Take a look at the most collectible living artists compiled by artnet. Basically, it's a ranking of artists whose works sold best in the secondary market (four year average).
 

Some remarks....

Someone's  comment: "Richter Koons Richter Koons... yawn".  True, but strictly speaking it would have to be "Richter Richter Richter Richter". Note the difference between Richter's Net Value and, well, the rest.
Also, the variety in Koons's work over the decades is, arguably, much greater than Richter's (maybe that's the problem).

Someone else's comment: "All those Chinese, unbelievable. Don't know even one. Did I miss anything here?" Well, maybe.  Though you would probably recognize Zhang Xiaogang if you saw his paintings, I get the point. In my unprofessional view, there used to be 3 kinds of chinese contemporary art. First, the classic style, drawings with calligraphic stuff, ink and watercolor. Second, the modern style, mostly paintings of depressive-looking chinese people. Third, the western art copycats with rip-off Richters and  Polkes. The copycats - gone. Classic style: the older artists in the list. Modern style: the younger ones. And that's about it. Obviously, quite a few (chinese?) collectors invest in chinese art. And why not.(*)
Note: Where is Ai Weiwei?

What fascinates me ist not so much the chinese stuff: I don't know much about it and maybe it's just good or popular for some reason. But did you look at some of the names you know, below Richter and Koons?
I mean, Julie Mehretu ? Wade Guyton - 37Mio revenue? I don't understand. And what's so special with Peter Doig to make people pay 100Mios?  What about Gursky and Schütte? Anthony Gormley? I don't want to disrespect these artists, but are they so much better than the rest?
Please, explain it to me.


----
(*) Check this to look at more chinese art sales statistics
 

On our own behalf, here a link to a map of art in Hamburg, showing places, projects, institutions from the point of view of Stefan Beck (The Thing Frankfurt).

At first I wanted to write something lengthy about the type of art consulting Paul Klein conducts. But instead I thought it might be better to post some screen shots and a link to his website and people can form their own opinions. It doesn't fall under "scam", but nevertheless, there is again someone making profit off the desperation and naivety of artists.  Klein Artist Works

An art prize where the jury includes the applicants

At the German HFBK (Fine Arts University of Hamburg) I found this project. The process of granting art awards, stipends and so forth is known to be quite intransparent. The "Surprise Prize" tackles this problem by putting together a jury of applicants (artists), a standard type jury (of the faculty) and "external experts" (the usual jury, exept they have to apply for this job, too). The process is complicated - it is described on several pages and features instructions for the application itself, presentations, time schedules, scoring systems, and experts acting in roles like advocate or critic. The whole thing takes several days to complete.

Before I read it all, I thought this to be an interesting, albeit questionable approach to challenge  the ways of institutional gatekeepers in fine arts - especially since mentor Michael Lingner is not only an artist himself, but, as a professor, also part of the institutional side. But when I came to the part where he describes that participants can bet money on the winning submissions, I realized that this whole thing is more of a grotesque hyperbole on an otherwise unresolvable dilemma of the evaluation of artistic quality.   Artistic Satire? Be it as it may, the whole process is real and will, as far as I can see, happen exactly like this. To cut it short, here are the (pretty obvious) pros and the maybe not so obvious cons in my view:

PRO

1. sheds some light on gatekeeper processes
2. ... the idea (even though it does come from a gatekeeper!)
3. reimbursement for participants
4. includes external "experts"
5. applicants may state the categories they wish their project to be judged upon
6. actual grant money can be won


CONTRA

1. The role of the artists. While I do see the problem, the answer cannot be to include artists in the jury process. First, there is no reason why artists should be more qualified to do what in principle cannot be done: to evaluate art in an objective way. Second, as an artist, my job ist to make art. I don't want to do jury work, as a matter of fact I don't want to do anything else, just because that's not what artists do.

2. And because of that, I am neither very much interested in becoming art by being part of some artistic performance. I imagine how great a potential for conflicts and awkward situations the team will face, and how bizarre the part I am expected to play is. How would this make me feel in the actual situation? Probably, at least like being used. In short, this may turn out to be some sort of artist's soap opera.

