The most popular photographs are not necessarily the best photographs.  I will venture to guess the converse is also true.

http://petapixel.com/2015/10/06/these-a … otos-ever/

It's impossible for the most popular ANYTHING to be the best ... Except perhaps for a totally rational product, like glue or a hammer.

Think about what being popular means:  that your work is accessible to the widest possible audience, and can be easily understood by them. Regardless of your artistic medium, that means that you're not doing anything that requires any sort of analysis, as The Widest Possible Audience won't be analyzing anything.

Now think about what being better means. Whether it's 2D art, film, music, or writing, all of our favourite works are those that we enjoy over and over again. My go-to example of longevity is Young Frankenstein; it doesn't matter what I'm doing ... I can be elbow-deep in dishes. But I always run back to the living room and watch Frau Blücher say "Ovaltine!"

Mel Brooks himself has said that was his best, smartest film - but that Spaceballs was more popular, because everybody got everything the first time. Most of his other movies were somewhere between the two.

If you got the whole thing the first time, why would you go over it again? I love me some films, and the only 'easy' movie that I watch over and over again is The Princess Bride.

It really says a lot that Weston and Adams' work are some of the only images from the 'most expensive photos sold' lists that almost every photo student recognizes from 101, and that they are so far down the list.

I've said it before, and I'll have this opinion until I die:  you cannot have lasting commercial AND critical success with the same work. It's not the same market. And while there are exceptions, you'd be hard-pressed to name ten photographers than did without using Google. If you can, congratulations - you're probably qualified to teach Art History.