Subject: field and indigenous art
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:22:07 +0930


Re Emma and Matthew Wallace's query-
below I have posted the second chapter of my Honours thesis which was
submitted last year. This chapter is currently under consideration for
publication.
I hope it is of some help.
Caroline Holmstrom Hoban

Chapter 2

The field of art production and Western Desert acrylics

This chapter looks at the genre of Western Desert acrylics in relation to
Bourdieu's notion of field. An examination of this genre through Bourdieu's
notion of the field of art production highlights the process that
legitimates knowledge about Western Desert acrylics, and those who produce
them, through a western mode of analysis. Legitimate knowledge is produced
according to criteria established within a field and therefore according to
those who define and dominate the field. In this mode of analysis
authenticity will be shown to be established through the field as legitimate
knowledge.

Bourdieu's theory of the field of cultural production is situated within the
western discourse of art. This theoretical positioning becomes apparent when
considering indigenous art within this paradigm. As western notions dominate
the field of cultural production, Aboriginal art  is subordinated because it
is subject to western definitions. The field of cultural production
incorporates both art gallery and museum practices, however I will be
focussing on the field of art production within Bourdieu's mode of analysis.
Although art is defined within the field and through the institution which
constitutes the field, Western Desert acrylics are not regarded in the same
way as western produced art. The acknowledgement of Western Desert acrylics
as art is contingent upon the authenticated Aboriginality of the producer.
The perception of Aboriginality in the art world is linked to the emergence
of Western Desert acrylics in the 1970's, which became the face of
Aboriginal art in the 1980's. That Western Desert acrylics are a form of
Aboriginal art facilitated by the involvement of the west is disregarded by
the artworld in favour of promoting the art as embedded in Aboriginal
culture. Thus Western Desert acrylics are subject to the production of
knowledge as defined by the field of art production. In this field
authenticity is implicated in legitimate knowledge as a means of realising
value through the definition of the art object as art.

The notion of authenticity is one which anthropology  has struggled to
define, although there is a significant awareness of the need for such a
definition (Phillips 1997). Consequently, there is a dilemma over the nature
of artwork in the area of display, as the label of authentic attempts to
categorise the object in relation to a variety of social phenomena. In this
arena, the dilemma is focussed upon the ideological construct of 'us' and
'them' and on what constitutes an authentic representation (Clifford 1985;
Foster 1985; Manning 1985; Torgovnick 1990; Trinh 1989). Implicit in the
idea that authenticity is an attribution imposed upon an artwork, is the
authority to do so:

We need . to confront the evidence that . we are deluding ourselves if we
imagine that we can make decisions about attribution, condition or display
without reference to particular notions of authenticity, which are far from
innocent of association with all manner of social values and status.
(Phillips 1997:6)

The perception of authenticity, which guides cultural representations, is
produced through social perceptions of what constitutes authenticity.
Presentations of authenticity which guide cultural representations are
products of the context in which they are constructed as authenticity does
not exist as an absolute and independent entity. Consequently, authenticity
is constructed through the power relations of those vying for the authority
to define an object as authentic.

The field of art production

In his conception of field, Bourdieu attributes notions of social values and
status to structures of power relations which are implied in the struggle
for domination (Bourdieu 1990b:11). Bourdieu characterises his theoretical
position as an analysis of:

.struggles for recognition [which] are a fundamental dimension of social
life and what is at stake in them is the accumulation of a form of capital
.. and that therefore there is a specific logic behind the accumulation of
symbolic capital. (Bourdieu 1990b:22).

Bourdieu posits the notion of field to direct his examination of the power
relations which vie for capital. The field of art production is Bourdieu's
conception of the arena in which artistic works are legitimated through
association with the accumulation of the capital at stake within the field,
which constitutes the producer and the work as authentic.

Within Bourdieu's mode of analysis, a field is defined by the particular
logic by which it operates. Struggle exists within a field to acquire the
capital that is at stake within the field. Within the field of art
production, this struggle is associated with positioning in relation to the
avant-garde, as the avant-garde has greater credibility through value
established in relation to symbolic capital. Capital is symbolic by nature
as it is the logic of the field which defines what that capital is, i.e.
capital is not fixed, it is the stake established within the field by those
who are vying for position within that field. It is the accumulation of
capital that legitimates an agent's position in the field, and thus
authorises the agent as authentically included in the field.

