Leave a Mark (pp. 154-9)
Bourdieu begins this section by defining a "dialectic of distinction" by which all institutions and artists which have "'left their mark'" inevitably are displaced by subsequent institutions and artists. This law of change in the field of production particularly ages producers locked in "patterns of perceptions or appreciation" or "institutional concepts" since these patterns or concepts become "canonized, academicized, and neutralized" with time.
Bourdieu asserts that the field is temporalized through this struggle "between the dominants whose strategy is tied to continuity, identity and reproduction, and the dominated, the new entrants, whose interest is in discontinuity, rupture, difference and revolution." In other words, time or aging is produced after a rupture as each work moves up the chain and the following assumes the newly created vacancy. Producers attempt "marks of distinction" and "signs of recognition" in an effort to sustain the moment of dominance. Galleries and publishing houses are similarly temporalized, aging from the avant-garde to the consecrated. In this "field of present" those struggling are "simultaneously contemporaries and temporally discordant" because of their different artistic ages. See Figure 6 (p. 159) in which Bourdieu illustrates the "temporality of the field of artistic production."
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Chapter Two: The Emergence of a Dualist Structure
The Invention of the Intellectual (pp. 129-131)
In this section Bourdieu argues that Zola successfully avoided the standard discredit and associations with vulgarity implied by commercial success through the production of the intellectual. This intellectual was "inseparably intellectual and political" and applied the norms and values of independence in the literary field to the political field. In other words, the autonomy of the intellectual field enabled Zola's intervention in the political field which, consequently, produced him as an intellectual.
Zola's "J'accuse" and intellectual production resulted from "a collective process of emancipation that is progressively carried out in the field of cultural production." Unlike a politician, the intellectual acts independently of powers and is constituted through the act of political intervention "in the name of autonomy" and the values of cultural production. Bourdieu contrasts this intellectual with the eighteenth-century writer, who he sees as divorced of politics and theology; the legislator; and the intellectual who switches to the political field and betrays the values of his original intellectual field. Instead, this intellectual "asserts himself against the specific laws of politics . . . as defender of universal principles that are in fact the result of the universalization of the specific principles of his own universe."
This invention of the intellectual by Zola resulted not only from the "autonomization of the intellectual field" but also from the opposition to the reintroduction of the political field in the intellectual field. Bourdieu argues that "it is by relying on the specific authority conquered in opposition to politics by pure writers and artists that Zola and the scholars produced by the development of higher education and research will be able to break with the political indifference of their predecessors in order to intervene, during the Dreyfus Affair, in the political field itself, but with weapons that are not those of politics."
Bourdieu concludes by presenting Zola's defense of Manet. He claims that the same principles, "the sake of honour and truth," which led Zola to compose a written defense of Manet also compelled him to intervene in the political field.
Questions:
1. Was there a similar distancing and development of autonomy that enabled an independent intervention in the political field by a Turkish author? Are their any Turkish authors analogous to Zola?
2. Could this process be applied to modern American politics and interventions made by Stewart and Colbert?
In this section Bourdieu argues that Zola successfully avoided the standard discredit and associations with vulgarity implied by commercial success through the production of the intellectual. This intellectual was "inseparably intellectual and political" and applied the norms and values of independence in the literary field to the political field. In other words, the autonomy of the intellectual field enabled Zola's intervention in the political field which, consequently, produced him as an intellectual.
Zola's "J'accuse" and intellectual production resulted from "a collective process of emancipation that is progressively carried out in the field of cultural production." Unlike a politician, the intellectual acts independently of powers and is constituted through the act of political intervention "in the name of autonomy" and the values of cultural production. Bourdieu contrasts this intellectual with the eighteenth-century writer, who he sees as divorced of politics and theology; the legislator; and the intellectual who switches to the political field and betrays the values of his original intellectual field. Instead, this intellectual "asserts himself against the specific laws of politics . . . as defender of universal principles that are in fact the result of the universalization of the specific principles of his own universe."
This invention of the intellectual by Zola resulted not only from the "autonomization of the intellectual field" but also from the opposition to the reintroduction of the political field in the intellectual field. Bourdieu argues that "it is by relying on the specific authority conquered in opposition to politics by pure writers and artists that Zola and the scholars produced by the development of higher education and research will be able to break with the political indifference of their predecessors in order to intervene, during the Dreyfus Affair, in the political field itself, but with weapons that are not those of politics."
Bourdieu concludes by presenting Zola's defense of Manet. He claims that the same principles, "the sake of honour and truth," which led Zola to compose a written defense of Manet also compelled him to intervene in the political field.
Questions:
1. Was there a similar distancing and development of autonomy that enabled an independent intervention in the political field by a Turkish author? Are their any Turkish authors analogous to Zola?
