Re: Cremaster Cycle
Would it be fair then to compare Barney and his work to another artist and their work where the other artist did everything with their own hands, without assistance, without extra funding, and without media hype, yet the other artist is likewise extremely fertile in imagination, extremely tenacious, and also working on project(s) over long periods of time?
Hollywood has long been the exemplar of the fecund abilities and output of a production team. Note how it's the producers that pick up the Oscar when a film is named the best.
We celebrate an artist's unique vision and his/her ability to execute that vision. Yet we also (less explicitly) celebrate an artist's ability to be sold (i.e., the exchange of significant amounts of money). The irony comes in when in reality an artist that isn't sold will most likely never be celebrated for their unique vision and their ability to execute that vision.
As Mike Kelley inadvertently(?) points out in Foul Perfection, there are at least two active artworlds that make up ongoing art history—those that play by the 'club' rules and then those that are (either) heretics, apostates, revolutionaries, etc.
How much difference is there now-a-days between contemporary art history and the record of what art sold/sells well?