ABOVE: Damien Hirst has topped Art Review’s Power 100, meaning he gets a lifetime supply of Swiffer dusters. Or something.

There are some cases where a numerical rank of individuals makes sense: the Forbes Richest list is one such example: there are quantifiable things to rank, like the number of dollars in someone’s bankroll. That’s a ranking. But most powerful? Prettiest? Best? These are pretty loosey-goosey concepts to shoehorn into the lock-step grid of 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10. Not that people don’t try. Now, Art Review has drawn up its own annual “Power 100″ list, a ranking of the most powerful people in the art world. We can’t approve of the concept, but the result is still amusing to debate.

Damien Hirst topped Art Review’s list this year, the first time an artist has take the #1 spot (he actually dislodged his own dealer, Larry Gagosian, to take the position). The list was compiled based on a methodology of total sales, show attendance, and a subjective category of “artistic influence.” After Hirst, Gagosian is second, followed by François Pinault, Sir Nicholas Serota of the Tate is fourth, and Glenn D. Lowry of MoMA ranked fifth. Now, undoubtedly these are all appropriately potent dudes and all that, but do they really fit into their assigned slots that easily? Does this represent the moment Damien Hirst, uh, Jumped the Shark? We don’t really want to spoil anyone’s fun, but wouldn’t a list of powerful art-world figures in no particular order be just as effective, and less of a mathematical atrocity?

LINK: Reuters > Hirst tops art power list