Journal of Visual Art Practice

ISSN: 1470-2029 (Print) 1758-9185 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjvp20

Defining contemporary art: what the

Kunstkompass Top 100 lists can tell us about
contemporary art

Marie Leduc

To cite this article: Marie Leduc (2019) Defining contemporary art: what the Kunstkompass Top
100 lists can tell us about contemporary art, Journal of Visual Art Practice, 18:3, 257-274, DOI:
10.1080/14702029.2019.1654204

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14702029.2019.1654204

Published online: 02 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjvp20
JOURNAL OF VISUAL ART PRACTICE
2019, VOL. 18, NO. 3, 257–274
https://doi.org/10.1080/14702029.2019.1654204

Defining contemporary art: what the Kunstkompass Top 100

lists can tell us about contemporary art
Marie Leduc
Independent Scholar, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

What is a ‘contemporary’ artwork? Widely acknowledged as a distinct Received 25 June 2019
genre since the early 2000s, contemporary art is not easy to define. To Accepted 7 August 2019
answer this question, this article draws on Kunstkompass, a German
KEYWORDS
art database that has followed the recognition and success of Contemporary art;
contemporary artists since 1970. The database identifies the world’s Kunstkompass; art practice;
top contemporary artists by tracking activities such as exhibitions, artistic themes; identity;
awards, and publications that bring an artist recognition. Using the gender
2017 Top 20 Living Artists and the Top 20 Stars of Tomorrow lists
and an analysis of art-world texts, the study identifies the types of
works produced and identifies their common modes of production
and thematic content. The study finds that the two lists represent
two generations, an older generation that was established during
the shift from modernism to contemporary art, and a younger
generation of emerging artists. The generational difference
highlights how the younger generation has followed the
pioneering practices of the older artists but have also expanded on
these practices in their own way. And, while the results of the
study do not identify a definitive paradigm for contemporary art,
they do point to the limits of the genre and how these are shifting
over time.

What is a ‘contemporary’ artwork? Widely acknowledged as a distinct genre since the early
2000s, (Robertson and McDaniels 2012; Smith 2012; Taylor 2005), contemporary art is not
easy to define. It is extremely eclectic. Artists employ many different modes of production
including painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, video, installation, and performance,
and often combine more than one of these modes in a single work or exhibition. Artists
also address a plethora of themes, singly or simultaneously, that are not necessarily
straight forward or immediately meaningful. As Brandon Taylor writes, contemporary
art is often marked by a ‘wilful obscurity’ (2005, 9) that makes the work all the more puz-
zling and difficult to categorize. Contemporary art is also the most recent art, an art that is
still in the process of being historicized even as new artworks and artists are coming to the
fore and are recognized as ‘contemporary’. How then are we to understand what is a ‘con-
temporary’ artwork?
To answer this question, I have turned to Kunstkompass, a German art database that
has followed the recognition and success of contemporary artists since 1970. Initiated by

CONTACT Marie Leduc mdleduc@ualberta.ca

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
258 M. LEDUC

Willi Bongard (1931–1985), a German business journalist with an interest in contempor-

ary art, Kunstkompass (or Art Compass) is the oldest of several databases designed to aid
collectors and gallerists in assessing the value potential of art in the contemporary market.1
Rather than tabulate sales results, which are often difficult to obtain, the company tracks
the activities that bring an artist recognition – solo and group exhibitions in important
galleries and museums, participation in international biennales, art awards, purchases
by major museums, and art reviews and feature articles in select journals and books
(Quemin 2015, 827; Rohr-Bongard 2017, 167).2 Kunstkompass gives each of these activi-
ties a weighted score that reflects the activity’s significance and impact in the art world.
Museums such as the Guggenheim in New York or the Centre Georges Pompidou in
Paris, for example, are given a higher ranking than smaller public museums in less signifi-
cant cities. Commercial galleries are likewise ranked according to their position in the
market. Throughout the year, Kunstkompass tracks the activities of over 30,000 artists
and assigns them a score according to each instance of notable recognition. At the end
of each year, the scores are tallied and Kunstkompass issues annual lists of the top
artists. Typically, Kunstkompass publishes three lists: the Top 100 Living Artists (the
artists who scored the highest in the rating system throughout the year); the Top
100 Stars of Tomorrow (artists who made the most gains on the list in the past year);
and the Top 20 Immortal Artists or Olympians (deceased artists whose work continues
to be featured in important venues and events). Together these lists provide a rich
source of quantitative data that identifies the artists who have ‘made it’ as
‘contemporary’ artists at a given point in time and measures their success vis-à-vis
other artists in the field.
Kunstkompass, like the other major art database ArtFacts.net, does have inherent
biases. Researchers such as Quemin (2015) point out that both databases document few
activities outside of the West, and even favour their own national artists. Kunstkompass,
for example, features more German artists on its lists than does the British-based Art-
Facts.net which, in turn, features more British and American artists (2015, 827–829).
As Quemin explains this bias reflects how the majority of important art venues, collec-
tions, and journals are based in Western nations. The databases also follow slightly
different data collection models that then tend to emphasize their biases. Kunstkompass
documents the activities of more German, Swiss, and Austrian institutions and appears
to give these a greater scoring weight than ArtFacts.net. ArtFacts.net, on the other
hand, collects data on far more artists and far more events around the globe. ArtFacts.net’s
rating method, which they do not disclose fully, is also based on an algorithm that includes
a score for shared relationships between artists and important art-world agents such as
curators (Claassen 2012; Quemin 2015, 828). Despite these biases, the lists remain fairly
consistent in naming many of the same artists, German, American or otherwise, albeit
with different placement on their respective lists. The top artists that appear on Kunst-
kompass and ArtFacts.net are also often named on less quantitatively rigorous lists
such as ArtReview’s Power 100, a list of the most influential people in the art world. As
Quemin notes, this homology indicates that ‘success generally begets success’ (2015,
829). Once recognized in the most significant Western institutions, an artist’s reputation
and value is replicated in these different measuring systems and across the field.
One factor that is not documented by these art databases is the type of artwork that an
artist produces. Kunstkompass, for example, only mentions each artist’s practice cursorily
 JOURNAL OF VISUAL ART PRACTICE 259

(i.e. installation, painting, etc.) and provides a brief analysis of the general artistic trends
when the lists are published (see for example Rohr-Bongard 2017). Even researchers who
have extensively employed the lists, such as Quemin (2015, 2017), Wuggenig (2002), and
Buchholz and Wuggenig (2005), do not identify or discuss the artworks produced by the
artists. Following the lists’ emphasis on the success of individual artists, these researchers
focus on artistic recognition and have contributed valuable studies on how gender, ethni-
city, nationality, and location of practice affect an artist’s recognition and position in the
field. Still, an artist is only ‘recognized’ in the art world, and on one of these ranking lists,
after she or he has produced artwork and had notable exhibitions. Thus, we can fairly
surmise that the artists named on the Kunstkompass lists have produced ‘contemporary’
artworks’. What then can Kunstkompass tell us about contemporary art production and
the types of works that are recognized as ‘contemporary’?

