I doubt whether Damien Hirst really cares that he's moved up thirteen places

By Janet Street-Porter
Thursday, 30 October 2003

Last weekend was dominated by the Big Read, the BBC's attempt to find the most popular book ever, and now we have the ArtReview Power 100, allegedly the most influential people in the art world over the last year.

Last weekend was dominated by the Big Read, the BBC's attempt to find the most popular book ever, and now we have the ArtReview Power 100, allegedly the most influential people in the art world over the last year. Lists are ludicrous. Once I was voted the 27th most influential woman in Britain, now I probably rank in the hundreds. But such is our current obsession with listing everything from the 10 best electronic records to the most perfect bottoms in pop, that not a day goes by without a fresh one being published, broadcast, and picked over. The ArtReview list is a marketing device dreamt up by eager staffers anxious to sell at least 100 extra copies of this trade magazine to people who may be included on it.

They've thrown in all the usual suspects, from gallerists like the White Cube's Jay Jopling, to collectors like David Geffen of Dreamworks and museum executives like the Tate's Nicholas Serota, up from position 6 to 3. On the basis of his latest show, Common Wealth, I would personally have pushed him down to the third division.

Norman Rosenthal from the Royal Academy also drops from 32 to 42, but with his current shows, the Andrew Lloyd Webber collection of Pre-Raphaelites and the appaling Georgio Armani frock retrospective, Norman seems to have lost his touch.

Why push Charles Saatchi down from the top slot to number six, when he is still putting his money where his passion lies, buying and showing ground breaking art, including a wonderful new show of work by Turner prize nominees, the Chapman Brothers? Included for the first time are established American artists such as Ed Ruscha and the architect David Adjaye. He's just designed my new house, so I have my own opinions on that. Collectors like Miuccia Prada figure for the first time, but this is plainly ridiculous as Miuccia and her husband have displayed their collection of BritArt to the public in Milan long before some of the artists received recognition in public galleries in this country. I also doubt whether Damien Hirst cares whether this year he figures at 49 as opposed to last year's 62. Also, Michael Bloomberg, whose company still sponsors huge amount of new art events in London, has inexplicably fallen out of the list. The whole thing seems a petty exercise in score-settling, and you can bet that the biggest advertisers in the magazine will still be gratified to find their existence validated in the editorial part of the publication.

The problem with saying that anyone 'makes a difference' and quantifying that with a ranking, is that it reduces something wonderful, challenging and rewarding, which is the contemporary art scene, to being about as interesting as the colour range of next season's pantyhose.

Anyone who buys art deserves support, as do those who create it and show it. Sadly most of the people who write about it would be better suited to penning the Nigel Dempster diary, which, by the way, is now defunct.

Make-up tycoon topples Saatchi as art's greatest power

By Louise Jury, Arts Correspondent
Thursday, 30 October 2003

Charles Saatchi may have lost his touch but Sir Nicholas Serota has more power than ever. Damien Hirst is in, Tracey Emin out. And a doorman at Christie's, New York, is an unknown force to be reckoned with.

Charles Saatchi may have lost his touch but Sir Nicholas Serota has more power than ever. Damien Hirst is in, Tracey Emin out. And a doorman at Christie's, New York, is an unknown force to be reckoned with.

A list of the 100 most powerful people in the art world will provoke dissent and debate from the heart of contemporary British art in Hoxton, east London, to the wealthiest galleries in New York.

After the ArtReview magazine's inaugural Power 100 last year, the London publication today releases its new snapshot of the artists and dealers, the collectors and the museum directors, who have made the most difference to 20th and 21st-century art in the past year. The dominant force, the magazine ruled, was the cosmetics billionaire Ronald Lauder, who knocked Charles Saatchi, Britain's best-known collector, off the top. Mr Lauder has funded a high-profile collection and a new museum in New York. But perhaps his role in retrieving art stolen by the Nazis has enabled him to pip those who are simply wealthy and/or discerning.

