Art And Statistics - Do They Connect?

According to Hoogrrl economist David Galenson has found a new way to rank Art.
In other words, just in case that wasn’t clear he has taken a statistical approach to determine which are the greatest works of art in history by counting the number of times a work of art appeared in a book between 1900 - to 2005.

Although I know that art is a commodity for some and investment for others there must be another way to quantify art.
As Hoorgrrl says

The frequency of an illustration doesn’t seem to me to really explain what makes an idea good. Somewhere along the line you’ve got to find answers to why it’s so interesting.

I agree. For some reason I can’t quite pinpoint I find this statistical approach to be insulting, at best…

I don’t think that art is comparable, or rankable in any way, although obviously there is good and bad art - but what is good and what is bad is arguable to a degree.

Maybe because I view art as a work of soul and mind, and not of a business, This approach is so annoying to me.

At least he recognises how annoying the art world would find his statistics. From the New York Times

His statistical approach has led to what he says is a radically new interpretation of 20th-century art, one he is certain art historians will hate. It is based in part on how frequently an illustration of a work appears in textbooks.

“Quantification has been almost totally absent from art history,” he said. “Art historians hate markets.”

 

What do you think?