Art had been closely identified throughout modern history with individual creative geniuses whose works were valued and studied for their aesthetic merits, often to the virtual disregard of their context. The critical turn of scholarship in the 1960s has since shifted focus on the socio-economic and historical conditions of art production, highlighting its collective nature and demystifying the notion of the autonomous artist

This lesson explores key concepts and perspectives that have shaped our current understanding of how art is produced.

Learning outcomes

After studying this module, you should be able to:

1. Explain the shift in scholarship that informs our current understanding of how art is produced and valued;
2. Discuss key contextual theories of art production; and
3. Illustrate how new technology has been altering the way art is produced.

From art works to cultural products

The 1960s marked a turning point in the study of art and culture following the rise of radical new perspectives that highlight the historical and social contexts of art production. This focus on the materialist bases of art and on its status as commodity within the social and economic order directly challenged the formalist and hermetic conception of art and its claims of intrinsic aesthetic value, and put to question the autonomy of the artist.

Marxist scholars, in particular, challenged earlier conception of art as a disinterested or transcendent practice and called attention to its function in the maintenance of the dominant political and economic order. By situating art works in a specific economic and institutional setting and thus baring the material conditions and structures for their production and reception, contemporary scholarship has demystified the process of art production and called attention to the artist’s part in ideological work.

Among recent scholars who sought to unravel the social and materialist nature of art was French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu who traced the mystique of art to the artists’ denial of economic concerns, which are deemed mundane and at times even vulgar. For Bourdieu, such disavowal of commercial interests is a misrecognition of art’s true nature as a business enterprise which artists deem at odds with their pursuit of recognition. Bourdieu explained that the other participants in art production, such as the critic, the art dealer, the publisher or theatre manager who legitimate the art work’s status and endow the artist with the sought-after prestige, thereupon exercising power to consecrate objects or cultural products and give them cultural value that would be translated to monetary profits.

Institutional Theories of Art Production

Aside from challenging the Romantic notion of the artist as disinterested genius concerned mainly with art as creative expression, sociologists and cultural studies scholars also dismissed as naïve the idea that the art work’s acclaim is based solely on its intrinsic qualities or merits. As underscored by many contemporary critics, an artwork’s stature is a product of a complex interplay of marketing, promotional, and other institutional processes involving numerous players.

Among the most important scholars who focused on the institutional or collective nature of art production are Arthur Danto, George Dickie, and Pierre Bourdieu.

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu stressed the socially mediated nature of art. It enlists a host of mediators such as the agents, publishers, publicists, gallery owners, curators, theater managers, art critics, and art teachers, among others, who collectively comprise the artworld. They perform various roles in various activities such as writing workshops, book launches, competitions, cocktails, and exhibits, and are responsible for legitimizing or mainstreaming art works.

This notion of the art world was earlier conceived by George Dickie who, inspired by Arthur Danto, put forth the institutional theory of art which maintains that judgments about art and the very status of it as art are made and conferred by the functionaries of the art world as they perform the practices within that sphere. Bourdieu added that the art world is not stable system but a field of constantly contending forces of artistic orthodoxy and rebellion.

The composition and practices of the art world have varied accordingly based on the dominant modes of art production as described in the following periodization adapted by Hesmondhalgh from Raymond Williams (Walmsley, 38).

1. Patronage and artisan era: Artists were retained by elites, and skilled craftsmen sold goods directly to buyers. This was dominant from the Middle Ages to early 19^thcentury.
2. Market professional era: Art works were produced increasingly for public sale and organized by the market and often sold through distributors or productive intermediaries This was the dominant mode since the 19^thcentury.
3. Complex professional era: Characterized by a shift towards new technology and rise of advertising since the 1950s, this era employs an increasing number of people through cultural companies and arts councils.

The current complex professional mode is based on and thus overlaps with the market professional mode even as it reflects the ethos of the emerging era of cultural and creative industries. But like the previous eras, the contemporary art world is obviously also driven to a great extent by economic considerations and remains vulnerable to the same age-old issues of gender and racial biases and labor exploitation.

As the art world becomes globalized and more complex, concerns about the artist arise, particularly in terms of the extent art institutions limit, encourage, or frame the artists’ works. And since the art world is not at all a hermetic system, we should also be interested in studying how art institutions figure within the broader socio-economic and political order of which they are a part and on which they depend.

The career of Mozart offers rich insights on the artist’s milieu in early Europe, particularly how he negotiated the intricate social networks of power and influence. Clearly, Mozart had to compromise aspects of his art to please his patrons who often commissioned music from him for their own purposes. But while his patrons sought his music for prestige and status, Mozart also benefited immensely from his influential contacts who were the sources not only of economic security but also of valuable social approval which enabled him to rise to prominence.

Conclusion

While the social and economic structure dictates the dominant mode of artistic production in a given period, the history of art production is also in good part a history of technological innovations that have influenced how art works are conceived, produced, distributed, and preserved. Technological breakthroughs such as the printing press, the camera, the computer, and various devices for digital recording and reproduction have revolutionized art production in ways artists from past eras could not have conceived. But arguably the most revolutionary and most influential is the internet with all the digital possibilities that remain to be unraveled in terms of both production, dissemination and preservation.

Art and technology have not been more bound up with each other particularly with the growing trend towards genre-mixing and interactive art. Technology, on the hand, has not been more dependent on artists for design and advertising as the market grows more competitive.

This reproducibility of artworks is at the heart of Walter Benjamin’s “aura.” We will revisit this Benjamin's ideas again in Module 9.