User:Mark in wiki/Success

Some Wikipedia-biographies are worded in such a manner, that I struggle to understand the definition of success that is used. To me success means being lauded by your peers for your accomplishments. People who have never designed a house before, for instance, will generally struggle to understand what is so difficult about it, and the same of course goes for a musical composition or the construction of a staircase. Yet astonishingly enough, many accomplishments, especially in the arts, are measured by how many were sold or by how much it sold for. The wording "is a very successful artist" is very often followed by how many top ten hits the artist has written or how many books the artist has sold. Excuse me? But what do critics say? How do colleagues rate the achievements of this particular artist?

I think that for instance the fact that paintings by Van Gogh have sold for millions is not a valid argument to conclude that he is considered a great artist. He is considered a great artist because of his artistic achievements, well worded by his peers and critics.

There are many artists who have not enjoyed "chart success", but who are very successful artistically. Bob Dylan comes to mind. And, conversely, many artists whose work sells well, are not what we would call accomplished artists. Too many examples to mention.

And, come to think of it, why do we create lists of best-selling music and books but not of best-selling teddy bears and cupboards? What is this fascination with the monetary value of art? But, well, this is the world we live in, and Wikipedia only tries to describe that world, regardless of how strange it is.

I propose to not mention the number of top ten hits of a musician in the lead, or the number of books sold, or the price of paintings sold, and if that is really necessary, no earlier than the fourth paragraph. If we want to point to success, we must first and foremost point to artistic success.