2. Could this process be applied to modern American politics and interventions made by Stewart and Colbert?
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Chapter 3 The Market for Symbolic Goods
The Modes of Ageing (pp 146-154)
Bourdieu after starting the chapter 3 with explaining 2 modes of production (heteronomous market-driven and autonomous art for art’s sake poles), he dwells more on the ‘economic’ logic of the literary and artistic industries, which falls in the heteronomous pole. In the section called “Two modes of ageing”, he divides the “economic” logic of the literary market into two binaries as well. There are two life cycles of the enterprise of cultural production, one is short and the other one is long. He explains the strategies of publishing houses for these short (bourgeois) and long (avant-garde) cycles. Among the short production cycles, it is necessary to have space for agents and institutions of “promotion” in order to circulate the information about the products and distribute them equally. Bourdieu claims that smaller publisher houses target for long production cycles which lend itself into “talent-spotting” instead of publisher as being a business person or purely merchant, they become discoverer of talent. Within the economic logic of literary market, publishers that are divided into two poles within this heteronomous field constitute a battle, which takes between bestsellers with no tomorrow and classics or bestsellers over the long run. Short cycle, profit seeking bourgeois publishing (also identified as seeking for economic capital) is interested in immediate success, whereas long cycle, avant-garde publishing (also identified as seeking for cultural capital) claiming an intellectual foreground seeks for long term success and skeptic with immediate success. Furthermore, Bourdieu complicates his argument by including ageing to the midst of aforementioned argument. He first starts exemplifying painting and art galleries and turns his attention to authors and publishers in case of ageing. In the field of cultural capital and production, avant-garde firms turn their gaze to youth in order to barrow its resistance to bourgeois seriousness. Money and power that is associated with the bourgeois is associated with the “old” since age and power grows correspondingly. The intellectual and artist associated with cultural capital and publishers resists getting “old” in this sense.
Bourdieu after starting the chapter 3 with explaining 2 modes of production (heteronomous market-driven and autonomous art for art’s sake poles), he dwells more on the ‘economic’ logic of the literary and artistic industries, which falls in the heteronomous pole. In the section called “Two modes of ageing”, he divides the “economic” logic of the literary market into two binaries as well. There are two life cycles of the enterprise of cultural production, one is short and the other one is long. He explains the strategies of publishing houses for these short (bourgeois) and long (avant-garde) cycles. Among the short production cycles, it is necessary to have space for agents and institutions of “promotion” in order to circulate the information about the products and distribute them equally. Bourdieu claims that smaller publisher houses target for long production cycles which lend itself into “talent-spotting” instead of publisher as being a business person or purely merchant, they become discoverer of talent. Within the economic logic of literary market, publishers that are divided into two poles within this heteronomous field constitute a battle, which takes between bestsellers with no tomorrow and classics or bestsellers over the long run. Short cycle, profit seeking bourgeois publishing (also identified as seeking for economic capital) is interested in immediate success, whereas long cycle, avant-garde publishing (also identified as seeking for cultural capital) claiming an intellectual foreground seeks for long term success and skeptic with immediate success. Furthermore, Bourdieu complicates his argument by including ageing to the midst of aforementioned argument. He first starts exemplifying painting and art galleries and turns his attention to authors and publishers in case of ageing. In the field of cultural capital and production, avant-garde firms turn their gaze to youth in order to barrow its resistance to bourgeois seriousness. Money and power that is associated with the bourgeois is associated with the “old” since age and power grows correspondingly. The intellectual and artist associated with cultural capital and publishers resists getting “old” in this sense.
Chapter 2 The Emergence of a Dualist Structure
The Dialectic of Distinction (pp 126-127)
Bourdieu suggests from the readings of the era, the last half of 19th century, is an era of action and reaction. In other words, every agent of an action constitutes this position as a result of reaction. He shows binary oppositions between literary and cultural production, mostly wholesale reactions against to each other.
Specific Revolutions and External Changes (pp 127-128)
Bourdieu asserts that in case of struggle between possessors of specific capital and those who don’t, either of these poles can draw an external support in order to overthrow the current hierarchy of genres, authors, and schools. This external support is mostly political and economic but furthermore it is the change of conditions in literary market that genres are produced and consumed. Expansion in the economy and the increase in educated population played a detrimental role in this process. Increase in these areas opened new spaces for people to make money with their pen and population to read these works and consume. In order to exemplify his claim, Bourdieu shows the example of rise and fall of Naturalism in the second half of 19th century. What brought Naturalist movement into foreground during 1860s also caused the movement to overturn after 1880s. Once the condition of preceding era changes or disappears the balances change in the literary arena that enables struggle for shifting genres or authors and creates new set of hierarchies.
Bourdieu suggests from the readings of the era, the last half of 19th century, is an era of action and reaction. In other words, every agent of an action constitutes this position as a result of reaction. He shows binary oppositions between literary and cultural production, mostly wholesale reactions against to each other.
