To me, these competitive models have a severely harmful effect in our genuine creativity. I affirm this because I understand that the whole reason of existence of such lists is a craving for validation. To validate the actual existence of an "art world" where artists, curators, art writers and so on live. This validation is pretty much based on our own insecurity I think, where art enthusiasts like ourselves are desperate to be validated by an ever-increasing world that do not value art at all. This insecurity is completely understandable, something that, as an artist myself, I need to deal with everyday. However, I don't think that the creation of such lists and their consequent creation of a boundary around an "art world" and an "artistic class" help to ease this insecurity. Actually, I believe it makes it worse, as it is based on the same model of competitiveness that rules the part of the world that do not care about art. It is a mediocre model that I guess multinationals have, to show what are the best employees of the month. This mediocrity is what I find very harmful to our genuine creativity, because if we carry on with this, what will be the difference between an accountant putting data into a computer and an artist putting paint on a canvas? Thus, I believe that we need a more creative and open model within all the aspects that envolve art, and thrust that there are some people living in the "non-art world" that are tired of that and are looking for something different. However, if they come to the "art world" and see the same model, then really where are they going to go? The best way to achieve a more creative model is to put the actual art back at the centre of everything, as it seems to me that now the "art world" dwellers have deviated their focus more to politics, fame and money. And, at the end of the day, these are the three goals that make everything become mediocre.