Identifying artwork types

In this study, I examine the work of the artists named on two Kunstkompass lists from
2017: the Top 100 Living Artists (LA list) and the Top Stars of Tomorrow (SoT list)
lists (Rohr-Bongard 2017). To make the study more manageable I focus on the top 20
artists from each of these lists as outlined in the tables below (Tables 1 and 2) although
I refer, where necessary, to the larger lists of 100 artists.
To categorize the artwork types, I considered the form and content of each artists’ work.
I began by examining each artist’s oeuvre using on-line sources such as museum websites,
commercial gallery sites, artist’s websites, and videos. In order to avoid a purely subjective
interpretation of the works I also conducted an analysis of on-line art-world texts that
identify the artists’ modes of production and thematic interests. These sources include
websites associated with major museums, commercial galleries, biennales, awards, on-

Table 1. Kunstkompass 2017: top 20 living artists.

Rank Artist DOB Nationality
1 Gerhard Richter 1932 Germany
2 Bruce Nauman 1941 United States of America
3 Rosemarie Trockel 1952 Germany
4 Georg Baselitz 1938 Germany
5 Cindy Sherman 1954 United States of America
6 Anselm Kiefer 1945 Germany
7 Olafur Eliasson 1967 Denmark
8 William Kentridge 1955 South Africa
9 Tony Cragg 1949 Great Britain
10 Richard Serra 1939 United States of America
11 Pipilotti Rist 1962 Switzerland
12 Jeff Koons 1955 United States of America
13 Andreas Gursky 1955 Germany
14 Imi Knoebel 1940 Germany
15 Thomas Schütte 1954 Germany
16 Lawrence Weiner 1942 United States of America
17 Thomas Ruff 1958 Germany
18 Mona Hatoum 1952 Lebanon/Great Britain
19 Francis Alÿs 1959 Belgium
20 Maurizio Cattelan 1960 Italy
Source: https://www.capital.de/leben/kunstkompass-frauen-erobern-2017-den-kunstbetrieb. For complete lists of the top
100 artists and rankings, see Rohr-Bongard 2017.
260 M. LEDUC

Table 2. Kunstkompass 2017: top 20 stars of tomorrow.

Rank Artist DOB Nationality
1 Anne Imhof 1978 Germany
2 Rosa Barba 1972 Italy
3 Alicja Kwade 1979 Poland
4 Franz Erhard Walther 1939 Germany
5 Kader Attia 1970 France
6 Thomas Bayrle 1937 Germany
7 Kerry James Marshall 1955 United States of America
8 Camille Henrot 1978 France
9 Anicka Yi 1971 Korea/USA
10 Daniel Spoerri 1930 Switzerland
11 Wade Guyton 1972 United States of America
12 Fiona Tan 1966 Indonesia/Australia
13 Bertrand Lavier 1949 France
14 Jonathas de Andrade 1982 Brazil
15 Lili Reynaud-Dewar 1975 France
16 Rachel Rose 1986 United States of America
17 Otobong Nkanga 1974 Nigeria/Belgium
18 Carolee Schneemann 1939 United States of America
19 Theaster Gates 1973 United States of America
20 Richard Deacon 1949 Great Britain
Source: https://www.capital.de/leben/kunstkompass-frauen-erobern-2017-den-kunstbetrieb. For complete lists of the top
100 artists and rankings, see Rohr-Bongard 2017.

line art journals, and the Oxford dictionaries of art. These texts were written by, or based
on the research of, various curators, critics, gallerists, and publicists who have been instru-
mental in introducing and supporting the artists in their rise to recognition. Their texts
serve to provide an objective confirmation of the artist’s position and importance in the
field.
For each artist, I gathered three texts written no later than 2000. I chose texts based on
several criteria. They had to be academically credible and provide a brief, succinct over-
view of the artists’ career and oeuvre. I looked for texts that identified the artist’s mode
of production and primary themes. And, I tried to maintain some consistency where poss-
ible. For example, every one of the LA artists was listed in either the Oxford Dictionary of
Contemporary Art and Artists (Chilvers and Glaves-Smith 2009c) or in the Oxford Dic-
tionary of American Art and Artists (Morgan 2018), and most artists on both lists had
at least one exhibition reviewed in Frieze Magazine.
Finally, to provide more context and to better understand the artworks in relation to the
artists who produced them, I began my research by considering the data provided by
Kunstkompass. This includes the age, gender, and national origin of each artist. This
information provides a helpful demographic picture of contemporary artists and how
an artists’ age, gender, and identity might impact the production and interpretation of
their work.

Two generations
In assessing the Kunstkompass data, the most notable result is how the lists represent two
very different generations. The LA list consists primarily of artists who established their
practice from the late 1960s through the 1980s and these artists have maintained a
place on the list for many years. The majority of these artists were born in the 1950s
 JOURNAL OF VISUAL ART PRACTICE 261

and early 1960s. They are, on the most part, the first generation of artists who art histor-
ians and theorists have recognized as ‘contemporary’ rather than ‘modern’. They are
artists like Gerhard Richter, Bruce Nauman, and Lawrence Weiner who, through their
work, turned away from the formalist aesthetics and idealistic objectives of modernism
and engaged in a critical practice that explored new modes of production like perform-
ance, video, and installation. Each of these artists earned their way to the top of the LA
list by consistently being recognized with awards, important exhibitions, and written
texts that identify them as ‘contemporary’.
The SoT list consists of the current rising stars of the contemporary art world. Many of
these artists are new to the lists and may only retain a place at the top if they continue to be
represented in the top venues and events. They are primarily younger artists, born after
1960, who established their careers in the 1980s and later. They thus follow in the rebel-
lious and innovative footsteps of the earlier generation of contemporary artists. And, like
their colleagues on the LA list, the SoT artists have earned their place on the list by gaining
recognition in significant venues and activities. Many of them appear to have been the
recipients of recent attention – major exhibitions and awards – that have given their
ranking a notable boost and thus led to their designation as ‘Stars of Tomorrow’. For
example, the top artist on the SoT list, Anne Imhof, represented Germany in the 2017
Venice Biennale and, because of her artwork, Germany won the Golden Lion Award
for the best national pavilion. That same year, Imhof was awarded Sweden’s Absolute
Art Award for the same work (Absolut 2017). Each of these credits has helped to push
Imhof to the top of the list and brought her significant recognition as a rising star of
the contemporary art world.
The two lists also represent significant differences in gender and ethnicity. With only
four female artists, the LA list is dominated by male artists. The list is even more exclusive
when one considers ethnicity and nationality. Mona Hatoum, born in Lebanon, is the only
non-Caucasian artist to make the top 20 on the LA list and, along with William Kentridge
of South Africa, she is one of only two artists to originate outside of Euro-America. Six of
the artists on the list are German, four American, and the remaining come from Great
Britain, Switzerland, Italy, and Belgium. These results do not vary much if one is to con-
sider the entire list of 100 artists. Again, male artists dominate. There are 80 male artists
and only 24 female artists out of a total of 104.3 Twenty-two nations are represented on
this larger list and, once again, German (28) and American artists (25) comprise at
least one quarter of the artists.
The glaring gaps in gender and ethnic representation on the LA list are not surpris-
ing, especially considering the generation they represent. A number of critical studies,
some of which use Kunstkompass data, have shown how the art world has long been
dominated by Euro-American male artists (Buchholz and Wuggenig 2005; Wuggenig
2002). This dominant position is reiterated in Kunstkompass’ 2017 list of 20 Immortal
artists which includes only one female, Louise Bourgeois, and all of the artists, except
for Nam June Paik, originate from Europe or the Americas (Rohr-Bongard 2017, 176).
A generation later, however, the SoT list indicates significant change. The list consists
of ten female and ten male artists with three female artists holding the top three places
on the list. The Top 100 SoT list replicates this result with a small edge for female
artists; 53 female and 50 male artists.4 There are also seven non-Caucasian artists on
the list of 20 and four artists who originate outside of Euro-America. This shift
262 M. LEDUC

