend on time? From that Salat is a gallery which sold for membership in ARTNeT?

Or call and ask what's what?
All I wonder ...

[Ольга Озолина]

Сообщение от danvik

explain please what downgrades artists?

Go to site artnet relations have not, but about a downgrade there are 2 reasons.

1-I: the artist is losing popularity. This does not happen within a year, but over the decade is even felt. Example: Many of the sixties, which in the wake of perestroika, were built almost in the rank of classics, and now have taken a completely normal place in the second row. And many full members of the Arts, which after death are forgotten by the public immediately, and experts, too, unless the profile (well, not writing, for example. An art of social realism, so he will remember this artist, unless recalled).

However, with categories A and B. Which of metamorphosis with many artists come, and the most famous! Than it was 30 years ago and what was ... (Not naming names because I'm here are not under the nickname, and no right to offend anyone). Market relations, understand (((((
And our perception is changing. Its very interesting to older releases EXP track itself is sometimes notice))

2-I am the cause. In the history of EXP were several serious global revisions, the last one was in connection with the creation of MHR:
http://rating.artunion.ru/international.htm
When the rankings came Picasso and Tiepolo, a lot had to be revised. And by the way, this is a whole, in my meniyu, went EXP benefit.

[dedulya37]

Сообщение от "Olga Ozolina

When a rating appeared Picasso and Tiepolo

They must have received a category "5 G".

[Ольга Озолина]

Сообщение от dedulya37

They must have received a category "5 G".

This joke has been more years 11ti))))

Was still a wonderful poem Meylanda on a similar theme:

ON THE OCCASION ratings of old and new MASTERS
XVIII-XX centuries

Commemoration of the Dead -
Good work, gentlemen.
None of them really do not vozropschet,
They do not harm the rating.

But about the living, is perhaps worth
Check all a hundred times,
Not something like an animal, the creator of howl,
Or, as a child, the tears from my eyes

Dip mournful page
Where he is mentioned in the "6-B,
And it is no doubt
In his tragic fate.

(2000)

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Olga Ozolin, he has a lot of ranking.

artist's life is harsh,

Gallery owner went "cool" ...

Rating - a true basis

To trade beauty! (c)

[Ольга Озолина]

William Leonidovich will be pleased that we remember of his poems)))

Сообщение от Tiutchev

I am interested in two specific things: that the greater the demand danvik, on what principle is downgrade artists? And second, how is it that the artist change the drive letter (for example, with "A" to "B")? For example, a "2A", became the "2B". How can such changes occur, if the artist is long dead, but his musical legacy has long been known professional community, and therefore any factors that could significantly affect the re-evaluation of his legacy, can not be? From which emanate the drafters of EXP in these cases?

Common reasons I explained above, and specific names can be? Preferably those with whose transfer or just rated you do not agree. Maybe we can establish a feedback between the Forum and the Rating Center?

Very open and free discussion of our art history is not enough at all! Sergei ZAGRAEVSKY on this subject long ago was the article "On the spiritual autism".
http://www.zagraevsky.com/once_more.htm
http://www.zagraevsky.com/spirit_aut.htm
Current events and now, right?

[dedulya37]

Сообщение от Olga Ozolina

the joke has been more 11ti years ))))

Honestly, I thought that it was I quipped.
But now we have proved that thought is material and it is somewhere traveling just now flew into my head.


Look to the category of Malevich through 100 years of commercials.

[Ольга Озолина]

Сообщение от dedulya37

Honestly, I thought that it was I quipped. But now we have proved that thought is material and it is somewhere traveling just now flew into my head.
Look to the category of Picasso's commercials after 100 years.

I remember the first time a "T" (only with a higher figure because it was about a famous artist), we heard from Margarita Hook, so that the authorship of the joke belongs to her)))

With regard to category Picasso in 100 years: I remember we were once at a meeting RC said that would be nice to play this game: imagine that we live in, for example, during the Stasova or Tugendholda and is EXP)))) Of course, all was not before, but the game would have turned out interesting!

