File spoon-archives/bourdieu.archive/bourdieu_2003/bourdieu.0305, message 27


Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 03:08:19 +0200
From: David Gedin <David.Gedin-AT-telia.com>
Subject: Re: Bourdieu and the aesthetic


Dear list,

First: I think Bourdieu actually includes "commercial art" in the 
cultural field. That the latter is autonomous doesn't imply that it's 
totally separated. (Even thought it's inhabitants might (like to) 
think so.) It rather stretches from an (more or less) autonomous pole 
to a commercial. There is no well-defined border between the monetary 
market and the market of symbolic goods, like it isn't any between 
popular and elitist works of art. With extremely few, if any, 
exceptions, the creation of any piece of art (literature, 
architecture, sculptures, etc) is to some extent a "compromise" with 
the commercial market because of the simple reason that it takes 
money to produce it.

Secondly: There is an explanation why a piece of art is more 
"valuable" then the others when it's created. What he says of 
Flaubert, Baudelaire, etc., is that they, through their work and 
life, create new social positions in society. That is, actually in a 
profound way participates in developing society. (With the maybe not 
completely satisfying consequence that history always is right, and 
the canonical works of art the most important.) What makes some art 
more influential then others must be related to what is possible in a 
specific moment of history, that is the same mechanism that makes a 
specific potential social position possible. ("Aesthetic value" ought 
to be only a way to pinpoint or name the symbolic values in the 
cultural field. To think that is it exists some specific aesthetic 
value in it self is to make the charismatic fallacy.)

Thirdly: But the problem remains when it comes to explain if a piece 
of art in some sense still could be "creative" also later on. That we 
value old art is of course necessary because of the endless need to 
legitimate the field, that is, the present creation of art through 
history and the values it includes. We also use specific pieces and 
artists to consecrate modern art by connecting to recognized values. 
('I'm doing what Shakespeare did at his time', 'this painting is in 
the tradition of the Russian suprematistm', and so forth.) But, even 
though this is enough to explain the importance of old art, I, 
personally, finds it a little bit unsatisfying. What happens for 
example when some art becomes "discovered" or "re-discovered" later 
on. Are the pieces of art only means for the discoverer to change 
hers or his position (with it's domino-effect in the field), or does 
it still communicate in itself? Maybe it is possible to be regarding 
this as a kind of creative "joint venture" between the discoverer and 
the art?

All the best

David Gedin




James Newcomb wrote:
>Regarding David Gedin^s post on Literary Value: It is true that Bourdieu
>sees taste as ^a weapon
>in the social struggle for dominance, and "aesthetical value" is
>consequently whatever the socially
>and (in our time) aesthetically dominant group in society (that is,
>critics, artists, etc.) defines as
>"aesthetical value".  Still, Bourdieu stops short and does not attempt
>to explain why a particular
>aesthetic value is chosen over all the possibilities available.  The
>problem is akin to a position-
>taking in a field, but much more specific.  I am attempting to move
>further in investigating this
>problem and am grounded in Bourdieu^s description of the artistic field
>in The Rules of Art, but I
>have found that his use of the term ^art^ sometimes includes only the
>purist art, that which is as
>autonomous as it can be by turning away from commerce, and sometimes
>includes bourgeois art.
>To cast the problem into relief, what would he say of architecture as an
>art, for it always involves
>a compromise with commerce?  I would appreciate any insights anyone
>could offer on these
>problems.  Bourdieu avoids the term ^creator^ because of the baggage
>accompanying it; maybe
>^art^ carries more baggage than he acknowledged.
>**********************************************************************
>Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

-- 
--------------------------------
David Gedin
Dep. of Literature
Stockholm University
Sweden

David.Gedin-AT-telia.com
--------------------------------
**********************************************************************
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