appears to suggest that younger artists are working in a more open and less exclusive
art world.
The SoT and the LA lists both contain a number of anomalies that are worth noting.
These are artists who do not fit generationally into their respective lists. For example,
Olafur Eliasson and Pipilotti Rist are born after 1960 and fit, more appropriately, on
the SoT list. Their example indicates how younger artists may move far ahead of their
peers, gaining such significant recognition that they sit not with their own generation,
but in the same ranks as the established old guard on the LA list. The anomalies on the
SoT list are also interesting as they tell us something about how artistic taste can reinvigor-
ate a latent career. Just over one quarter of the list is born before 1960.5 Generationally,
these artists are closer to the artists on the LA list as they have had similarly lengthy
careers. The fact that they are not on the LA list, indicates that they have never had the
same caliber of success as those named on the 2017 LA list and that their placement on
the list represents a renewed interest in their artistic practice. Franz Erhard Walther (b.
1939), for example, was an early pioneer of performance art. There has been a renewed
interest in his work in the past ten years which has led to his inclusion in the 2017
Venice Biennale where he won the Golden Lion Award for best artist. Another pioneer,
Carolee Schneemann (1939–2019), was also recognized at the same biennale when she
was given a lifetime achievement award. Similarly, Kerry James Marshall (b.1955), an
African American artist whose paintings were slow to gain recognition in the most pres-
tigious venues, has experienced a recent interest in his work that has earned him a large
retrospective exhibition in 2016. Each of these activities gained these artists significant
points on the Kunstkompass ranking and raised their individual scores considerably. As
I discuss below, the type of work they produce also has affinities with the work of
younger artists on the SoT list.

Artistic differences
The generational divide between the two lists is also indicated by the artists’ modes of pro-
duction and the themes they address in their work. The two lists reveal that contemporary

Table 3. Modes of production.

Modes of
production Description
Drawing Hand draftsmanship in ink, charcoal, graphite or watercolours on any surface.
Printmaking 2D works on paper or canvas using traditional print techniques such as silkscreen, etching, etc.
Sculpture Free-standing objects, mass produced or shaped by the artist out of any medium.
Photography Digital or traditionally printed photographic images.
Installation Any large space inside or outside a museum intended as an artwork and that the viewer moves
through. Installations may contain additional objects, performances, or sound and videos made or
placed there by the artist.
Performance Live performances by the artist or others as directed by the artist and may include the audience.
Film-Video Moving images produced with video or film that are projected for an exhibition.
Sound Recorded or live sound included as part of an exhibition or artwork.
Text Typography used as a primary expression that may be painted, printed, projected or digitally
rendered on a surface such as a wall.
Books Artist-produced books that are presented as art objects in an exhibition space.
Architecture The incorporation of architecture into the artistic work either as imagery, small models, or as
specially built structures inside or outside a museum that viewers move through to experience the
artwork.
 JOURNAL OF VISUAL ART PRACTICE 263

artists, of both generations, use at least 12 different modes of production (Table 3). These
include the more traditional practices of painting, sculpture, drawing, photography, and
printmaking, as well as newer modes such as installation, performance, video/film, and
text. Architecture and books presented as ‘art objects’ in a gallery setting are also noted
on both lists. Comparing the two lists, the SoT artists use an average of 5 modes of pro-
duction each while the older generation uses an average of 4 modes. This difference may be
explained by the fact that younger artists are less settled into their practices and thus
explore more modes of production, and that older artists who have had a longer career
are more consistent. However, considering other factors as I do below, the slight difference
may also represent a greater eclecticism among the younger artists.
One of the most striking differences between generations is that nearly half the artists
on the LA list work primarily in a single mode of production and with the more traditional
practices of painting, sculpture, drawing, printmaking, and photography. Gerhard Richter,
George Baselitz, and Anselm Kiefer are best known as painters even if they occasionally
venture into sculpture, drawing, or printmaking. Likewise, Richard Serra, Tony Cragg,
and Jeff Koons are all regarded as sculptors while Cindy Sherman, Thomas Ruff, and
Andreas Gursky are noted almost exclusively for their photography. Each of these prac-
tices involves creating singular works that can stand alone and that do not rely on
other works or presentation within an installation for their meaning or effectiveness.
This is an important difference that distinguishes the older generation from the
younger. In contrast, just over half of the artists on the SoT list are engaged in multiple
disciplines in equal measure. These younger artists often combine different media and
modes of production into larger installations. These installations may take up the whole
space of a gallery. Rosa Barba, for example, is known primarily for her film work but
she often presents her films as part of a larger installation that includes sculptural
works made from actual film celluloid and old projectors. Likewise, Camille Henrot is
noted for moving ‘between painting, film, photography, drawing, sculpture and video to
create intriguing, playful and thought provoking works, resulting in comprehensive col-
lages and installations’ (Munch Museum 2016).
Performance is also a strong feature in these multi-mode productions. Eight artists on
the SoT list incorporate performances which may include the artist, other actors, the audi-
ence, or a combination of all three. Anne Imhof, for example, employs a troupe of perfor-
mers who work with her on her multi-media installations which typically fill a whole
gallery. Entering one of her exhibitions, the audience becomes part of the performance
by moving with the actors within the space.
Installations by young artists are also more often immersive in that they are designed to
engage all human senses. Many of the young artists include sound, performed live or
recorded. Imhof and Theaster Gates, for example, both incorporate original music and
sometimes include musicians into their performances/installations. Two artists on the
SoT list also incorporate scent and taste into their work. Anicka Yi works with human
scent and bacteria. She propagates these and exhibits bacterial growth in vitrines and
incorporates spray canisters of custom-made scents as part of her sculptural installations
(Guggenheim 2016). Otobong Nkanga explores the global movement of products, such as
kola nuts, between Africa and Europe. In her on-going exhibition/performance piece, The
Contained Measures of the Kola Nut, she invites gallery visitors to taste kola nuts and the
smell of these imported products permeates the exhibition space (Whitehead 2018).
264 M. LEDUC