Specific Revolutions and External Changes (pp 127-128)
Bourdieu asserts that in case of struggle between possessors of specific capital and those who don’t, either of these poles can draw an external support in order to overthrow the current hierarchy of genres, authors, and schools. This external support is mostly political and economic but furthermore it is the change of conditions in literary market that genres are produced and consumed. Expansion in the economy and the increase in educated population played a detrimental role in this process. Increase in these areas opened new spaces for people to make money with their pen and population to read these works and consume. In order to exemplify his claim, Bourdieu shows the example of rise and fall of Naturalism in the second half of 19th century. What brought Naturalist movement into foreground during 1860s also caused the movement to overturn after 1880s. Once the condition of preceding era changes or disappears the balances change in the literary arena that enables struggle for shifting genres or authors and creates new set of hierarchies.
Chapter 1 The Conquest of Autonomy: The Critical Phase in the Emergence of the Field
Baudelaire the Founder (pp 60-68)
In this part, Bourdieu show Baudelaire and Flaubert’s alienation from the mainstream public, especially by arguing Baudelaire’s positioning almost as a heroic character that challenges the moralities of his time. Instead Baudelaire brings in his own set of moral indignations as Bourdieu says “against all forms of submission to the forces of power and to the market”. The motivation behind Baudelaire’s is to gain a degree of autonomy in literary and artistic field and as a result with his contemporaries like Flaubert, he achieves “to formulate clearly the canons of the new legitimacy” (62). By working with a small scale of publishing house, Baudelaire clearly manifests that his work (Les Fleurs du mal) is not going to be subjected to the masses but only to those who appreciate his artistic principles.
Positions and Dispositions (pp 85-87)
In this section Bourdieu argues about ambiguous positions of authors, who are champions of “art for art’s sake” and their relationship with their fathers as detrimental factor of their social trajectories. Aristocratic dispositions determine these “talented bourgeoisie” and “traditional nobility” in their alienation to “social art” by reducing them to mere merchants and facile entertainments.
Flaubert’s relationship with his father and his elder brother constitutes his social disposition and his contradictory relationship with his brother constitutes his position as an artist who is critical of bourgeois art. It’s only in the footnotes, Bourdieu compares Baudelaire’s position that is slightly different than Flaubert’s. Bourdieu claims that authors’ relationship with their male members of their family, for Flaubert his relationship with his father and elder brother, for Baudelaire his relationship with his father-in-law, became detrimental effect in their poor relationship with bourgeoisie art as well as their social position as a member of bourgeoisie. On one hand, Flaubert and his father shared a similar literary taste, unlike Baudelaire whose father-in-law looked down on his passion for literature. On the other hand, Flaubert had to compete with his elder brother, who exceeded him academically and took a path that was more acceptable in order to be considered as “successful”. Bourdieu calls Flaubert’s position as a “paternal curse” and hypothesizes that his desire to search for “pure art” comes from his conflict with his family.
In this part, Bourdieu show Baudelaire and Flaubert’s alienation from the mainstream public, especially by arguing Baudelaire’s positioning almost as a heroic character that challenges the moralities of his time. Instead Baudelaire brings in his own set of moral indignations as Bourdieu says “against all forms of submission to the forces of power and to the market”. The motivation behind Baudelaire’s is to gain a degree of autonomy in literary and artistic field and as a result with his contemporaries like Flaubert, he achieves “to formulate clearly the canons of the new legitimacy” (62). By working with a small scale of publishing house, Baudelaire clearly manifests that his work (Les Fleurs du mal) is not going to be subjected to the masses but only to those who appreciate his artistic principles.
Positions and Dispositions (pp 85-87)
In this section Bourdieu argues about ambiguous positions of authors, who are champions of “art for art’s sake” and their relationship with their fathers as detrimental factor of their social trajectories. Aristocratic dispositions determine these “talented bourgeoisie” and “traditional nobility” in their alienation to “social art” by reducing them to mere merchants and facile entertainments.
Flaubert’s relationship with his father and his elder brother constitutes his social disposition and his contradictory relationship with his brother constitutes his position as an artist who is critical of bourgeois art. It’s only in the footnotes, Bourdieu compares Baudelaire’s position that is slightly different than Flaubert’s. Bourdieu claims that authors’ relationship with their male members of their family, for Flaubert his relationship with his father and elder brother, for Baudelaire his relationship with his father-in-law, became detrimental effect in their poor relationship with bourgeoisie art as well as their social position as a member of bourgeoisie. On one hand, Flaubert and his father shared a similar literary taste, unlike Baudelaire whose father-in-law looked down on his passion for literature. On the other hand, Flaubert had to compete with his elder brother, who exceeded him academically and took a path that was more acceptable in order to be considered as “successful”. Bourdieu calls Flaubert’s position as a “paternal curse” and hypothesizes that his desire to search for “pure art” comes from his conflict with his family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)