Reading this essay made me think about another element as to why one artist gets that recognition over another and that has to do with eccentricity or the judgement call of "weirdness". One can see that happening in the music industry where the most outlandish personality gets the most attention....even if their music sucks or there's a strong lack of obvious talent........if it get enough attention via media or by other popular individuals, it/they become Known, sought after by those who think they're 'in the know' about what's avant-garde and "important". The over analyzing of art, music, dance as critics think they know what it's all about is "educating" the sheeple who have zero critical thinking for themselves as they listen to an assumed greater authority on said subject. Then, some of those sheeple will stare at an abstract piece of art and say the inevitable insipid comment, "My toddler can do better 'art'." As that comment gets ridiculed by those "in the know", that creates even more reverence for the growing popularity of an artist as people are afraid of exposing The Emperor's New Clothes" of anything slightly suspicious of being pretentious or bullshit. Thus another way how Canons get made.
I was recently at the art museum in Geneva. The big show was by the Swiss artist John M. Armleder. You could say this 77 year old artist is a canonized artist in Switzerland. This made me think about how various artists may be especially well known in their own country but possibly not that well known beyond their national sphere. So there may be a lot of different canonized artists in different spheres or only widely known in artistic communities in which they are a part. So I guess there are different levels of reach and influence in this regard. There are very few artists that could be called household names in the same way, for instance, A List actors are widely known.
Being a "Canonized" artist sounds so much fancier and nicer than merely saying "Famous" artist. Saying "Known" artist works and is less pretentious but then "Known" by whom? New Gallery had a few famous (as in recognized museums and have been written about in articles) like Larry Bell and Michal Rovner but I'm sure there are many people who have never heard of them. So many various degrees of fame, known, canonized. Then there's the blue chip artists that Everyone is familiar with as you mention as A List; so much so that their art is copied onto towels, clothes, mugs, and affordable prints at malls, etc.
Reading this essay made me think about another element as to why one artist gets that recognition over another and that has to do with eccentricity or the judgement call of "weirdness". One can see that happening in the music industry where the most outlandish personality gets the most attention....even if their music sucks or there's a strong lack of obvious talent........if it get enough attention via media or by other popular individuals, it/they become Known, sought after by those who think they're 'in the know' about what's avant-garde and "important". The over analyzing of art, music, dance as critics think they know what it's all about is "educating" the sheeple who have zero critical thinking for themselves as they listen to an assumed greater authority on said subject. Then, some of those sheeple will stare at an abstract piece of art and say the inevitable insipid comment, "My toddler can do better 'art'." As that comment gets ridiculed by those "in the know", that creates even more reverence for the growing popularity of an artist as people are afraid of exposing The Emperor's New Clothes" of anything slightly suspicious of being pretentious or bullshit. Thus another way how Canons get made.
I was recently at the art museum in Geneva. The big show was by the Swiss artist John M. Armleder. You could say this 77 year old artist is a canonized artist in Switzerland. This made me think about how various artists may be especially well known in their own country but possibly not that well known beyond their national sphere. So there may be a lot of different canonized artists in different spheres or only widely known in artistic communities in which they are a part. So I guess there are different levels of reach and influence in this regard. There are very few artists that could be called household names in the same way, for instance, A List actors are widely known.
Being a "Canonized" artist sounds so much fancier and nicer than merely saying "Famous" artist. Saying "Known" artist works and is less pretentious but then "Known" by whom? New Gallery had a few famous (as in recognized museums and have been written about in articles) like Larry Bell and Michal Rovner but I'm sure there are many people who have never heard of them. So many various degrees of fame, known, canonized. Then there's the blue chip artists that Everyone is familiar with as you mention as A List; so much so that their art is copied onto towels, clothes, mugs, and affordable prints at malls, etc.