museummarketing.info

I read an article in our local Dutch newspaper (NRC) today about ‘Work no. 850′ by the artist Martin Creed in the Tate Britain. Every 30 seconds a single runner will sprint the length of the empty Duveen Galleries. This performance/exhibition started on the 1st of July and it the English media gave a lot of coverage about. (The news of this artwork reached the continent by Carrier pigeons today so now I can blog about it). But whatever you think of this artwork one thing struck me that there is a special website where you can apply to run, or in other words, to be part of this work of art.

From a marketing view I think it is rather brilliant. First this artwork is very controversial, a lot of free publicity guaranteed. Secondly this is really reaching out to your Audience. No more passive art consumption, everyone has a chance to be a part of this collaborative artwork. I think for most runners this work of art is a memory they would not easily forget. In this way it enhances the bond someone has with this museum.

For more information watch this Youtube clip from artreview.com.

N.B.: People get paid to run. I wonder if they would have managed without paying. Or maybe even the other way around. Let people pay to run.

In the New York Times there is a nice article about the economist David Galenson who is ranking artworks on how often it is mentioned in Art books.

And the illustration “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” I use as header for this blog is the number 1 by my surprise (or maybe not).

At first sight I don’t think this specific method has any scientific validity. To choose 33 (arbitrary) books to base the ranking on seems a bit strange. Why choose these books and not any other. What are the criteria? Did they include International books? Books in a foreign Language? You would probably get another list if you would choose only books in French, Japanese or a mix of them.

But any list is as good as any other list. At least he chooses a clear and verifiable method for it. It is maybe a better method then an Internet poll or ranking by some self proclaimed experts. But that is probably not the point he wants to make. I presume he has made this list to provoke. The main point he wants to make is that:

“what most bothers Mr. Galenson is his dismissal by art experts who, he writes in his forthcoming book, “almost unanimously refused to acknowledge the value that quantitative methods could have in their field.”

And he probably is right about this one. The importance of works Art can be judged by Art-Historians but also by an economist who for example looks at historical auction prices. The two specialisms combined will give a better picture of the importance of different works of art throughout the century.

Link to The article: A Textbook Example of Ranking Artworks, NY-Times