"Artists that make a killing open galleries and provide for emerging artists to make their mark" This is not generally the case in art. While there exist infor

"Artists that make a killing open galleries and provide for emerging artists to make their mark" This is not generally the case in art. While there exist informal "artist run spaces" set up by struggling young artists, it is unknown for an artist to become a prestigious commercial gallerist. It doesn't happen. Setting up a gallery primarily requires capital, and only secondarily involves artistic judgement. Damien Hirst is the only partial exception I can think of, and he was also involved in coordinating group shows in temporary industrial spaces early in his career, so he has always had an interest in staging exhibitions. His London gallery is definitely not about making sales or supporting emerging artists, though. It's a status symbol. There are a few ways of looking at the art world that explain why artists don't become gallerists. One thing is that gallerists/curators are "cultural intermediaries" rather than creators. It's a different talent. Artists are sometimes asked to curate but they don't get involved in setting up galleries or publishers. It would be like an actor setting up a chain of cinemas. I guess the phenomenon you perhaps have in mind of movie stars becoming producers differs because producing is still a creative activity. There's a book called "Art World Prestige" that does a sociological analysis of what goes on -- all the things that are specific to the art world.