I give the idea of forum users))))

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Olga Ozolina

1-I: the artist is losing popularity. This does not happen within a year, but over the decade is even felt. Example: Many of the sixties, which in the wake of perestroika, were built almost in the rank of classics, and now have taken a completely normal place in the second row. And many full members of the Arts, which after death are forgotten by the public immediately, and experts, too, unless the profile (well, not writing, for example. An art of social realism, so he will remember this artist, unless recalled).

However, with categories A and B. Which of metamorphosis with many artists come, and the most famous! Than it was 30 years ago and what was ... (Not naming names because I'm here are not under the nickname, and no right to offend anyone). Market relations, understand (((((
And our perception is changing. Its very interesting to older releases EXP track itself is sometimes notice))

From this your response should be that the drafters of EXP guidance of renowned artist in the rankings. In this case, please explain the meaning of separation of artists in the category "A" and "B"? Here is an excerpt from the «TERMS OF RATING THE HEART
PROFESSIONAL UNION OF ARTISTS »:


5. The basic principle of uniform art rating is the presence of categories "A" and "B". The difference between conventional and is in relation to the art market:
- Artist category "A" (indicated by the first letter of the word "author") is practically not subject to the demands of the art market.
- Artist category "B" (marked by the first letter of the word "demanded") is focused primarily on the needs of the art market.

As this provision is consistent with the principle about which you write in your message? Here the apparent contradiction. On the one hand, the artists classified as "A", "almost not subject to demands of the art market", which means that all components of the market can not affect its rating (including the so-called "fame"). On the other hand, you, explaining the reason for the downgrade the artist, referring all to the same "known". Ie the artist was known (pushing the, favored by the regime, like art critics, etc.) on the market, and then suddenly ceased to be such, and was dropped. But again, how can this be, if the artist was originally categorized as artists, not dependent on market demand, ie to category "A"? You know what I mean? ..

And another point. You illyustriruete situation on the example of the sixties and contemporary artists. I would guess that about some recently lived (within 50 years) master was not enough information or the rating is determined under the pressure of political considerations. And the rating was changed due to revaluation of the values of these artists. One can realize it, though I still not completely clear how this is consistent with the drafters declared objectivity EXP and dividing by the category "A" and "B", which I wrote above. In other words, today the artist's rating of "1" tomorrow "2", and the next day at all "7"! Perhaps the compilers of it makes sense to consider a separate category for contemporary artists, in which the rating would have been more mobile, unlike the artists of the past. Ponimatete, approached with the same principle to the positioning of artists and artistic heritage which has long been complicated and does not undergo any changes, you must agree, in a strange way. Here, judge for yourself, the artist of the first third of XX century Nikolai Krymov was initially positioned with a rating of "1", and shortly before it was released catalog-Raisonné of his works, he suddenly dropped to "2". How could this happen? His fame has only grown, new jobs that would discredit him, he had made, and such work has not been found, new facts of his biography has not been revealed, and lowered the rating?
  
In general, it is not clear from your comments that it was for such a rating, which focuses on such strange things as "our perception" and political expediency? How such a rating may be considered a professional? As such a rating can claim to objectivity? And how to use such ratings as a tool for long-term investment? Compilers of rankings should decide - sell them objective information, are a tool in the hands of dealers and interest groups, or may pursue any other goals? After all, reputation points, of course, are crucial for positioning in the market of this kind of information products!

The best of intentions ...

[Ольга Озолина]

Tyutchev
(Blue - the issues in black - replies)

From your answer, this implies that the drafters of EXP guidance of renowned artist in the rankings.

The basic principle of uniform art rating is the presence of categories "A" and "B". The difference between conventional and is in relation to the art market:
- Artist category "A" (indicated by the first letter of the word "author") is practically not subject to the demands of the art market.
- Artist category "B" (marked by the first letter of the word "demanded") is focused primarily on the needs of the art market.

As this provision is consistent with the principle about which you write in your message? Here the apparent contradiction. On the one hand, the artists classified as "A", "almost not subject to demands of the art market", which means that all components of the market can not affect its rating (including the so-called "fame"). On the other hand, you, explaining the reason for the downgrade the artist, referring all to the same "known". Ie the artist was known (pushing the, favored by the regime, like art critics, etc.) on the market, and then suddenly ceased to be such, and was dropped. But again, how can this be, if the artist was originally categorized as artists, not dependent on market demand, ie to category "A"? You know what I ?..