In second place, as last year, is Francois Pinault, the owner of the Christie's auction house. The Tate director, Nicholas Serota, rises to third place, though with a question mark over how he can avoid undermining individual gallery chiefs in the parts of his empire in London, Liverpool and St Ives.

The top 10 includes the German painter Gerhard Richter, the Japanese artist and Louis Vuitton designer Takashi Murakami and the Greek industrialist and collector Dakis Joannou. Ossian Ward, the editor of ArtReview, who compiled the rankings with contributors, said: "All the key figures in Britain are still there and perhaps more have crept in. Some of our younger dealers, Sadie Coles, and Maureen Paley, are now included. Nicholas Serota moving up is an indication of the international status of the Tate. It is the most important global-branded museum."

The ambivalent reaction from many artists and critics to Charles Saatchi's gallery in the old County Hall contributed to his fall. But Ossian Ward said this was no indicator of where Mr Saatchi might end up. "Saatchi has obviously moved down but he's still one of the few British collectors actively shopping in the East End every week. Other British collectors aren't that voracious, but he could still discover the next generation of Young British Artists."

Jay Jopling, who acts for Hirst and other big names from his White Cube gallery, and Norman Rosenthal, the idiosyncratic exhibitions secretary at the Royal Academy in London, slip slightly. But Hirst, buoyed by new shows and ventures including sending paintings into space, rises up the rankings. And Jake and Dinos Chapman, hot favourites to win this year's Turner, make it for the first time as does the Pop Art veteran Bridget Riley, 72.

After a dearth of architects last year, Zaha Hadid and David Adjaye are added. But Ossian Ward said everything could change next year. "If this is going to be an annual barometer we need to reflect that in the ups and downs of people," he said. Number 100 must be a prime example. Adrian Mullish is a dentist who treated many Young British Artists when they were poor and paid him with art. The doorman at Christie's Rockefeller Centre headquarters is Gil Perez, who knows everyone who buys or sells.

The top 50

1 (3) Ronald Lauder: Cosmetics billionaire who founded the Neue Galerie in New York

2 (2) François Pinault: Owner of Christie's

3 (6) Nicholas Serota: Director of Tate galleries

4 (23) Larry Gagosian: New York dealer, with an enviable stable of artists and clients

5 (4) Gerhard Richter: Reputedly the world's most expensive living artist

6 (1) Charles Saatchi: Advertising executive

7 (­) Takashi Murakami: Japanese artist involved in commercial ventures

8 (­) Maja Oeri Hoffmann: President of a Swiss foundation which buys contemporary art, pictured above right

9 (­) Leonard Lauder: Ronald's older brother. Chairs the Whitney Museum of American Art

10 (20) Dakis Joannou: Greek industrialist who has run his own museum of contemporary art

11 (­) Santiago Sierra: Subversive Spanish-born artist

12 (37) David Geffen: Record tycoon who moved to house his art collection

13 (­) Herzog & de Meuron: Tate Modern architects who won an architectural prize for the Laban Dance Centre

14 (­) Glenn Lowry: Ambitious director of the Museum of Modern Art, New York

15 (61) Samuel Keller: Controls growing franchise of art fairs starting with Basel, Switzerland

16 (­) Leonard Riggio: Founder of Barnes & Noble bookstores who backed a new museum

17 (­) Iwan Wirth: Swiss dealer, described as Europe's most important commercial gallerist

18 (­) Barbara Gladstone: US dealer and talent spotter

19 (16) Eli Broad: A collector, donor and patron of 25 major American institutions

20 (­) Tobias Meyer: Deputy chairman of Sotheby's Europe

21 (­) Zaha Hadid: Anglo-Iraqi architect, pictured right, who designed a museum in Cincinnati

