Across “visual art” broadly, the correlation between artistic quality (as judged by skilled peers) and commercial success (revenue/sales) is positive but modest: ρ ≈ 0.2–0.4 overall. Within already-visible, gate-kept contexts (juried shows, reputable galleries), it tends to be higher: ρ ≈ 0.4–0.6. In mass, algorithmic, or novelty-driven contexts (social feeds, merch, microstock), it’s typically lower: ρ ≈ 0.1–0.3.-Attention and sales are heavy-tailed; distribution shocks swamp craft at the top tail.-Reputation, narrative, and provenance create large variance unrelated to technique.-Style–audience fit and timing often matter as much as skill.-"Quality” is multidimensional; single rubrics understate it.Success ≈ α·Quality + β·Distribution + γ·Market-fit + δ·Brand + ε (luck)In most online art careers, α \~ 15–35% of the variance you can realistically influence; β and γ together are often larger.
im just gonna assume the whole thing is based on luck, stop worrying about all this marketing shlock and just draw more. if i spin the wheel an infinite amount of times, it's just a question of time before i get a jackpot
>>7722623Thats very likely skewed data. I assume pros are being judged correct?You are excluding all begs and ints from the data no wonder the corelation is weak.After reaching pro level marketing and customer preferences for style and subject become much more important but that doesnt mean the technical skill is irrelevant.
>>7722623take it to the math board nerd
>>7722623stop worrying about money you capitalist troglodyte. you need to draw for enjoyment if you want to develop the skill set needed to market it. don't jump into art treating it like a career first, it's not a trade you can just learn with a certificate program. it takes time to develop, and quality is subjective.