As those engaged with the field struggle for position through the
accumulation of capital, so tensions of renewal exist (Bourdieu
1996:231-232). This is the generative and unifying principle of the field
(Bourdieu 1996:232), as it is the struggle which maintains the existence of
the field whilst regenerating the capital at stake. Thus artists produce
artwork and validate the existence of the field through the belief that it
exists, whilst attempting to align themselves, through their art, with the
avant-garde which is recognised as having the greatest capital. Therefore a
challenge exists to those legitimately placed within the field from those
who wish to secure a position (Bourdieu 1996: 240). Rupture becomes
normative in the quest to promote one's own position through the
accumulation of capital. The rupture manifests itself as a legitimised
breakthrough which is recognised as avant-garde (appendix 6). As that which
is identified as avant-garde signifies a break with the past, thus the field
of art production exists in relation to social space and historical time
(Bourdieu 1996:256).

The production of the avant-garde is more than the production of an artwork,
it requires recognition of it as avant-garde. Thus, the field of art
production extends to the institution; art critics, curators, art
historians, art dealers, educational facilities, galleries, etc. (Bourdieu
1996:292), which recognise and legitimise art. So too, the viewer of the
work produced within the field is legitimately placed through their
recognition and acceptance of an artwork as avant-garde (Bourdieu 1996:288,
328-329) . Social space, the space of social positionings, constitutes the
relations that enable an avant-garde to exist, both in the art that is
produced and legitimised as avant-garde within the field of limited
production, and through the recognition of it as avant-garde. Therefore, in
order for art to be included in the field of art production, it must be
accepted that it is positioned in relation to the symbolic capital of the
field and in the context of western art history.

Within the field of art production Bourdieu posits a tension between
small-scale production of the avant-garde and the large-scale production of
populist images. The avant-garde's position within the field of art
production defines it as authentic because of its relationship with the
field of economics. Bourdieu asserts that the field of art production is the
economic world reversed (Bourdieu 1993: 29-74), as the capitals that define,
and are defined by, the fields of art production and economics, are mutually
exclusive. That is, economic, and therefore popular, success precludes 'true
art' (Bourdieu 1996: 216-218). Art that is created for art's sake, without
regard for economics or popular success is attributed with the greater
cultural capital within this field. It this form of capital, therefore, that
defines the field, (Bourdieu 1996: 217) as, within the field of art
production, it is through association with the avant-garde that legitimacy
is asserted and authenticity established. This criteria for authenticity
requires that art be perceived as being created without economic
considerations, or at least that the economics is not the primary
motivation. The producers of art, which incorporates the institution of the
field as well as the artists, are producing for those within the field, as
it is only those within the field that can determine the status of a work or
artist. Art that is accepted as art within the field of art production is
therefore identified as authentic, and the position of it as authentic and
the criteria which identifies it as authentic, constitutes knowledge about
what that art is.

Work can only be comprehended and legitimised by those within the field
(Bourdieu 1996: 218). Furthermore, it is those within the field that define
the field, as the authority to legitimise is embedded in the power relations
borne of the struggle within the field to position an agent as legitimately
belonging to it. Thus, the institution which constitutes the field of art
production has the authority to determine the criteria for inclusion and so
define that which is included as authentic. This constitutes the production
of knowledge about that which is authorised as belonging to the field.

Western Desert acrylics in the field of art production

The advent of Western desert acrylic painting, and the subsequent viability
of the genre, has seen it positioned within the field of art production
through the power relations which legitimise it and place it within the
field. The involvement of non-Aboriginal people in their production
facilitated the subsequent legitimation of this genre in relation to the
westernised notion of the field of art production. The institution of the
field placed this genre in relation to the avant-garde and other concepts of
western art signifying an acceptance of it as art legitimately placed within
the field. However, in authenticating the art, the influence of westerners
has been overlooked in favour of a focus upon Aboriginal culture and,
consequently, the focus of the genre is upon its Aboriginality. As such,
Western Desert acrylics are differentiated from art created in the west
because the culture of the artist is the criteria for its authentication.
The production of western art does not require cultural criteria for
legitimation, as implicit in the field of art production is that it is
western, thus cultural criteria only becomes marked in legitimating art from
non-western cultures as western art is naturalised in the dominant position.
The focus upon the Aboriginality of a painting infers that the artwork be
legitimated through the Aboriginal culture embedded in the artwork, thus
western influence is shunned in deference to authenticating the art as
Aboriginal.