With an emphasis on performance and film/video work, duration is also a significant

factor in the production of the younger generation. Over half of the SoT artists (14 of 20)
work with film/video, incorporating these into larger installations or presenting them as
single works. Viewing these works takes time. Single works can run for twenty minutes
or more. Similarly, performances can also be lengthy and require the sustained attention
of the viewer. Anne Imhof’s performances, for example, are often compared to operas and
can last hours, and even days (Demircan 2015).
Surprisingly sculpture is the top mode of production on both lists. There are, however,
differences in how the artists of the two generations employ sculptural form. On the SoT
list, older artists like Walther, Daniel Spoerri, Bertrand Lavier, and Richard Deacon are
noted primarily for their sculpture and tend to work consistently with the same materials
and, like the artists on the LA list, create singular objects. The younger artists on the SoT
list, on the other hand, employ a wide array of objects, relying often on objects from every-
day life or objects that have a strong symbolic reference to their thematic presentation.
Theaster Gates, for example, makes new objects from the wood that he finds in the derelict
houses he renovates as art projects in Chicago. Kader Attia has created work from broken
mirrors and dried, cracked wood that he stitches together as a way of expressing his theme
of ‘repair’ (Frieze 2013, ‘Attia’). Others, like Imhof, Henrot, and Lili Dewar-Reynaud often
incorporate ordinary objects like IPods, newspapers, and furniture without transforming
them into anything new. Once set into an exhibition the objects act as props in installa-
tions and performances. Only two artists on the SoT list, Alijia Kwade and Henrot,
create work with traditional materials such as stone and metal, and employ traditional
sculptural methods such as carving, casting, and modelling. Both artists, however, often
incorporate these finished pieces into larger installations that may also include live
performances.
The eclecticism and exploration of multi-media, performance, and installation of the
younger artists is also found among a few of the older artists on the LA list, especially
with the artists responsible for pioneering these modes of production in the 1960s and
70s. On the LA list, for example, Bruce Nauman uses seven modes of production. In
the 1960s, Nauman produced some of the first multi-media installations that combined
performance, sculpture, video, and sound. As Taylor Walsh writes, Nauman has
‘worked in every conceivable artistic medium, dissolving established genres and inventing
new ones in the process’ (2018). On the SoT list, anomalies such as Carolee Schneemann
and Franz Erhard Walther are also important for introducing and working with these
different modes. Schneemann is noted as ‘a pioneer of feminist performance of the
early 1960s’ and has ‘used her own body as the prevalent material of her art’ (La Biennale
di Venezia 2017, ‘Carolee Schneemann’). Walther was also an early adopter of perform-
ance, especially performances that required not only his own body but that of others,
including audience members. In some of his work, Walther produces sculptures from
felt fabric. To complete the pieces, the fabric strips and shapes are worn by performers
(or audience members) who must work together to create the final form. In both cases,
as with Nauman, these artists produced work that set new parameters for art-making in
their time, yet their work still has a strong affinity to current production. As Mark
Prince writes, ‘to reconsider Franz Erhard Walther’s oeuvre in the context of Berlin’s
teeming contemporary art scene is to recognize how relevant his work has become to
younger artists’ (2011).
 JOURNAL OF VISUAL ART PRACTICE 265

The emphasis on performance and immersive experiences is also indicated by the

younger artists on the LA list, Olafur Eliasson and Pipilotti Rist. Both artists were early
adopters of immersive multimedia installations and their placement on the LA list indi-
cates the significant value given to this mode of production. Eliasson is noted for using
lights, mirrors, and mist in his large-scale recreations of natural atmospheric conditions.
In The Weather Project (2003), Eliasson replicated the effects of daylight and mist in the
Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall. Rist, who debuted in the art world in 1986 while still in art
school, is noted for her large installations that include numerous objects, music, and mul-
tiple video projections that can fill a whole gallery. As the New Museum writes, Rist is ‘a
pioneer of video art and multimedia installations. Her mesmerizing works envelop viewers
in sensual, vibrantly colored kaleidoscopic projections that fuse the natural world with the
technological sublime’ (2016).
The two Kunstkompass lists demonstrate the eclectic nature of contemporary art but
also that there are some generational differences in artistic practices. The artists of the
older generation have primarily built their reputation on working with one primary
mode and producing artworks that can be viewed as singular and complete. The
younger generation, on the other hand, has embraced multiple modes and combined
these into larger, and often spectacular, installations. Perhaps, most notable is how the
older artists who were part of what Terry Smith calls ‘the shifts’ (2012, 8) between mod-
ernism and contemporary art pioneered many of the practices that are now so current
among the younger generation. Once considered provocative and marginal, performance,
installation, and video art, are now more the norm than the exception, and recognized as
such by the artists’ high placement on the Kunstkompass Top 100 lists.

Artistic themes
The thematic interests of the two generations also indicate notable similarities and differ-
ences. Between the two lists I found a total of 24 themes (see Table 4). Often more than one
theme is attributed to a work or exhibition. On average the individual LA artists are noted
for addressing 4 different themes in their oeuvre and the SoT artists for an average of 5
themes. This difference, while small, may again indicate a trend towards greater eclecti-
cism in the younger generation but may also reflect the difference in how the careers of
established artists are interpreted and generalized over time. A more cohesive consensus
on thematic interests may have formed about the work of older artists, whereas younger
artists are still experimenting with their creative interests and writers are still shaping their
generalizations about the artists and their work.
While the artists on the two lists share many of the same themes, these themes are
ranked differently which, once again, indicates generational differences. The most
common theme on the LA list is Material and Process. Ten LA list artists, or half the
list, address this theme, while only four artists on the SoT list are noted for an interest
in this subject. The LA artists who address Material and Process are Gerhard Richter,
Bruce Nauman, Rosemarie Trockel, Georg Baselitz, Tony Cragg, Richard Serra,
Andreas Gursky, Imi Knoebel, Lawrence Weiner, and Thomas Ruff. Writers note that
each of these artists explore the materials and methods of their media as a subject of
their work. This can simply be an exploration of the formal qualities of the medium or
how the medium itself is the message. For example, as the Cass Sculpture Foundation
266 M. LEDUC

Table 4. Themes and rankings.

