File spoon-archives/bourdieu.archive/bourdieu_1998/bourdieu.9803, message 37


Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 02:50:46 +0400
From: mikhail gronas <kimig-AT-cityline.ru>
Subject: aesthetic labour + chess


Art is a very complicated field. Ill try to explain what I mean using as
an example the gaME  of chess. Actually , I think chess is a field (or
subfield) of a kind; then, there exists a chess aesthetic -they say
about beatiful or classical moves and so on. Now, suppose Bourdieu says
that the difference betw. high brow (professional) chess and low brow
(amateur)chess  roots from the sence of distinction. And a profesinal
chessplayer (say worldchap) disapproves of  my or your chessstyle
because of the disgust at the facile. For sure, such disgust will be
there ---but the most important and main diffeence would be one in
quality.He might be not interested in me playing chess --just because i
am a bad player. Now --he would be the better one because he has
invested much more time in chess; or, if i have studied chess the same
amount of time as he 's done ---i did it less effectively.
Now, I understand that its more or less clear how to differenciate
betw.  the low and the high in chess --they have ratings. which is not
the case with art.  But all of us do know that there are qualificative
differences in intellectual activities --art and science included. and
if they do exist --then they must in some way influence value formation. 
But Bourdieu doesnt seem to pay much attention to this side of the
problem.

**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005