In 1971, at the Aboriginal settlement of Papunya, art teacher Geoffrey
Bardon, encouraged Aboriginal residents to paint their Dreaming designs.
Until this time, these designs were generally reserved for ritual purposes.
As ritual designs they had been either body designs or sandpaintings and
therefore were ephemeral in their manifest form. The shift to applying these
designs to portable media gave the designs permanence and made it possible
to place them within the realm of western art presentation (Anderson and
Dussart 1988:140).  In his role as facilitator of the Western Desert acrylic
genre, Bardon drove the paintings to an art dealer in Alice Springs (Bardon
1991:34), thus creating the opportunity for these paintings to be
contextualised as art. Bardon's role in promoting this form of painting in
the encouragement, materials and advice he gave to artists, facilitated a
transformation in the position of Western Desert acrylics. Bardon would
advise the painters on how to produce "good work, how to beat the white
painters in town" and he insisted on "slow careful work with good stories"
(Bardon 1991:35). The materials he provided, the acrylics and canvas, were
also western art tools (Anderson and Dussart 1989:90). In short, western
influence facilitated the recognition of Western Desert acrylics as art and
thus positioned within the field of art production.
Prior to 1971, when Western Desert acrylics were first conceived, Aboriginal
art was considered as 'traditional'  (Anderson and Dussart 1989: 89), and
rarely seen outside of the cultural museum context. . However, because of
the particular form and circumstances of acrylic paintings, they have been
placed within the field of art production:
In contrast to almost all other types of Aboriginal art, which are usually
relegated to the realms of "primitive art" or craft, acrylic paintings have
come to be considered part of modern Australian art' (Anderson and Dussart
1989:90).

Thus, paintings associated with the Western Desert movement are attributed
with art historical significance aligned with modern Australian art. Within
Bourdieu's mode of analysis, this movement from traditional and therefore
culturally specific notion of Aboriginal art, to art associated with the
avant-garde, is seen as a rupture within the western art context. The
recognition of Western Desert acrylics has been facilitated, recognised and
endorsed within the western dominated conception of art and in line with the
criteria of the institution. Therefore, it is from outside Aboriginal
culture that Western Desert acrylics are sanctioned as art and placed within
the western conception of the field of art production . Such repositioning
is sanctioned by the institution as a rupture from previous Aboriginal art
in line with western ideals.

As a result of this reformulation, western influence in the production and
promotion of Western Desert acrylics has facilitated a recoding of
Aboriginal work

The founding act of this recoding is the repositioning of the tribal object
as art. Posed against its use first as evolutionist trophy and then as
ethnographic evidence, this aethesticization is not entirely value-free for
it allows the work to be both decontextualized and commodified (Foster
1985:187).

Through this decontextualisation Western Desert acrylics are repositioned as
falling within the western art criteria, thus they are able to be read in
relation to the western dominated and defined field of art production.

The institution of the field of art production, constitutes the relations of
power which have the authority to place the genre within the field.
Commentaries about Western Desert acrylics have aligned Aboriginal work with
western art history. Critics who have declared Western Desert acrylics to be
"cutting edge" (Yanow-Schwartz 1998) have placed the genre alongside the
avant-garde. Aboriginal acrylics as cutting edge prescribe it as a
culturally ambiguous innovation relative to the legitimate art of the field
of art production. Yet it is also differentiated in relation to previous
notions of Aboriginal art as knowledge endorsed in the field of art
production. Thus the notion of rupture is invoked and compounded. The
rupture relates to both the break with Aboriginal art perceived as
traditional and also to the western notion of the avant-garde as a break
with the past in the modernist paradigm.

Western Desert acrylics are situated within the field of art production,
through the recognition of the work in relation to western art history.
However, it is differentiated from western art through the perception that
Aboriginal culture has a tendency to produce such work. Western Desert
acrylics have been described as ' "pieces with astonishing and vibrant
aesthetic sophistication" '(Fielder 1996).  Other responses compound the
relationship of Western Desert acrylics to western art history; ' "I saw
what many Western abstract artists had been trying to achieve through a long
learning curve, but this came from a more natural, powerful, raw emotionally
charged place" ' (David Betz of the Songlines Gallery,San Francisco, cited
in Amirrezvani 1999) and," '.the viewer is automatically captured by the
pointillistic patterns, vivid colorizations, technical diversity-and by the
unruly power within them' " ( Yanow-Schwartz 1998), place Western Desert
acrylics within the realm of western aesthetics. Both pointillism and
abstraction are concepts that have particular meaning within the context of
the western art world. The recognition of the Western Desert acrylics in
relation to such concepts, relocates the appreciation of Western Desert
acrylics to within the western art field.

