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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005