Theme Description LA SoT Theme Description LA SoT
Material and A thematic focus on 10 4 Art world A critical focus on the 7 8
process artistic materials and norms and values that
processes and how they define art
are understood as art
Art world A critical focus on the 7 8 Identity A thematic and critical 5 8
norms and values that focus on ethnic or
define art national identity,
especially in relation to
the global spread of
Euro-American culture
and values
History A critical focus on 6 5 Belief systems A thematic and critical 3 8
significant events and focus on systems of
individuals in history belief such as myths,
religion and normative
social narratives
Identity A thematic and critical 5 8 Human sensory A focus on the body and 4 7
focus on ethnic or experience its sensory and sexual
national identity, experience
especially in relation to
the global spread of
Euro-American culture
and values
Consumer culture Thematic focus on 4 5 Human agency Thematic focus on the 4 6
consumer and pop and power individual’s struggle for
culture such as brand relations autonomy in the face of
names, celebrity, and social norms and
their mediatization institutions of power
Human agency Thematic focus on the 4 6 Time and memory Thematic focus on the 3 6
and power individual’s struggle for human experience of
relations autonomy in the face of time and memory
social norms and
institutions of power
Gender A critical focus on gender 4 4 Consumer culture Thematic focus on 4 5
designations and their consumer and pop
social effects culture such as brand
names, celebrity, and
their mediatization
Human sensory A focus on the body and 4 7 Built environment A focus on the effects of 2 5
experience its sensory and sexual and the built environment
experience urbanization and modern
urbanization
Human mortality A thematic focus on 4 2 History A critical focus on 6 5
human mortality significant events and
individuals in history
Time and memory Thematic focus on the 3 6 Human relations A thematic focus on 3 5
human experience of to materials human relations to
time and memory different types of
materials and their
placement in space
Belief systems A thematic and critical 3 8 Gender A critical focus on gender 4 4
focus on systems of designations and their
belief such as myths, social effects
religion and normative
social narratives
Human relations A thematic focus on 3 5 Material and A thematic focus on 10 4
to materials human relations to process artistic materials and
different types of processes and how they
materials and their are understood as art
placement in space

(Continued )
 JOURNAL OF VISUAL ART PRACTICE 267

Table 4. Continued.
Theme Description LA SoT Theme Description LA SoT
Existential Thematic focus on the 2 3 Existential Thematic focus on the 2 3
experience existential experience experience existential experience
of life of life
Built environment A focus on the effects of 2 5 Colonialism A critical focus on the 1 3
and the built environment effects of European
urbanization and modern colonization in other
urbanization global regions
Globalization A critical focus on the 2 3 Globalization A critical focus on the 2 3
effects of globalization effects of globalization
Environment A thematic and critical 2 3 Environment A thematic and critical 2 3
focus on the focus on the
relationship between relationship between
humans and nature humans and nature
Language A thematic focus on the 2 3 Language A thematic focus on the 2 3
uses and meaning of uses and meaning of
language language
Horror and the A thematic focus on 2 0 Human mortality A thematic focus on 4 2
macabre horror and the macabre human mortality
Domesticity A thematic focus on the 2 0 Technology A thematic and crticial 1 2
home and domesticity focus on the human
relationship to
technology
Politics and A critical thematic focus 2 1 Constructing A thematic focus on 0 2
governmentality on specific politics and community as creating a sense of
methods of governance art community through art
Human folly A focus on the absurdity 2 0 Politics and A critical thematic focus 2 1
and folly of life governmentality on specific politics and
methods of governance
Colonialism A critical focus on the 1 3 Horror and the A thematic focus on 2 0
effects of European macabre horror and the macabre
colonization in other
global regions
Technology A thematic and critical 1 2 Domesticity A thematic focus on the 2 0
focus on the human home and domesticity
relationship to
technology
Constructing A thematic focus on 0 2 Human folly A focus on the absurdity 2 0
community as creating a sense of and folly of life
art community through art
77 93 77 93

notes, Tony Cragg has ‘questioned and tested material possibilities’ in his sculptural work
and ‘demonstrated a shift of interest to surface quality and how this could be manipulated
through unlikely juxtapositions of materials such as bronze, steel, plastic, rubber, glass,
wood, plaster and more’ (2015). Lawrence Wiener, on the other hand, is notorious for
taking reflexivity to the extreme with his text-based installations where ‘the idea behind
the work was the work itself’ (Stern 2008). Others employ different media and methods
in order to subvert a medium’s artistic canon. Early in her career, Rosemarie Trockel,
for example, made knitted ‘paintings’ as a way to subvert the male dominance of the dis-
cipline, Georg Baselitz turned his painted figures up-side down to subvert classical figura-
tive work, and while Gerhard Richter addresses themes about family, German history, and
the truth of images, his work is often understood as ‘art-referential statements about the
possibilities of painting’ (Heiser 2012). This strong interest in Material and Process corre-
lates with the LA list artists’ emphasis on traditional media and working with single modes
of production.
268 M. LEDUC

Reflexive work about artistic media and modes of production appears to hold less inter-
est with the younger generation, at least it is not remarked upon by the writers. Of the four
artists on the SoT list who focus on Material and Process, Walther and Deacon belong
more appropriately to the older generation and explore similar concerns as the older
artists on the LA list. The other two, Rosa Barba and Wayne Guyton, while younger are
cited as subverting traditional notions of a particular mode (Rosa with film and Guyton
with painting) but employ newer materials and/or methods. Barba’s films and installations
blur the line between the moving image and the physical materials that produce it. As one
writer notes, Barba’s work ‘can be read against the background of an expanded notion of
sculpture’ as it addresses ‘issues of composition, the physicality and plasticity of form’
(Secession 2017). Using computer and print technology, Guyton creates large scale can-
vases and installations that challenge the conventions of painting and that explore ‘our
changing relationship to images and artworks’ (Whitney Museum of American Art
2012). Combining printmaking and painting, he purposefully distorts and then replicates
images found on electronic devices like smart phones and computers, and often presents
groups of these images in large-scale installations.
The shifting interest in Material and Process between the two lists can be explained, in
part, by the generational difference, but also by the persistent demands of an art world that
requires artists to find not only new subjects, but also new and original ways of presenting
art. The artists on the LA list (and the older artists on the SoT list) took part in the critical
practices of the 1960s through to the 1980s. These practices saw artists working with many
new materials and approaches as a way to challenge the institution and the viewer to cri-
tically re-consider what painting or sculpture could be. By the 1990s, innovations to these
traditional conventions were near exhaustion. Paintings became fields of colour and cut-
out shapes, sculpture could be made of anything and placed on the floor, on the wall, or
hung from the ceiling. By the 1980s, there were even heated debates about the impending
death of painting (Crimp 1981). Considering the multiple modes of production utilized by
the artists on these two lists in 2017, it is clear that no modes have actually ‘died’. Rather,
the two lists indicate that younger artists continue to use all of the different modes and
materials but introduce them into more complex multi-media installations that themati-
cally address other issues besides art itself.
History is another theme that ranks slightly higher on the LA list than on the SoT list. A
number of the LA artists were personally affected by WWII so it is not surprising that the
historical legacy of Germany’s actions before and during the war are cited as themes with
four LA artists. The effects of South African apartheid and 9/11 are also noted historical
subjects addressed by William Kentridge and Thomas Schütte respectively. Interestingly,
none of the LA artists are cited for addressing European colonization or the civil rights
movement in the United States. These subjects are more strongly represented on the
SoT list with Kerry James Marshall and Theaster Gates focusing on civil rights, and
Kader Attia and Jonathas de Andrade considering the effects of European colonization
in North Africa and Brazil respectively. At the same time, WWII and its legacy disappears
as a subject on the SoT list. While History remains a common theme, the SoT artists rep-
resent the historical events that have had, or continue to have, an impact on their own
time. Consequently, Identity, Colonization, Globalization, and the Built Environment
are themes that are more strongly represented on the SoT list than on the LA list.
 JOURNAL OF VISUAL ART PRACTICE 269

