Critics and magazines

I used to have an old collection of "Art In America" magazines from the 1960's and 70's. I had picked them up at a library book sale, a few years earlier.

Before passing them on to someone else, I read through them a couple times each and the one thing that has always struck me is the fact that I didn't recognize half the artists featured. What does that say? Were the critics wrong and these artists were not truely eternal or have universal appeal or is it the other way around - the artists were/are great but the market is flooded with greatness and its a crap-shoot on which ones survive.

I have shows lined-up for the next two years and am currently preparing for two exhibits running straight through this Feb - May. But I have to keep sending out portfolios and making the phone calls to guarantee I have exhibitions lined-up after then. Its a constant process of PR, often it is more time-consuming than the painting itself. The painting will never end, but what about the PR? The answer is unfortunately - it won't end either. Just look at that those poor schlubs that "made it" in "Art in America" magazine, forty years ago. Very few made a permanent name for themselves in Art History (well, as of yet). How many sat back after publication and said "I made it"? -DN