The "Richard Hamilton" Question: What is it that makes art rankings so appealing?

We can only hope that Gray has read the three-volume compendium with a title very similar to his own---The Economics of Taste by Gerald Reitlinger (published in 1961; republished in 1982). On page 224 of Volume I, Reitlinger bemoans the disparity between artistic and economic value:

The most depressing symptom of the present era is the upgrading [in price] of journeyman painters. It was due to the plain impossibility for a private individual to obtain works by more inspired masters.

For the last word on artist rankings and on any other subject that he chooses to address during his forced retirement, let's go to John Elderfield, as Cohen wisely did.

On the significance of frequent illustration in text books, he commented that the Galenson Top 10 "seem to be milestones, and that's fair enough." But to call them the greatest or most important works of the 20th century is, Elderfield scoffed, "frankly...preposterous." The Museum of Modern Art's former (as of Friday) chief curator of painting and sculpture then proceeded to anoint his own faves, which were, unsurprisingly, heavily weighted towards MoMA-held examples...

...proving once again that Top 10's, purporting to rank artistic importance or quality, are in the eyes of the beholder. The only mistake is believing that there's got to be an empirical way to sort these things out.