1
In the long run, the influence of NFTs on art may only be judged by the extent to which their function is not limited to financial instruments;
2
Anna Tsing's ranking is so high not only because her work is often cited in exhibition catalogs or press releases, but also because the concepts of alliance and solidarity have become something that influences the structure and content of contemporary art;
3
These collectives are listed not because they are collectives, but because they are producing interesting and impactful works;
4
Theorists' share of the list in 2021 is less than in 2020, which reflects the gradual return to normalcy in everything (whatever the definition of normalcy at this time)... Perhaps theory is gradually giving way to practice, which is necessary to some extent;
5
It (POWER 100) reflects the increased influence of art involved in social, political or environmental issues... The impetus for these engagements comes primarily from outside the art world or from the world at large, and may also hint at changes in what we expect art to "do";
6
Over the past decade, the list has become more global than ever. Initially, it was mainly confined to Europe and the United States. But it was a slow process, which may reflect that while the art world boasted widely about its globality during this time, it was dominated primarily by the same small group;
7
Nominees must be active in the last 12 months, their influence must be beyond the local scope, and their influence needs to be evident in the type of art being produced or displayed.
Q=Art News/Chinese Edition
A=ArtReview
Q1: In this year's Power 100 list, NFTs, cryptocurrencies and related people (such as cryptocurrency investor, NFT collector MetaKovan, crypto exchange Gemini co-founder and president Cameron & Tyler Winklevoss and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg) began to emerge. In the past year, NFTs and related technologies have developed rapidly to enter the top of the list, according to AR, what is the trend of the impact of NFTs on the art world?
A: I think it remains to be seen. In some ways, NFT is primarily seen as a financial instrument, while on the other hand it contains the potential to "democratize" the distribution and ownership of art. It cannot really be separated from the blockchain database that serves as its foundation or the cryptocurrency through which transactions are conducted, and may produce relevant and more interesting developments in the blockchain. Or, to put it bluntly, in the long run, the impact of NFTs on art may only be judged by the extent to which their function is not limited to financial instruments. It's too early to say whether it's a flash in the pan or whether it's going to continue, but the list itself is based on what's going on over the past 12 months.
American anthropologist Anna Tsing
Q2: How has the relationship between art and the human world and the environment influenced this year's list?
A: There is no doubt that the current climate crisis has become one of the most pressing issues in the world today, and it is only natural for artists (puns here) to focus on this topic, from Olafur Eliasson to Anicka Yi. The idea that we may be able to understand and live in greater harmony with our surroundings through a deantocentric perspective is nothing new in art or life; in fact, it has many ancient cultural roots. But perhaps Anna Tsing's work through writing (thanks also to Donna Harraway) and "practice" (through initiatives such as Feral Atlas) has had a profound impact on contemporary art, thanks to its clear description and expression of how human and non-human forms productive alliances in the post-capitalist world she describes. Practices such as forensic architecture even imagine the environment as collaborators in their survey projects. But her ranking is so high not only because her work is often cited in exhibition catalogs or press releases, but also because the concepts of alliance and solidarity have become something that influences the structure and content of contemporary art: from collective and artist-run or non-profit spaces, to social justice movements and artist movements, and even restitution issues (reflected on the list by the likes of Felwine Sarr and Benedicte Savoy).
Given that NFTs – which can be considered explicitly anti-environmental in terms of the energy needed to produce them – occupy the first place on the list, you can also see the emergence of people interested in the opposite issue as saying that there is no single focus to dominate contemporary art right now. The art world as a whole is full of contradictions.
Indonesian art group ruangrupa
Q3: There are three artist groups/collectives in the top ten, and over the past year, we have also witnessed an upward trend in collective power everywhere, and "increasingly horizontal and contingent organizations", what is the reason for this in AR's view, and how will this affect the art world?
