Rank me if you can

Comment on the Ranking of Austria’s 40 Most Influential  Artists Under 40

This ranking is problematic not just because it reinforces existing inequalities in the art world, but because it was created by individuals who, from their privileged positions, are completely disconnected from the realities faced by emerging artists. The fact that this jury consists of people working in esteemed institutions—museums, galleries, academies—only highlights the absurdity further. Institutions that should be promoting diversity and reflecting the social realities of the art world instead reveal their true colors: a total lack of class consciousness and actions steeped in Western, white-dominated perspectives.

The Absurdity of the Jury

It’s not inherently wrong to respect these institutions—many of us have been trained within their systems. But how can a jury that operates from such a stable and privileged position judge “influence” without even remotely understanding the challenges artists face?

How can people with secure salaries, access to resources, and established networks decide on the “influence” of young artists? They do not know this reality. They have no understanding of the precarity and struggles that accompany many of us: juggling multiple part-time jobs, worrying about how to afford studio space, materials, or rent. These daily hurdles remain completely invisible to them.

The absurdity lies in the fact that this jury—composed of individuals entrenched in the privileged bubble of elite institutions—ignores the mechanisms of exclusion and exploitation and, with this ranking, actively reinforces them.

Not an Attack on the Artists

This is not about criticizing the artists on the list. Many of them produce remarkable works and deserve respect. However, this ranking diverts attention from the real challenges of the art world. Instead of addressing systemic barriers faced by marginalized artists, it celebrates those who have succeeded despite—or rather because of—their privileged positions.

It is utterly laughable that some artists are highlighted in this ranking who come from environments where financial security is a given—supported by their parents’ wealth, access to exclusive networks, and a lifestyle far removed from the realities of most artists. How can someone living comfortably in the wealthiest district of Vienna, backed by parental support, authentically represent the challenges of the art world? Influential? Yes but in a patriarchal neoliberal sense. Congrats!

The Toxic Ignorance of Class Consciousness

The problem lies in the lack of reflection about what this ranking truly signifies. It not only reproduces existing power structures but also reveals a Western, white-dominated perspective that is entirely disconnected from any notion of class consciousness.

This jury demonstrates no understanding of what it means to come from a low-income background, to be queer, or to have migrant roots—and to survive in a system designed to reward privilege. There is no effort to grasp what it means for many of us to juggle multiple jobs just to carve out enough time to create art.

Instead of addressing these barriers, the jury focuses entirely on marketability and networks—criteria that automatically exclude those who can’t meet them due to a lack of resources, access, or support from the outset.

The Role of Galleries and Institutions

Particularly disappointing is the way galleries operate today. They no longer look for artists with whom they can build careers. They don’t invest in long-term relationships or amplify emerging voices doing socially or artistically subversive work. Instead, they seek finished products: artists who are already “marketable,” who have won awards and grants, and whose works can be sold with ease.

This hunt for prepackaged success is not only shortsighted but profoundly problematic. It ignores the systemic barriers preventing marginalized artists from gaining visibility in the first place. And it exacerbates the inequality that already underpins the art world.

A Call for Solidarity and Genuine Change

This ranking is a symptom of an art world increasingly disconnected from the people it is supposed to represent. It reflects a system that rewards those who are already privileged while erasing those who are still struggling.

We don’t need rankings that entrench hierarchies. We need an art world that amplifies the voices that have been systematically ignored. We need galleries and institutions that take responsibility for their role and finally reflect the social realities of the art world.

The future of art does not lie in rankings but in a radical rethinking of how we value artistic practice. It is not about influence but about access. Not about status but about solidarity. And not about reproducing Western, white-dominated power structures but about genuine, sustainable promotion of diversity, class consciousness, and change. Only then can we make the art world a space that truly belongs to everyone.

Note:

This text was co-created with ChatGPT. As a system-critical, migrant, and queer individual balancing multiple jobs to make ends meet, I simply don’t have the time or resources to write such critiques without external support. Texts like this one—and the criticism they carry—are often unpaid, arising out of necessity to highlight systemic injustices. This, too, reflects the precarious conditions under which many of us operate.