These subjects are often generalized, considering the long-term and on-going effects of
human history rather than specific events or historical figures.
Identity is a notably significant theme on the SoT list with eight artists addressing this
subject versus five on the LA list. This difference likely reflects the post-colonial turn of the
1990s which was responsible for initiating a critique of the exclusionary and universalist
practices of the West. The movement fostered the growth of what some have called ‘global’
or ‘new international’ art (Fisher 1994; Philipsen 2010). Four SoT artists address this
theme by focusing on social exclusion and/or exploitation based on race or ethnicity.
These include Attia, Marshall, Gates, and Jonathas de Andrade. The work of these
artists purposely highlights the historical and current ‘wrongs’ of Western nations vis-à-
vis their own citizens or their global ‘Others’. Jonathas de Andrade, for example, uses
his work to represent ‘how Brazilian national identity and labor conditions have been con-
structed against a backdrop of colonialism and slavery’ (New Museum 2017). This same
critical approach is barely evident on the LA list. Only Mona Hatoum is cited as addressing
the subject of the West’s ‘Other’ (Chilvers and Glaves-Smith 2009b). The other four artists
on the LA list who address Identity do so by considering their post-war German identity
(Kiefer and Richter) or by exploring a more generalized theme of identity in contemporary
life (Trockel and Sherman). Trockel, for example, is cited as challenging ‘notions sur-
rounding authenticity, identity and selfhood’ (Rana 2018) while Sherman is noted for
her ‘provocative exploration of the construction of contemporary identity and the
nature of representation, drawn from the unlimited supply of images from movies, TV,
magazines, the Internet, and art history’ (Wiley 2012). Similarly, half of the eight SoT
artists approach Identity in this more general manner. Lili Reynaud-Dewar, for
example, explores ‘various speculative fictions that attempt to subvert racial and sexual
injustice’ (Frieze ‘Lili Reynaud-Dewar’ 2011) while Fiona Tan considers cultural identity
and ‘how we represent ourselves and the mechanisms that determine how we interpret the
representation of others’ (Firth Street Gallery 2019). These approaches, while cognizant of
the issue of ethnic exclusion and exploitation, are interpreted as reflections on, rather than
criticisms of, contemporary identity issues.
We can see a similar contrast in critical and reflective approaches in how the artists on
the two lists represent the Gender theme. Gender was an important artistic and critical
theme in the art world from the late 1960s to the 1980s, especially among young female
artists. There are four artists on each list who address this theme and they are all
women except for Georg Baselitz on the LA list. Baselitz is noted for reintroducing figura-
tive painting, namely in the form of the nude male rather than female (Gagosian 2019).
The other three artists on the LA list, Sherman, Trockel, and Pipilotti Rist, are cited as
addressing ‘feminist’ issues about the representation and roles of women. In each case,
even with Baselitz, the theme is presented as a contrast between dichotomous and confl-
icting opposites – the artist’s gender versus their gender opposite. Cindy Sherman, for
example, is recognized for her ‘broader project of feminism’ and for ‘pushing back
against the pernicious power of the male gaze’ (Wiley 2012). The same sort of critical fem-
inism is not attributed to the work of the younger female artists on the SoT list. Rather,
they are cited for a more reflective and all-inclusive approach. Anicka Yi, for example,
is noted for considering how ‘anxieties related to gender, race, and class shape physical
perception’ (Guggenheim 2016).
270 M. LEDUC

When considering the themes of Gender and Identity on the lists, it is insightful to note
how these themes correlate to the actual gender and ethnicity of the artists. The only artists
cited as addressing the theme of Gender on the SoT list are female, yet, not all of the
females on the list are noted for addressing this issue. On the LA list, on the other
hand, all of the female artists are noted for addressing Gender directly, or as in the case
of Mona Hatoum, indirectly through the theme of Domesticity (McGrath 2018). These
facts suggest that female artists in the older generation gained their positions in the art
world, in part, by taking a strong feminist stance with their work whereas the younger
generation no longer needs to take such a critical position or even address the issue of
gender. When the younger female artists do address the subject, they do so with more
subtlety and reflection, and appear to avoid positing a conflictual relationship between
genders.
The correlation between the Identity theme and the artists’ ethnicity is less encouraging.
As the only ‘ethnically Other’ on the LA list, Mona Hatoum is also the only artist cited as
addressing an Identity issue. Even though she has produced a wide body of work
addressing many other themes and resided in Britain throughout her entire artistic
career, the Oxford Dictionary begins its description of Mona Hatoum by referring to
her as a ‘Palestinian installation artist, active in Britain’, and quotes a BBC interview
where Hatoum, herself, declares, ‘My work is about my experience of living in the West
as a person from the Third World, about being an outsider, about occupying a marginal
position, being excluded, being defined as “Other” or as one of “Them”’ (Chilvers and
Glaves-Smith 2009b). All of the seven ‘ethnically Other’ artists on the SoT list are also
noted for addressing Identity, or as in the case of Kader Attia, Colonialism. This suggests
that even though the contemporary art world appears to be more open to non-Caucasian
artists, these artists are gaining their recognition and entrance, in part, by producing
artworks that critically juxtapose their identities in relation to a dominant, Caucasian
West, past and present.
One common theme shared by the two generations is the Art World. This theme
focuses on critical reflections of art-world practices. There are a number of different
approaches to how artists might challenge the Art World. Some focus on redefining the
Material and Process of art-making as noted above, and others like Daniel Spoerri and
Bertrand Lavier (SoT list) and Nauman and Trockel (LA list), question what sorts of
objects can be considered art and how these objects, in the museum context, relate to
one another. Others, like Jeff Koons or Maurizio Cattelan (LA list) subject the ‘icons of
art’ to ‘irreverence’ through satire and humour (Chilvers and Glaves-Smith 2009a). And
still others, like Attia, Marshall, and Gates, emphasize their identities in order to highlight
the exclusions in the Art World. While the two lists share this theme, they also approach it
differently. The older generation tends to challenge ‘what is art’, while the younger gener-
ation, with its strong emphasis on Identity, appears to be more concerned with challenging
‘who can be an artist’. The younger artists also take a less provocative approach to challen-
ging the art world. Kader Attia, for example, approaches the subject of identity from his
theme of ‘repair’ as a way to consider cultural difference and historical trauma from a
remedial, rather than antagonistic, perspective. Similarly, Theaster Gates turns his projects
into a social event, often located outside of a museum setting, where he makes African-
American history, images, and music visible, and celebrates these in a place where all
people are welcome (White Cube 2019). These observations, along with the less
 JOURNAL OF VISUAL ART PRACTICE 271

antagonistic approach taken by artists addressing gender, suggests that the younger gen-
eration of artists have adopted a more conciliatory approach to their critical artistic
practice.