3. The role of the experts. When someone asked what makes an expert here, it was said: a graduate in an art related field. It is stunning, that this unsurprising inquiry, which at the same time points to the crucial question of how to judge the quality of art, could be answered in this blatantly naive way.

4. My project is the best, or else I would have made it differently.


http://www.hfbk.de/surprize/

In "Performance of the Month" we feature stuff that is not intended to be art, but somehow is.

my artist quit (who cares)
OK to start off I'm not promising anything until my book sells. I'll tell you the idea if I'm interested in your art style but I'm looking for someone to draw for me that likes the dark side of things....if you don't like the idea of abortions hanging from a mangled body don't bother till you get on my level.. what I'm offering is a new experience with a piece of the pie if I do end up sell my book if your interested message me and we will go from there

[Found on Craigslist]

We encourage the compilation of a Black List of institutions that treat artists in an unfair manner.

This will be an internet-based, open read/write access database. We imagine a location based search and a discussion forum. Now, we define an institution as "unfair" if it

1. charges fees
2. delegates its work to artists
3. sets up too strict conditions
4. offers no adequate reimbursement

1. Charging fees
This practice has been known for quite some time, predominantly from vanity galleries and 'open calls' for artists. A charge of $20 or more for an application and the submission of some images. Often these calls are coupled with prize money. Since artists need to be seen, such calls often generate numerous applications. This is questionable at best: the money is taken from the weakest group, i.e. that with the already lowest income. Moreover, this approach cannot be compared to an ordinary deal like 'buying a chance'. The chances cannot be quantified beforehand: most people will receive a rejection in an untransparent jury process. Ultimately, the winners take it all: the careers of the chosen few will be boosted at the expense of the rejected majority. For the institution it is a way to generate revenues and reduce the financial risks.

2. Delegating work (which should be taken care of by the institution) to artists
There is a strong tendency to let the artists contribute to all kinds of work related to a show, from advocacy to writing texts for catalogs, designing posters and flyers, taking photos, paying for insurance and transportation and so forth.

3. Setting up too strict conditions in a cooperation
Contemporary artists have to spend a considerable amount of time on paper work. The rise of the curators has led to a demand of increasingly complex conceptualizations of art to make it "fit" different curatorial concepts. Artists face complicated, non-standard application processes (being asked for extensive data like CVs, project descriptions, calculations, or artist staments).
This goes along with practical problems, like receiving little support during the installation process during the preparation of a show. Especially in residencies, artists face additional responsibilities like
contributing to an (unpaid) supporting program (artist talks, panels, guided tours, teaching).

4. No adequate reimbursement
This is a tendency in all fields of the arts and the creative industries in general. The imbalance of "supply and demand" of jobs (fine arts: exhibition possibilities) makes artists vulnerable to exploitation. It
should be a given to get paid for one's work, but in many cases things are different. Sometimes, this is explained by tight resources, or alternatively the compensation is seen in the (supposed) career boost. In any case, it has to be conceded that many artists are willing to work for free.

We want to emphasize that this idea of a Black List is not intended as a form of institutional critique (so there might be a white list, too). It is well known how institutions act and how they are embedded in the art system as a whole. Rather, the pressing questions we seek to answer are why artists do conform to these conditions, and what are the possibilities for improvement? The Black List aims at putting institutions under more scrutiny by a straight, practical approach. It is twofold: Institutions are confronted by their practice made public. Artists are challenged to take a position on which working conditions they are willing to accept. Both outcomes are in favor of a discourse on the working conditions of artists.

In "Performance of the Month" we feature stuff that is not intended to be art, but somehow is.

Hello I am a Christian man looking for Christian artist or humble respectful artist for a project I am working on. As of now it is no profit. I have a great idea with great potential. If we can get it going we all will get paid and have plenty of work. Please no druggies or alcoholics foul language users, smokers, arrogant, egotistical excuse making type. I prefer not to be involved with others like that.(im alone 90% of the time)
I am very humble, fair and trustworthy Christian man. This is not about money for me. I have made up my mind I want to do something. I have great Idea

I need artist that can get it right the 1st time and can draw/paint on a t shirt/shoes with a pen or fine paint pen or something.
graffiti writing, face sketching, cartoons, cars, flowers etcc..