As a western construct, the field of art production does not reflect upon
the cultural constitution of the art it produces. The description of Western
Desert pieces as "astonishing" because of their "vibrant aesthetic
sophistication", suggests a prior perception of Aboriginality as being
unsophisticated. So, too, the "unruly power" and "natural, powerful, raw
emotionally charged place", with which this genre is ascribed, is associated
with Aboriginal culture in opposition to the culture of "Western abstract
artists". This perception positions Western Desert acrylics within the
western field of art production whilst legitimising and reinforcing
difference through cultural discretion.

Through Bourdieu's notion of the avant-garde as the economic world reversed,
the perception by the art world of Aboriginal art being art for art's sake,
ties Western Desert acrylics to the avant-garde in the field of art
production. The perception appears to be founded on the idea that Western
Desert acrylics are tied to 'traditional' culture which is 'pre capitalist'
and therefore economics is not a motivating force within its production.  In
Art World News Yanow-Schwartz reports that the money raised by Western
Desert acrylics is shared within the community:

Artists in the communities are shareholders and they really share. One
dealer told of the artist who won a $60,000 BMW car commission; everyone in
the community got some of the prize money (Yanow-Schultz 1998).

This positing of Western Desert acrylics as non-commodity based genre, is
produced and endorsed through the institution of the field of art
production. As the art critics are within the field of art production,
comments such as those of Yanow-Schultz dominate the perceptions of the
essential constitution of the acrylic art genre. Art critics are
legitimately placed in the field to recognise and recontextualise Western
Desert acrylics in relation to the western artworld which they are both
defined and constituted by.

The economic aspect of Western Desert acrylic art is defined in relation to
western perceptions of Aboriginal cultural values. The idea of Aboriginals
being motivated by money is dismissed in favour of the perception of the
culture as being pre-capitalist and in contrast with western societies. What
this perception effectively does is to place Western Desert acrylics within
Bourdieu's notion of the relationship of economics to the avant-garde. The
motivation for the production of this art is relegated to community and
cultural well being rather than any financial gain. Such statements as
"[n]ot only has it [Western Desert acrylics] been a source of money and of
pride, but it has helped preserve the culture" (Amirrezvani 1999) constitute
the notion of profit as incidental to the preservation of Aboriginal
culture. Thus Western Desert acrylics are positioned as 'true art' because
the motivation for its production is not primarily one of profit, but
enmeshed within their cultural reality as are the designs of the Dreaming
upon which the paintings are based. These factors authenticate the works as
'Aboriginal' art in the field of art production and create knowledge of
Western Desert acrylics.

Authenticating Western Desert acrylics in the field of art production

It is the positioning of Western Desert acrylics within the field of art
production that authenticates the work as art in Bourdieu's mode of
analysis. Art can only be legitimised by those within the dominant field.
However, it is because Aboriginal culture is implied in the recognition of
Western acrylics as authentic art, this genre is placed in a conditional
position within this field. The position of Aboriginal acrylic art is
contingent upon authenticated Aboriginality and so Aboriginal acrylics are
positioned in relation to authenticity.

The notion of authenticity in Western Desert acrylics does not entail the
definition of a piece of work as art, it involves the need to demonstrate
that the art is Aboriginal art, with the focus shifting onto the cultural
identity of the artist; the Aboriginal identity that created the work also
needs to be authenticated. 'Western culture views individual expression as
the very definition of art' (Anderson and Dussart 1988:142), whilst the
designs of Western Desert acrylics are an Aboriginal cultural expression
(Anderson and Dussart 1988:141). The emphasis of cultural identity redefines
the capital at stake within the field in relation to work produced by
Aboriginal artists. Within the field of art production the position of the
artist relative to the avant-garde is significant to their position in the
field, and as with Western Desert acrylics, the identity of the artist  and
the authenticity of the art are inseparable. However, in positioning Western
Desert acrylics within this field there has been a reformulation of the
criteria for legitimate positioning. The legitimacy of authenticity now
includes the issue of identity. This qualification has effectively shifted
the focus of legitimation from product to production, and places Western
Desert acrylics in a subordinate relationship to the dominant position of
western art. Although the identity of the artist has always been an
underlying issue in western art, the focus has been upon the work produced.
The production of Western Desert acrylics as art is reliant upon the
Aboriginal identity of the producer to secure its position within the genre.