Conclusion
The Kunstkompass Top 100 lists of 2017 indicate the sheer eclecticism of contemporary
art and how it represents many different forms of production and thematic interests. Still,
as this study shows, the generational differences between the two lists highlight certain
consistencies and differences in form and content that help to clarify the question of
what types of artwork are recognized as ‘contemporary’.
The lists indicate how the work produced by the pioneers of the genre – artists like
Nauman, Schneemann, and Richter – continues to have significant relevance as ‘contem-
porary’ art. These pioneers established the artistic foundations of the genre by provoca-
tively introducing new media and approaches. They took the traditional processes and
materials of art and re-shaped and pushed them into new forms. They developed practices
like performance, installation, and found object sculpture, and embraced new technologies
like video. They also expanded the thematic subjects of art by addressing social and pol-
itical issues relevant to their time. As Taylor Walsh puts it in his profile of Bruce Nauman
on the MoMA website:
Coming of age amid the political and social upheavals of the 1960s, Nauman never adhered
to rigid distinctions between the arts, but rather has staked his career on ‘investigating the
possibilities of what art may be’. (Walsh 2018)

The contemporaneity of their work lies in how they initiated breaks with the past and
explored the expansive possibilities of what art can be.
The work of the younger generation indicates how the genre of contemporary art has
evolved over time. The younger artists on the Kunstkompass lists appear to have accepted
the innovations of the older generation, and the unlimited ‘possibilities’ these entail. They
use new media and methods liberally and expand on them through the creation of larger,
more complex, and often spectacular works. The younger artists are equally eclectic in
their choice of themes, yet, like the generation before they focus on issues related to
their own time and place. They thoughtfully represent the predicaments of their time –
social exclusion, globalization, the environment, the repercussions of European colonial-
ism, identity, and the experience of living in a complex global world. The SoT artists,
however, are noted for taking up these subjects by offering insightful perspectives rather
than critical juxtapositions. Their aim appears to be to inform through representation
rather than through critical provocation and conflict. As the jury for the Munch Prize
noted about Camille Henrot’s work:
Henrot’s artistic practice is particularly significant, in the sense that she sheds light on funda-
mental epistemological questions of our time where knowledge is continuously diffused,
reproduced and diversified through an impenetrable web of information and communi-
cation. (Munch 2016)

At the same time, highly provocative artworks are still valued as contemporary art. Artists
like Santiago Sierra (LA list 90), Ai Weiwei (LA list 46), and Hito Steyerl (SoT list 26) who
272 M. LEDUC

make strong political statements with their work are ranked high on Kunstkompass’ lists,
just not in the top 20. Instead, artists like Kader Attia and Theaster Gates take the top pos-
itions with work that challenges inequities but also propose art as a form of reconciliation.
The Kunstkompass lists also demonstrate that while contemporary art is a period-
defined genre, it is also a moving/changing entity in both its form and its content. The
generational differences that appear on these lists indicate that the types of artworks
that are recognized as ‘contemporary’ are not static but evolve slowly over time. The
older generation, as the pioneers of the genre, radically (and often provocatively) initiated
new forms of art and different themes that distinguished them from their modernist pre-
decessors. The legacy of the pioneers is then continued in the work of the younger gener-
ation who take up these same forms but apply their own differences and interpretations.
While no definitive paradigm of contemporary artworks emerges out of this study, a
consideration of what types of artworks do not emerge from the analysis indicates that
there are some parameters (however vague) that mark the limits of what can and
cannot be a contemporary artwork. For example, none of the artists on this list works
only in a single medium or produces thematic genres such as landscapes, still lifes, por-
traits, and figurative sculpture. All of these classic art genres and modes of production
are very clearly missing. There are only a few older artists, such as Gerhard Richter,
Georg Baselitz, and Anslem Kiefer, whose work might be considered in these categories.
Even non-objective abstract painting, which had its apogee in the 1950s, is largely absent
except in the work of Richter and Imi Knoedel. These ‘missing’ works indicate that there
are some definite exclusions and that certain artistic modes and themes are, over time,
pushed into the past as new practices and subjects emerge in the present.
The push–pull of this historical movement is further evidenced in the results of Kunst-
kompass’ 2018 lists (Rohr-Bongard 2018). The top 20 artists on the LA list of 2017, except
for Francis Alÿs (who has dropped below 20–22), appear again on the Top 20 list of 2018
albeit sometimes in a different position. Many of these artists, like Richter and Nauman,
have appeared on this list year after year. The results of the 2018 Stars of Tomorrow list, on
the other hand, fluctuate year by year. Only three SoT artists from the 2017 top 20 have
retained a place in the 2018 list: Alicja Kwade (2), Kader Attia (4), and Camille Henrot
(13). And only four others from the 2017 list remain in the ranks of the Top 100 Stars
of Tomorrow: Thomas Bayrle (27), Theaster Gates (29), Franz Erhard Walther (31),
and Otobong Nkanga (79). Furthermore, none of the SoT artists from 2017 make the
leap to the prestigious ranks of the Living Artists Top 100 list in 2018. This indicates
that even though these artists have been highly regarded in 2017, their place, like the
characteristics of contemporary art, has not yet stabilized. What will be interesting to
note in the years to come is whether these younger artists will eventually make it to the
Living Artist list and, if so, whether their entry will mark another shift towards a new
genre.

Notes
1. Other databases include ArtFacts.net and Art Price. Since 1985, journalist and artist Linde
Rohr-Bongard has directed Kunstkompass.
2. The database tracks ‘solo exhibitions in more than 300 prestigious international museums
such as the Guggenheim in New York; participation in more than 100 group exhibitions a
 JOURNAL OF VISUAL ART PRACTICE 273

year like the Venice Biennale; reviews in renowned art magazines such as “Art in America”;
purchases by well-known museums such as the Centre Pompidou in Paris; honours with
awards such as the Turner Prize in London; as well as sculptures in outdoor installations’
[German: my translation] (Rohr-Bongard 2017, 167). Also see Rohr-Bongard 2015.
3. This figure includes four duos where two artists work together and are recognized on the lists
as one artist (i.e. Gilbert and George or Ilya and Emilia Kabakov).
4. This figure includes one duo consisting of a male and female artist and a collective of three
men.
5. This percentage is replicated in the whole list of 100 where 25 artists are born before 1960.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Marie Leduc is an independent scholar and art historian living in Canada. She holds an MA in Art
History from York University, Toronto and an interdisciplinary PhD in Visual Art and Globaliza-
tion from the University of Alberta, Edmonton. Her research explores how contemporary art is
recognized and validated in the art world. She is the author of Dissidence: The Rise of Chinese Con-
temporary Art in the West (MIT Press, 2018), and she has written feature articles, reviews, and
interviews for Canadian Art, Yishu: Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art, and Media-N: The
Journal of the New Media Caucus.