22 (­) Dan Cameron: Senior curator of New York's New Museum of Contemporary Art

23 (58) Matthew Barney: Artist and film-maker

24 (­) Maurizio Cattelan: Maverick Italian artist

25 (18) Jay Jopling: London's White Cube gallery owner

26 (­) Adam Weinberg: Director of New York's Whitney Museum

27 (­) Sadie Coles: London art dealer

28 (44) Marian Goodman: New York gallerist whose roster of stars includes Gerhard Richter

29 (­) Peter-Klaus Schuster: German who has run Berlin's 17 state museums since 1999

30 (­) Ed Ruscha: US artist

31 (51) Andreas Gursky: German photographer

32 (­) David Zwirner: son of powerful Cologne dealer Rudolf Zwirner, has taken the family business to New York

33 (7) Francesco Bonami: director of the 2003 Venice Biennale

34 (­) Karlheinz & Agnes Essl: Viennese collectors who built their own foundation to house their collection of contemporary art

35 (­) Sigmar Polke: German artist currently the subject of a major show at Tate Modern

36 (­) Brett Gorvey: In charge of the major sales of post-war art at Christie's, New York. Also a respected writer

37 (­) Rafael Vinoly: Uruguay-born, New York-based architect who was a finalist in the competition to rebuild ground zero

38 (­) Jeffrey Deitch: New York dealer whose two galleries dominate the downtown art scene

39 (­) Gavin Brown: notoriously impolite Croydon-bred gallerist now based in New York

40 (­) Louise Bourgeois: Tate Modern's inaugural turbine hall artist who is still working at 92

41 (59) Gerard Goodrow: director of the modern and contemporary art fair in Cologne

42 (32) Norman Rosenthal: hugely influential exhibitions secretary at the Royal Academy, London

43 (­) Mick Flick: Mercedes car factory heir whose $300m art collection of contemporary works will go on public display next year

44 (78) Matthew Marks: New York gallerist who represents Nan Goldin and Andreas Gursky

45 (­) Alanna Heiss: promoter of minimalist and conceptual art

46 (15) Bernard Arnault: a notable private collector

47 (­) Yvon Lambert: a French dealer now opening a new gallery in New York

48 (24) Jeff Koons: the artist, above, whose giant sculptures reveal a strong sense of humour

49 (62) Damien Hirst: British artist still intent on shocking

50 (­) Gil Perez: the doorman at Christie's headquarters

Revealed: UK's best and worst art buys

By James Morrison, Arts and Media Correspondent
Sunday, 12 October 2003

A chalk sketch of a naked Adam by Michelangelo - bought by the British Museum for £600 in 1926 but now worth an estimated £15m - is today proclaimed the nation's best-value art buy of all time.

A chalk sketch of a naked Adam by Michelangelo - bought by the British Museum for £600 in 1926 but now worth an estimated £15m - is today proclaimed the nation's best-value art buy of all time.

The study for the vault of the Sistine Chapel is one of several masterpieces whose market prices have multiplied since they were saved for the nation, according to the National Art Collections Fund, Britain's leading art charity.

But for every undisputed "bargain" snatched from the jaws of private investors by forward-thinking galleries and museums, there has been a tragically misguided purchase whose value has plummeted since its original sale.

A painting credited to Giorgione and bought by the National Gallery with the Art Fund's help for the equivalent of £566,000 has since been valued at a fraction of its original price after being re-attributed to a lesser artist. Similarly, an elaborate Bronze Age torque sold to Ulster Museum for £5,000 in 1968 is judged to be almost worthless, having recently been exposed as a 20th-century fake.

The Art Fund has compiled its list of "best and worst art buys" to coincide with its centenary celebrations, which will be marked with an exhibition at London's Hayward Gallery, sponsored by The Independent on Sunday.

The charity hopes the list will encourage institutions to buy more high-quality items by emerging artists at an early stage, in anticipation of their prices rising as and when they become famous. It wants galleries to collaborate more, to give them a better chance of saving works for the nation.

