group, and national identities connect with art. Chapter 12 turns to social boundaries and art. In addition to looking at the social construction of artistic categories, it focuses on Bourdieu’s (1984) Distinction thesis, ideas about omnivorous cultural consumption, and debates about social class, cultural capital, and taste.
Part III points out limitations of the diamond metaphor and the related research presented in the preceding chapters. The cultural diamond is divided into two sides, production and consumption. While this is a convenient strategy for presenting the sociological literature on the arts and reflects a genuine division in the literature, studies that look at either the mechanisms of production or consumption obviously ignore the corresponding consumption or production, and moreover, often sideline the art itself. In other words, separating art from artists, production systems, consumers, and society makes sense analytically; however, it can obscure our understanding of both the art itself, and art in its social context. In fact, isolating art as a node in the diamond often renders it epiphenomenal. Chapter 13 brings us back to the art itself, focusing on approaches to meaning in works of art. In Chapter 14, the discussion moves from art and society, as was presented in Parts I and II, to art in society. Art is part of society and cannot be abstracted from it. The chapter looks at cutting edge approaches in sociology of the arts along with a historical appraisal of the aura of art and the social construction (and gendering) of artistic genius.
Part IV (Chapter 15) sums up the book and revisits the issue of multiple paradigms in the sociology of the arts. It presents my own metatheoretical stance—or you could say, my taste in metatheory—and, in essence, it sets out an “aesthetic” of sociological theorizing about art.
Each of the substantive chapters is accompanied by a case study which looks at one issue or research project in depth. The cases include discussion questions, designed to stimulate classroom discussion. Some of the questions ask you to apply material from the chapters or to critically evaluate the case, rather than merely looking to the case for their solution. In neither its presentation of cases nor of sociological approaches to art does this book provide “the answers.” Rather it aims to raise questions and then to give you enough information to think critically about different—often overlapping or conflicting—views.
NOTES
1 1 Philosophers have grappled with the problem of defining art for millennia. For a useful review of the philosophy of art, see Graham (2005).
2 2 For instance, Sally Mann and Richard Billingham.
3 3 On haute cuisine, see Johnston and Baumann (2015), Trubek (2000), and Ferguson (1998); on haute couture, see Crane (2000), and Pedroni and Volonté (2014).
4 4 I might ask this of colleagues as well, but of course, established scholars are welcome to use their favorite metatheory if they want!
5 5 Watson (2008: 25) would call this “pragmatic pluralism”; also, see Griswold (1992a) and Morgan (1986). Becker (1970) also uses the mosaic as a metaphor.
Part I
The Relationship between Art and Society
2 Reflection Approaches
Art contains information about society. Smiles in paintings, for instance, reflect social attitudes about smiling and the quality of dental care available. Jones (2000) showed this in a study of a painting by Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun, a self‐portrait with her daughter, who is smiling with lips slightly parted.1 As described in the media,
The toothy grin, every politician’s gleaming weapon, was considered a sign of dementia until the exhibition of a radical painting in 1787… A study by Colin Jones…uncovers the birth of the modern smile. Until Mme Vigée‐Lebrun, [sic] icons such as the Mona Lisa had preferred to stay tight‐lipped, for good reason. Baring one’s teeth was considered rude, lower‐class and a possible sign of madness.
Dental care was also of such poor quality that few wished to be depicted with rotten teeth. Professor Jones said: “Teeth quality was at its lowest ebb in the 18th century because all classes were drinking tea or coffee and eating chocolate”… Nevertheless…many significant French figures began to allow their portraits to reveal their teeth. Professor Jones believes that this was due to the radical transformation in the practice of dentistry and a consumer boom in the range of dental products available. (The Times, 2000: 10)
If you wanted to learn about the position of ethnic minorities in society, rather than oral hygiene, you might watch television shows and see how minority groups are portrayed. You might focus on crime shows, counting the police officers of various ethnicities, and coding the ethnic origin of the criminals or victims (see Mastro and Robinson, 2000). The reflection approach rests on the idea that art tells us something about society. Television crime shows reflect racism; portraits reflect, among other things, beliefs about the best way to smile.
The reflection approach to the sociology of art encompasses a wide variety of research sharing in common the belief that art mirrors (or is conditioned, or determined, by) society.2 Research in this tradition looks at artworks in order to learn more about society. The approach has a long and venerable history in sociology. This is not surprising, as its main focus is sociological—to learn about society. It has been thoroughly criticized, notably by Albrecht (1954) more than half a century ago; nevertheless, it remains an important way for observers to approach art.
Roots of Reflection Approaches
A theory of reflection is found in Marxism, which posits that the culture and ideology of a society (the superstructure) reflect its economic relations (the base). This idea is “the key to Marxist cultural analysis” (Williams, 1973: 3), as well as providing the initial impetus to the reflection approach. In 1859, Marx himself wrote:
The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society—the real foundation, on which legal and political superstructures arise and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond. The mode of production of material life determines the general character of the social, political and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness… With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure [the combination of legal, political, religious, aesthetic, or philosophical—in short, ideological—forms] is more or less rapidly transformed. (1963 [1859]: 67–8)
In