The dispute over the work of Kathleen Petyarre highlights such conditional
positioning of Western Desert acrylics. Petyarre, an Aboriginal artist from
Utopia in South Australia's north, won the $18,000 1996 Telstra National
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Award with the painting Storm in
Atnagkere Country ll. However, a controversy arose when her partner at the
time of producing the painting claimed that the work was his. As a Welsh
born white man, Ray Beamish compromised the status of the artwork as
Aboriginal and therefore outside the conditions of the competition. However,
the consequences were not linked only to this prize, nor only to the status
of other Petyarre works, but to the entire Aboriginal art market (Cock
1997:44).

The ensuing furore focused on two issues of authenticity: 1) was the
painting Aboriginal, even though it depicted her Dreaming as a result of his
input, and 2) was the painting he had produced in the style authentic, given
his identity? Beamish claimed that not only was he the main painter, but
that he had developed the style for which Petyarre had become famous.
Petyarre claimed that he had assisted her in the execution of the painting,
and it was in keeping with Aboriginal cultural practices that family members
should assist with the execution of paintings. As he was considered her
husband at the time this was acceptable in relation to the production of
Aboriginal artwork. However, it was her Dreaming that was being depicted and
he had no right to this. Since the split, Beamish had moved to Melbourne as
a resident in the Aboriginal Gallery of Dreamings, and continued to paint in
the award winning style using Petyarre's Dreaming designs (Nunn 1997:9). The
struggle over the ownership of the style placed the work in a position
between the criteria of authenticity as defined by the western field of art
production and that of the differentiated subfield of Western Desert
acrylics.

The struggle to place the artwork demonstrated that Western Desert acrylics
is contingent upon identity, and it is this which authorises the production
of authentic Dreaming designs. The implications of this contingency being
that Dreaming designs are not authentic art unless produced by an
authenticated Aboriginal identity as Aboriginal culture is intrinsic to
authenticity of the art. As outlined in Samela Harris' article in The
Advertiser, 'When art is authentic' (Harris1997:19), there is no controversy
over western artists being assisted in the production of their work. The
parallel Harris draws underlines the differentiation in the authentication
of Aboriginal art in relation to western produced art:

One may liken it to Michelangelo's assistants in the completion of the
Sistine Chapel. It was his project, but he had qualified help in its
execution. Or Christo, who could not wrap an island alone. But wrapping
islands (or mountains or buildings) is Christo's art and no one else's
(ibid).


The dispute was settled by the board of the Museum and Art Gallery of the
Northern Territory (MAGNT), the body responsible for the Telstra
competition, which ruled that Beamish's allegations regarding his authorship
were not proven. The chair of the board, Colin McDonald QC, determined that
the works were produced in "accord with widely accepted Australian
indigenous attitudes to artistic practices and ownership, which freely
acknowledges the concept of assistance in the production of artworks" (Nunn
1998:5). This decision was significant in that it was made and legitimated
through a western process of determination. The board asserted its authority
to rule on what was essentially an Aboriginal judgement; they simply
authorised the practice as being legitimate within the context of Western
Desert acrylics, as within Aboriginal culture the practice was already
considered legitimate.  During the dispute elders from Utopia had gathered
in Adelaide to support Petyarre and had threatened to chase Beamish with
lawyers (Harris 1998:19). It was instead through the MAGNT board that
authenticity was asserted. The authority of Petyarre to assert Aboriginal
cultural processes of production, was not as credible as that of the western
processes of legitimation. The capital at stake in the field is defined in
relation to Western Desert acrylics- authenticity is relative to the
Aboriginal identity of the painter of the art work. The struggle over who
had the greater authority to legitimise the work thus highlighting the
struggle between fields for authority, as well as the struggle for position
taking within a field. The board of MAGNT had the dominant position in the
field to determine authenticity. What was at stake in the sub-field of
Western Desert acrylics, as distinct from the dominant western field of art
production was the identity of the artist to validate the work as authentic
Aboriginal art.