However, the Art Fund's call to arms comes with a warning. In recognition of its own past errors, it aims to discourage galleries from impetuous purchases on the basis of questionable advice about the prospects of promising artists. Such folly has been blamed for the decision by galleries in the early 20th century to snap up paintings by the all-but-forgotten Alfred Stevens, instead of paying similar sums for works by masters such as Monet.

Not everyone feels that the charity's candid advice goes far enough. The veteran critic Brian Sewell called on it to warn public galleries against "wasting" their scarce resources on "worthless" Brit Art works by the likes of Damien Hirst and Julian Opie.

The Art Fund has illustrated its "dos and don'ts" of art-buying using a series of examples of past purchases that it helped to finance. Of the Michelangelo drawing, Study for the Creation of Adam, which was bought for £600 (equivalent to £21,836 today) 77 years ago, it says: "At £600, this Michelangelo, which is probably one of the most famous studies in the history of art, looks like an absolute bargain. It would probably fetch up to £15m if it came up for sale today."

Similarly,The Toilet of Venus by Velazquez - better known as "the Rokeby Venus" - was presented as a gift to the National Gallery by the Art Fund in 1906. The painting, bought for £45,000 (£3.13m in today's money) is now "conservatively valued" at £70m.

Among the most embarrassing of the "worst buys" is a supposedly Bronze Age neck torque purchased by Ulster Museum for £5,000 (£53,300 today) in 1968 with the help of a generous £1,000 Arts Fund grant. It was later debunked as a fake.

However, the charity is keen to trumpet its achievements. Its director, David Barrie, said: "Given that more than half a million objects have been acquired with our help over the last 100 years, it would be a miracle if a few misattributions or downright fakes had not crept in. If museums and galleries always played safe, then some wonderful opportunities would be lost."

Mr Sewell is unconvinced. "You can put a value on something when there is a standard market for it, but with something like The Toilet of Venus there has only ever been one," he said. "How do you put a price on something that can never be equalled?"

Rounding on the Art Fund for supporting acquisitions of works by Young British Artists, he said: "Everything they bought which has been made since 1970 is a waste of money."

'Saved! 100 Years of the National Art Collections Fund' will run at the Hayward Gallery from 23 October to 18 January

The best: Michelangelo's 'Studies of a reclining male nude'

What is it: Adam in the fresco 'The Creation of Man' (1508-12).

What they paid: Bought outright by the National Art Collections Fund for £600 in 1926 (£22,000 at today's prices) and presented to the British Museum.

Why it was a good buy: Widely admired at the time, it is now viewed as one of the finest studies in the history of art.

What it's worth: Would fetch about £15m if it came up for sale today.

The worst: Giorgione's 'Tebaldeo'

What is it: Giorgione's 'Scenes from an Eclogue of Tebaldeo' (circa 1505).

What they paid: Art Fund grant of £2,000 (£81,000) towards £14,000 (£565,000) purchase by the National Gallery in 1937.

Why it went wrong: Turned out to be by a little-known Italian named Fernando Previtali.

What it's worth: Previtali's work sells for as little as £80.

Chapman brothers hit out at Tate

The Turner Prize-nominated artists Jake and Dinos Chapman have angrily attacked Tate Liverpool for dropping a retrospective of their work.

Art world insiders say the gallery decided to shelve next month's exhibition because of fears it would be eclipsed by a rival show being staged in London by Charles Saatchi.

And it would have been impossible to mount a Tate retrospective without Mr Saatchi's co-operation. As the Chapman brothers' biggest patron, he owns the bulk of their most celebrated works.

The director of Tate Liverpool, Christophe Grunenberg, said he decided a year ago to postpone the show after realising the dates conflicted with the Saatchi exhibition. He then put it off indefinitely, fearing the artists' Turner nomination and success at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition would make another exhibition seem like "overkill".

The Chapmans reacted angrily to the news. "We are not that interested in just having a huge rambling retrospective show going around the country anyway," said Dinos Chapman. "We would have tried to do something different for the Tate, so if the argument is that there's a Chapman 'overkill' it wouldn't be, because we would've made new work for it."