We will all work together, no one by name will take the credit for anything. If you are bad at eyes and your teammate isn't, just ask him/her to do the eyes or something.
I know this will work, the hardest part is getting talented people that are humble and not greedy and selfish to come together and give this a try.
As I said this is non profit startup project with the potential to blow your mind.
Im currently looking for investors to help with a website. Investing could be giving your time to ask a friend that knows a friend that would want to join and help out to get it going. Investing isn't all about money all the time.
Its all about who you know that is not greedy. Id like to get this whole thing going without spending a penny. If all else fails ill just pay.

Anyway be serious and respectful. God fearing would be a super plus.

This only requires time, no major money out of your pockets. if you have paint pens already then thats great other than that ill try to provide whats needed. Unless you know someone that can help out until we get this thing on the road.

Be humble enough to walk away with nothing and a smile
at the same time be ready to experience a good time drawing making good money.
Will not require you to go anywhere but to the drawing board
This is non profit volunteer work to begin just asking one project per month, if things get to going good, you will have the chance to make plenty extra $$.
Do not quit your day job though.

Thanks for reading


Found on Craigslist. We kept all the spelling and formatting.

Relax, Relate, Release

Why some don't quite feel like a monarch in their residency

The word "residence" used to mean the dwelling place of a sovereign. In German civil service law there was a "Residenzpflicht", meaning the obligation for a civil servant to live near his workplace. And that's a lot closer to what an artist's residency means these days. Of the numerous conditions the artist has to comply with, this is among the most common. often, the residency expects more services from the artist. This may include an exhibition, assistance in misc. activities (like teaching) of the institution, the donation of artwork, writing reports about the residency in a blog, and so forth.
On the plus side, you will probably get a studio, some new experiences and maybe contacts, and yet another entry on your CV. Sometimes, a small stipend is provided, along with lodging and other services.

I'm sure there are some great residencies out there where you reside in a comfortable New York Loft, free to make the kind of art you want to. But the residencies people tell me about do not sound like that. It starts with the application. I remember an otherwise generous call for proposals issued by a housing society. The artist was expected to "reflect" upon the city district and include the local people in his/her work. The idea, of course, is to bump up the district in a process of gentrification. I wondered what kind of art would be produced during this residency. I pictured the artist talking to the people, collecting "stories" related to their district and putting up some clever visualization. And that's pretty much what it was; moreover there were somehow migrant kids included. Who could ask for more. Everybody emphasized how much of a success the project was to the district. No one talked about art.

As I see it, residencies tell us a lot about what the public expects an artist to be like. For us artists, it's no problem to spend months at some remote spot far away from home. We don't have a family, kids to take care of, or generally a life. The residency may have the luxury of a school camp or a youth hostel - we don't care, art is all that matters to us. In living this kind of life, we acknowledge and promote it at the same time. We put ourselves in the psychological position of a kid, hoping to find appreciation of our parents.

An interesting look at cultural capital and its relevance to artist identities:

"The question of who, exactly, is an artist — what that word means, who defines herself by it — has always been a tricky one. All sorts of surveys purport to the tell us the number of artists in the US, from the government census to independent initiatives, but the terms of the discussion have never been entirely clear. Are artists self-defined? Must they make money off their creative work (a certain amount)? What kinds of creative work count? Can you be a professional artist if you spend 30 hours a week doing something besides making art?

Each survey defines “artist” in its own way and then moves on with its results, but a new study in the journal Poetics takes up the root question itself: “Who is an artist? New data for an old question,” by sociologists Jennifer C. Lena and Danielle J. Lindemann. Lena and Lindemann look at data collected in the 2010 Strategic National Arts Alumni Project survey as a means of exploring the confusion over who or what constitutes an artist."
http://hyperallergic.com/115627/what-makes-an-artist-an-artist/