“Art” has no innate meaning or value. What is “art” and who is an “artist” are defined by those in the art world - gallery owners, curators and academics.
“Art” has no innate meaning or value. What is “art” and who is an “artist” are defined by those in the art world - gallery owners, curators and academics. Discuss with reference to specific artists, artworks and/or institutions.
Word Count: 2954
Cultural Studies: Visual Culture
BA Creative Direction for Fashion
Sofia Ochoa Neven Du Mont
OCH10304854
Art is often regarded with the ‘charismatic, romantic notion’ (Webb, 2002: 167) of the artist ‘as independent, solitary and disinterested’. This view promotes the idea that art exists completely of itself and has meaning and value outside of the world around it. However, more than the artist’s vision and intention often influences our perspective of art, as the dominant authorities of the field; the gatekeepers (gallery owners, curators and academics) are essential in the legitimisation of art. Thereby art gains recognition in the art world and then the general public, acquiring value through the position it has within its artistic environment. Therefore, as Webb explains, the Romantic notion of isolated art cannot be sustained. The purpose of this essay is to explore the ‘cultural arbitrary’ that surrounds art according to Bourdieu’s theory on The Field of Cultural Production, showing, in the process, that art has no innate meaning or value. It will first consider the perception of art through history and the change in the authority of art, before examine the structure of Bourdieu’s theory and looking at the above statement with regards to two specific artists: Damien Hirst and Marcel Duchamp and their work.
In the past, the kings and the aristocracy determined what was art and who was an artist. Later on, the church gained influence in the same respect. During the 11th-12th century art was simply seen as a "skill” (Jirousek, 1995), whereas during the Renaissance “art was above craft; it was… a higher order of human production” (Mulholland in Rampley,
Word Count: 2954
Cultural Studies: Visual Culture
BA Creative Direction for Fashion
Sofia Ochoa Neven Du Mont
OCH10304854
Art is often regarded with the ‘charismatic, romantic notion’ (Webb, 2002: 167) of the artist ‘as independent, solitary and disinterested’. This view promotes the idea that art exists completely of itself and has meaning and value outside of the world around it. However, more than the artist’s vision and intention often influences our perspective of art, as the dominant authorities of the field; the gatekeepers (gallery owners, curators and academics) are essential in the legitimisation of art. Thereby art gains recognition in the art world and then the general public, acquiring value through the position it has within its artistic environment. Therefore, as Webb explains, the Romantic notion of isolated art cannot be sustained. The purpose of this essay is to explore the ‘cultural arbitrary’ that surrounds art according to Bourdieu’s theory on The Field of Cultural Production, showing, in the process, that art has no innate meaning or value. It will first consider the perception of art through history and the change in the authority of art, before examine the structure of Bourdieu’s theory and looking at the above statement with regards to two specific artists: Damien Hirst and Marcel Duchamp and their work.
In the past, the kings and the aristocracy determined what was art and who was an artist. Later on, the church gained influence in the same respect. During the 11th-12th century art was simply seen as a "skill” (Jirousek, 1995), whereas during the Renaissance “art was above craft; it was… a higher order of human production” (Mulholland in Rampley,
Bibliography: Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (2002) The Field of Cultural Production. In The Book History Reader. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Gale, M. (2012) Tate Modern: The Handbook. London: Tate Publishing. Hughes, R. (1991) The Shock of the New: Art and the Century of Change. London: Thames and Hudson. Inglis, D. (2005) Thinking ‘Art’ Sociologically. In The Sociology of Art – Ways of Seeing. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jirousek, C. (1995) The Evolution of the Idea of Art. Online, available at: http://char.txa.cornell.edu/art/fineart/evolidea/evolidea.htm. Accessed: 28 Nov 2012. Kent, S. (2012) Damien Hirst: Genius or Con Artist? Online, available at: http://www.theartsdesk.com/visual-arts/damien-hirst-genius-or-con-artist?page=0,0 McClellan, A. (2003) Art and its Publics: Museum Studies at the Millennium. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Rampley, M Stallabrass, J. (2006) High Art Lite: The Rise and Fall of Young British Art. London: Verso. Walker, J.A. & Chaplin, S. (1997) Visual Culture: An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Webb, J. et al. (2002) Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage. Weiss, J Zolberg, V.L. (2003) Conflicting Visions in American Art Museums. In The Sociology of Art: A Reader. London: Routledge. Fig Damien Hirst. A Thousand Years. (1990) Glass, steel, MDF, cow 's head, flies, maggots, insect-o-cutor, sugar and water. 213 x 427 x 213 cm. Collection: Saatchi Gallery, London, UK.