References
Absolut. 2017. “2017 Absolut Art Award.” https://www.absolut.com/uy/prensa/2017-absolut-art-
award/.
Buchholz, Larissa, and Ulf Wuggenig. 2005. “Cultural Globalization between Myth and Reality: The
Case of the Contemporary Visual Arts.” Art-e-fact: Strategies of Resistance: Glocalogue 04. http://
artefact.mi2.hr/_a04/lang_en/theory_buchholz_en.htm.
Cass Sculpture Foundation. 2015. “Tony Cragg.” http://www.sculpture.org.uk/artist/tony-cragg.
Chilvers, Ian, and John Glaves-Smith. 2009a. “Maurizio Cattelan.” In A Dictionary of Modern and
Contemporary Art. 2nd On-Line Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chilvers, Ian, and John Glaves-Smith. 2009b. “Mona Hatoum.” In A Dictionary of Modern and
Contemporary Art. 2nd On-Line Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chilvers, Ian, and John Glaves-Smith. 2009c. A Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art. 2nd
On-Line Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Claassen, Marek. 2012. “Artfacts.Net.” Leonardo 45 (3): 278–279.
Crimp, Douglas. 1981. “The End of Painting.” October 16, 69–86.
Demircan, Saim. 2015. “Anne Imhof: Body Language. Frieze 19. https://frieze.com/article/anne-
imhof.
Firth Street Gallery. 2019. “Fiona Tan: Biography.” https://www.frithstreetgallery.com/artists/fiona-
tan.
Fisher, Jean, eds. 1994. Global Visions: Towards a New Internationalism in the Visual Arts. London:
Kala Press in association with Institute of International Visual Arts.
Frieze. 2011. “Lili Reynaud Dewar: Avant-Gardism and Black Power; Sexual Injustice and Radical
Italian Design.” Frieze 138. https://frieze.com/article/lili-reynaud-dewar.
Frieze. 2013. “Kader Attia: Kunst-Werk- Institute for Contemporary Art.” Frieze 11. https://frieze.
com/article/kader-attia.
Gagosian. 2019. “Georg Baselitz: About.” https://gagosian.com/artists/georg-baselitz/.
274 M. LEDUC

Guggenheim (Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum). 2016. “The Hugo Boss Prize 2016: Anicka Yi,
Life Is Cheap.” https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/the-hugo-boss-prize-2016.
Heiser, Jörg. 2012. “Gerhard Richter.” Frieze. https://frieze.com/article/gerhard-richter-1.
La Biennale di Venezia. 2017. “Carolee Schneemann Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement.”
https://www.labiennale.org/en/news/carolee-schneemann-golden-lion-lifetime-achievement.
McGrath, Daniel. 2018. “The Exquisite Torture of Mona Hatoum’s Heavy Metal Sculptures.” Frieze
196. https://frieze.com/article/exquisite-torture-mona-hatoums-heavy-metal-sculptures.
Morgan, Ann Lee. 2018. A Dictionary of American Art and Artists. 2nd On-Line Edition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Munch Museum. 2016. “The Edvard Munch Art Award 2015.” https://munchmuseet.no/en/news/
the-edvard-munch-art-award-2015-1.
New Museum. 2016. “Pipilotti Rist: Pixel Forest.” https://www.newmuseum.org/exhibitions/view/
pipilotti-rist-pixel-forest.
New Museum. 2017. “Jonathas de Andrade: O Peixe.” https://www.newmuseum.org/exhibitions/
view/jonathas-de-andrade-o-peixe.
Philipsen, Lotte. 2010. Globalizing Contemporary Art: The Art World’s New Internationalism.
Aarhus, Netherlands: Aarhus University Press.
Prince, Mark. 2011. “Franz Erhard Walther.” Frieze. https://frieze.com/article/franz-erhard-
walther.
Quemin, Alain. 2015. “The Impact of Nationality on the Contemporary Art Market.” Sociologia &
Antropologia 5 (3): 825–856.
Quemin, Alain. 2017. “The Superstars of Contemporary Art: A Sociological Analysis of Fame and
Consecration in the Visual Arts Through Indigenous Rankings of the ‘Top Artists in the World’.”
Revista do Instituto de Estudos Brasileiros 66: 18–51.
Rana, Matthew. 2018. “What Is it Like to Be What You Are Not? Rosemarie Trockel’s Diverse
Practice.” Frieze 200. https://frieze.com/article/what-it-be-what-you-are-not-rosemarie-
trockels-diverse-practice.
Robertson, Jean, and Craig McDaniels. 2012. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art After 1980.
3rd ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Rohr-Bongard, Linde. 2015. “How the Art Compass is Made.” Weltkunst [World Art], March 30.
http://www.weltkunst.de.
Rohr-Bongard, Linde. 2017. “Das Superkunstjahr 2017 war multimedial, globalisiert und weiblich.
Der exclusive Capital-Kunstkompass spiegelt die wichtigsten Trends.” Capital, 167–176.
Rohr-Bongard, Linde. 2018. “Welche Künstler werden wichtig? Im Ranking der ‘Stars von morgen’
geben immer mehr die Frauen den Ton an, globalisiert und weiblich.” Capital, 138–149.
Secession. 2017. “Rosa Barba: Spacelength Thought.” https://www.secession.at/en/exhibition/rosa-
barba/.
Smith, Terry. 2012. What is Contemporary Art? [Kindle Edition]. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Stern, Steven. 2008. “Lawrence Weiner.” Frieze 113. https://frieze.com/article/lawrence-weiner.
Taylor, Brandon. 2005. Contemporary Art: Art Since 1970. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice-Hall.
Walsh, Taylor. 2018. “Bruce Nauman.” Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). https://www.moma.org/
artists/4243.
White Cube. 2019. “Theaster Gates: Overview.” https://whitecube.com/artists/artist/theaster_gates.
Whitehead, Anne Martine. 2018. “Otobong Nkanga: To Dig a Hole That Collapses Again.” Frieze.
https://frieze.com/article/otobong-nkanga-dig-hole-collapses-again.
Whitney Museum of American Art. 2012. “Wayne Guyton OS.” https://whitney.org/Exhibitions/
WadeGuyton.
Wiley, Chris. 2012. “Cindy Sherman.” Frieze 149. https://frieze.com/article/cindy-sherman-0.
Wuggenig, Ulf. 2002. “The Empire, the NorthWest and the Rest of the World. ‘International
Contemporary Art’ in the Age of Globalization.” Translated by Aileen Dereig. http://www.
republicart.net (09-2002): 5.