I can give you all the way all the formal criteria that guide the MSRP:
http://rating.artunion.ru/normativ1.htm

"Definition of rating categories is based on all available information about the center of a rating works, biographies, exhibitions, collections and sales of works, catalogs and publications in the press and the Internet, the views of critics and art-managers, public opinion polls, any other open and publicly available information. Confidential information that constitutes personal, commercial or state secrets, can not serve as a basis for determining the rankings.
In determining the priority ranking is the artistic level of products, their humanistic significance. The criteria also include: professionalism, exhibition activities, the availability of works in museums, known to the public, galleries and art critics in Russia and abroad, social and civic significance of the works, merchantability and the price level of work. "

But we're on the forum, and said in a simple way: "Fame". Do not catch me in words
In essence: EXP - a tool primarily art history. Fame is not only the public, but also art historians, and it intersects. And if I as an art critic (and how the public ") has long been the artist had not heard this reason, at least, to ask: where so and so did he go? Where did the auction, the galleries? A colleague also did not know. Hence, one neprekrasny day the question is raised: Do not lower, such a rating? ..
This applies not only to B, but also to A, just out there, this process is less tied to the current market, and more - in the "pure" art studies. But intersects all strongly as the market with art history.
Do you explain the role of experts in the art business?


And another point. You illyustriruete situation on the example of the sixties and contemporary artists. I would guess that about some recently lived (within 50 years) master was not enough information or the rating is determined under the pressure of political considerations. And the rating was changed due to revaluation of the values of these artists. One can realize it, though I still not completely clear how this is consistent with the drafters declared objectivity EXP and dividing by the category "A" and "B", which I wrote above. In other words, today the artist's rating of "1" tomorrow "2", and the next day at all "7"! Perhaps the compilers of it makes sense to consider a separate category for contemporary artists, in which the rating would have been more mobile, unlike the artists of the past. Ponimatete, approached with the same principle to the positioning of artists and artistic heritage which has long been complicated and does not undergo any changes, you must agree, in a strange way. Here, judge for yourself, the artist of the first third of XX century Nikolai Krymov was initially positioned with a rating of "1", and shortly before it was released catalog-Raisonné of his works, he suddenly dropped to "2". How could this happen? His fame has only grown, new jobs that would discredit him, he had made, and such work has not been found, new facts of his biography has not been revealed, and the rating dropped?!
 
Well, the first surname sounded - Crimea, and in certain situations. Thank you. Where to give "(to be confirmed: in RC )
In general, category 1 and 2 - the most volatile of all. We have a lot of these artists, constantly balancing between 1 and 2, as Yakovlev, Shukhaiev, Mavrina, Anisfeld, many more who, including Krymov. What makes this issue any peer evaluations. And the "upstairs" with the assignment to A or B is much more difficult than the "bottom". Animals, Salakhov, Bragovsky, overgrown, Nazarenko ... Some critics of different generations and different can be taken. At some point defeats the point of view, "the elderly", or vice versa, and this may depend on many factors, such as success or failure of any large-scale exhibition, and this particular artist, and some very "indirect".
 
In general, it is not clear from your comments that it was for such a rating, which focuses on such strange things as "our perception" and political expediency? How such a rating may be considered a professional? As such a rating can claim to objectivity? And how to use such ratings as a tool for long-term investment? Compilers of rankings should decide - sell them objective information, are a tool in the hands of dealers and interest groups, or may pursue any other goals? After all, reputation points, of course, are crucial for positioning in the market of this kind of information products!

We have never concealed that exp - expert tool. "Accurate" evaluation methods (sales) in our country is not only impossible due to lack of information, but IMHO, and harmful, as they often endure up completely exaggerated figures (I will not enumerate them yourself you know: mad
So we decided a long time: working on the possibility of objectively and professionally, and as far as objectivity is possible in principle, expert opinions, especially in the arts - it is a question I would say, philosophical "Of course, all we are people, and we also affects the political situation and the peculiarities of perception, and many more things.