<p>Good comparison and good point about the revenue. But I guess what I’m saying regarding art and not movies, well actually maybe even movies, is that judging by revenue while interesting makes me a little nervous when talking about art. I guess because someone in my little pea brain I still hold onto the concept of art for art’s sake.</p>
<p>But of course on a more conscious level I recognize that this is sort of a silly concept to cling to in a way. Historically artists have worked for their patrons, their portrait comissions, etc. etc. which is also certainly not an art for art’s sake approach. </p>
<p>And even those who are lauded today at the museum level or for example those listed in your “best paid” cite could be said to be those who know the ropes best, how to play the system. I just thought of something, maybe you know, how many of those people have publicists of some sort? Now there’s an interesting question for an upcoming young artist.</p>
<p>Also don’t you think those contemporary artist who employe crews of help could be argued to be working in the centuries old true atelier / studio method. Most of those artists, if they could afford it, weren’t probably stretching their own canvases or doing their own rabbit glue applications.</p>