A: Collective and horizontal structures or contingent organization are a way to clearly get rid of the idea of hierarchy (ironically, the Power 100 list presents exactly this hierarchy). So perhaps the appearance of [art groups] on the list is a sign of its self-dissolution, or of an interest in the less feudal world structure that exists around art on a realistic level. It is, of course, an embodiment of alliances, solidarity and themes of common interest. You can see further evidence, in some of the recent art awards, shortlisted
Artists increasingly appear as collectives, as well as more general skepticism about this method of judging. However, these collectives are listed not because they are collectives, but because they are producing interesting and impactful works (Documenta Kassel 2022 by Ruangrupa is an example).
The late anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengere
Q4: In the past two years, there has been this trend of theory over practice (especially in 2020), and emerging thinkers, anthropologists, archivists and writers have emerged, how is this concretely reflected in the 2021 list?
A: We still live in a world where travel is restricted, where ideas spread faster than works of art. This means that thinkers will occupy a prominent place in a list that attempts to capture global trends. But the truth is, the list includes only those thinkers who have had an impact on today's art. Many of the thinkers on the list do not directly belong to the art world, which may indicate that many contemporary art are reacting to hot topics raised in other forums. Thus, David Wengrow and David Graeber (an archaeologist and an anthropologist) are on the list, and their recent book, Dawn of Everything, attempts to argue (roughly speaking) that the concept of the social and economic reorganization that we consider "novelty" today is part of our collective history, perhaps not as new as we think. Graeber (as a point of interest) was the first deceased to be included in the list. Art didn't invent or drive the climate debate, or the socio-political concerns of many of the artists on the list: they came from other disciplines. Perhaps the real message of this is that aesthetics has become a vehicle for conveying non-aesthetic concerns. Or rather, art is now part of a post-disciplinary environment.
However, I would like to say that the number of theorists in 2021 is reduced than in 2020, which reflects the gradual return to normalcy in everything (whatever the definition of normalcy at this time), the opening of exhibitions, the ability of people to go to see, so perhaps theory is gradually giving way to practice, which is necessary in some way.
2020 "Power 100" list
Q5: Most parts of the world are still more focused on local than global realities (e.g., #BLM "black lives" may have less impact on the Asia-Pacific region), what common topics or issues in the art world are connecting global communities and/or causing discussion on a larger scale?
A: I think the whole list reflects the chaotic or contradictory relationship between art and capital (or "market"), or the way art is evaluated. It's an ongoing debate that sometimes feels like a war. It reflects an increase in artistic influence involved in social, political, or environmental issues, because — as I mentioned earlier — the impetus for these engagements comes primarily from outside the art world or from the world at large, and may also hint at changes (realistically or not) in what we expect art to "do." (If you take an old-fashioned aesthetic view that art is independent of the world, it may make sense.)
Q6: The Power100 list has been going on for two decades, what is the most obvious or coherent trend you've noticed?
A: Over the past decade, the list has become more global than ever. Initially, it was mainly confined to Europe and the United States. But it was a slow process, which may reflect that while the art world had widely boasted of its globality during this time, it was dominated primarily by the same small group. But I think that while for a long time the same people dominated the top of the list, what was most consistent was the way it documented the debate and how we evaluate the concept of change in art: most obviously in terms of its economic and social value. Sometimes, one way of thinking dominates another, but the final position is usually reversed.
Q7: Since the Power 100 list is usually shuffled or restructured every year, what is the evaluation process?
A: The list was created by more than 30 people around the world. Each of them evaluates the forces (or people) who have had the greatest influence on the type of art in their area. There are rules: nominees must be active in the last 12 months, their influence must be beyond the local scope, and their influence needs to be evident in the type of art being produced or displayed. Then there's a debate about the global importance of the individuals on these lists, often as arguments. At this stage, sometimes indicators (number of exhibitions, revenue generated, international news coverage, the start of social media debates, etc.) help; sometimes they don't. Maybe the real way to organize is to put in as much subjective input as possible and then assess whether there's anything objective (a matter of common concern, a book that everyone has read or encountered, a work that everyone has seen) that might arise. After all, art tends to be subjective in general. Arguments or debates also extend to the list's readership: criticism, agreements, relevant media coverage, etc.
(Article from TANC)