The issue of authenticity in the Petyarre case manifested itself as a
struggle between Petyarre and Beamish to assert authenticity in the mode of
production. That the production of the work was authenticated as being
within the realm of Aboriginal cultural practice then raised the issue of
intellectual property rights. Petyarre as the owner of the design had the
authority to determine how the design was produced in keeping with
Aboriginal cultural practice. Beamish's claim to the painting through his
assistance in the production of the painting was constituted ownership
within his western concept of knowledge, and it was this point which caused
the controversy. Beamish was separating the knowledge of production from the
knowledge of the design. This separation was not conceptually authentic
within Petyarre's Aboriginal practices and knowledge. However, in the final
instance, the Dreaming was Petyarre's and thus his assistance was legitimate
within the Aboriginal culture to which the design and Petyarre belong. In
this instance Aboriginal knowledge was asserted to authenticate the work,
nonetheless, it still required the authority of MAGNT to deem that this was
the case. In this example it is evident that the authority of the western
field of art production in constituting the criteria for authenticity of
Western Desert acrylics, positioned Western Desert acrylics as a sub-field
within the field of art production. The relevance of the identity of the
producer as a means of authenticating artwork was not pertinent within the
production of art by the west.

A different issue arose in problematising another case of art and identity
in terms of legitimising artistic positions within the field of art
production. Elizabeth Durack, a white woman on her 80's,  painted under the
name and identity of Eddie Burrup a male Aboriginal artist.  Not only had
she painted under a false name and identity but she had also written "a
monograph, quoting him at length in kriol" (McCulloch 1997:10). 'Eddie
Burrup' had produced works that toured Australia in the Native Title Now
exhibition, and had sold several paintings through Elizabeth Durack's
daughter's gallery. Durack planned to enter The Coming of Gudea as one of
Burrups's works in the Sulman Prize for landscape painting held at the Art
Gallery of New South Wales. It was reported that at this point she felt she
had to reveal the true identity of Eddie Burrup (Lloyd 1997:21). The
response to the revelation that Durack was Burrup varied. The Aboriginal
response was couched in terms such as it being a "total obscenity", Djon
Mundine, curator of Aboriginal art at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney
(cited in McCulloch:3) and "completely outrageous", Doreen Mellors, curator
of the Native Title Now exhibition (ibid). In contrast to these kinds of
responses from Aboriginal curators was the response of Edmund Capon,
Director of the Gallery of New South Wales. Capon's response that he didn't
"give a hoot" who painted it because "[w]e're not judging the artist, we're
judging the work of art" (Lloyd 1997:21), reveals a completely different
orientation to the constitution of authenticity.

Capon's authority to define the terms of the competition and determine the
debate over authenticity as irrelevant, comes from his own position in
relation to the authority of the gallery as an institution which governs and
imparts a particular kind of authentic, legitimate knowledge. Capon's
statement reveals that he is judging the painting only as art. His
perception of art as simply being art is the privilege of his western field
of production, therefore the identity of the artist and the notion of art as
authentic because of identity is irrelevant.  His view stands in contrast to
the debate over the authenticity of the work of Petyarre, in which the
cultural ramifications of her identity defined the work as one of
Aboriginality, and then only through the assertion of authority of the MAGNT
board. Both of these instances required the intervention of the institution
within the field of art production to produce the knowledge necessary to
resolve the issue of authenticity.

The position of Aboriginal art aligned with the Western Desert acrylic
genre, appears to be conditional within the field of art production. While
the artworld lauds it for its apparent break from traditional forms of
Aboriginal art in the Modernist style, thus situating it within the
avant-garde, it also positions it relative to criteria defined by the
western art world. The perception of Aboriginal cultural attitudes towards
money places the genre in relation to Bourdieu's notion of the economic
world reversed because it is seen to be defined through a logic different
from the capitalistic logic of the west. However, the authentication of
Western Desert acrylics as Aboriginal art is required for it to be
considered part of the genre. The field of Western Desert acrylic art
production then appears to be a subfield of the field of art production. The
definition of Western Desert acrylics as art does not function in complete
accordance with Bourdieu's mode of analysis because the genre is dominated
differently from western art, in respect of the way it is constituted as a
viable artform. The significance of the cultural identity of the producer
subordinates Western Desert acrylic art in the field and the shifts in the
criteria of legitimation constitutes it as a sub-field. The capital at stake
in the sub-field of Western Desert acrylic art is differentiated and
contingent upon legitimation of authenticity as defined by the western field
of art production. This capital is constituted through the positioning of
Western Desert acrylics within the field of art production and is a
manifestation of the struggle to maintain domination of the field.



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