Ewaluacja jako interakcja. Pragmatyzm w badaniach ocen artystycznych
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.17.3.05Słowa kluczowe:
ocena artystyczna, interakcja, pragmatyzm, interakcjonizm symbolicznyAbstrakt
Celem artykułu jest omówienie pragmatycznego kierunku w badaniach ewaluacji artystycznych. Praca opiera się na pogłębionych studiach literaturowych i analizuje najnowsze trendy w badaniach nad amatorską i ekspercką oceną artystyczną, a także pokazuje użyteczność podejścia pragmatycznego dla socjologii kultury i sztuki. W artykule omówiono badania jakościowe czerpiące z paradygmatu interpretatywnego oraz interakcjonizmu symbolicznego i zidentyfikowano główne obszary zainteresowań socjologów pragmatycznych, między innymi (1) społeczne interakcje miedzy ewaluatorami i obiektami artystycznymi, (2) pragmatyczne reguły i sytuacyjny charakter artystycznych ewaluacji. Ukazano ponadto luki w literaturze i zaproponowano kierunki dla przyszłych badań.
Pobrania
Bibliografia
Abbing, Hans. 2002. Why are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048503650
Acord, Sophia K. 2010. “Beyond the Head: The Practical Work of Curating Contemporary Art.” Qualitative Sociology 33(4):447-467.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9164-y
Acord, Sophia K. and Tia DeNora. 2008. “Culture and the Arts: From Art Worlds to Arts-in-Action.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 619:223-237.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208318634
Adipa, Priscilla. 2019. “Talking Events: How Social Interaction and Discourse Shape Cultural Participation, Aesthetic Evaluation, and Meaning-Making” Poetics 77:1-11.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2019.101381
Babon, Kim M. 2006. “Composition, Coherence, and Attachment: The Critical Role of Context in Reception.” Poetics 34:151-179.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.01.003
Becker, Howard S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Becker, Howard S. and Michal M. McCall, eds. 1990. Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226041056.001.0001
Beljean, Stefan, Phillipa Chong, and Michèle Lamont. 2015. “A post-Bourdieusian sociology of valuation and evaluation for the field of cultural production.” Pp. 38-48 in Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Art and Culture, edited by L. Hanquinet and M. Savage. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Benzecry, Claudio E. 2011. The Opera Fanatic: Ethnography of an Obsession. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226043432.001.0001
Benzecry, Claudio E. and Randall Collins. 2014. “The High of Cultural Experience: Toward a Microsociology of Cultural Consumption.” Sociological Theory 32(4):307-326.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275114558944
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Boltanski, Luc and Laurent Thévenot. 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Translated by C. Porter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400827145
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1980. “The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods.” Translated by R Nice. Media, Culture and Society 2:261-293.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016344378000200305
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Google Scholar
Bruder, Kurt A. and Ozum Ucok. 2000. “Interactive Art Interpretation: How Viewers Make Sense of Paintings in Conversation.” Symbolic Interaction 23(4):337-358.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2000.23.4.337
Cattani, Gino, Simone Ferrani, and Paul D. Allison. 2014. “Insiders, Outsiders, and the Struggle for Consecration in Cultural Fields: A Core-Periphery Perspective.” American Sociological Review 79(2):258-281.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414520960
Chong, Phillipa. 2013. “Legitimate Judgment in Art, the Scientific World Reversed? Maintaining Critical Distance in Evaluation.” Social Studies of Science 43(2):265-281.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712475256
De Nooy, Wouter. 1988. “Gentlemen of the Jury: The Features of Experts Awarding Literary Prizes.” Poetics 17:531-545.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(88)90010-1
De Nooy, Wouter. 1999. “A Literary Playground: Literary Criticism and Balance Theory.” Poetics 26:385-404.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(99)00009-1
DeNora, Tia. 2003. After Adorno: Rethinking Music Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489426
Espeland, Wendy N. and Michael Sauder. 2007. “Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds.” American Journal of Sociology 113(1):1-40.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/517897
Espeland, Wendy N. and Mitchell Stevens. 1998. “Commensuration as a Social Process.” Annual Review of Sociology 24(1):313-343.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.313
Eyerman, Ron and Lisa McCormick, eds. 2006. Myth, Meaning, and Performance: Toward a New Cultural Sociology of the Arts. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Google Scholar
Fine, Gary A. 1993. “The Sad Demise, Mysterious Disappearance, and Glorious Triumph of Symbolic Interactionism.” Annual Review of Sociology 19:61-87.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.19.080193.000425
Friedland, Roger and Robert R. Alford. 1991. “Bringing society back in symbolic practices and institutional contradictions.” Pp. 212-266 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Gemser, Gerda, Mark A. A. M. Leenders, and Nachoem M. Wijnberg. 2008. “Why Some Awards Are More Effective Signals of Quality Than Others: A Study of Movie Awards.” Journal of Management 34(1):25-54.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307309258
Gielen, Pascal. 2005. “Art and Social Value Regimes.” Current Sociology 53(5):789-806.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392105055020
Gilmore, Samuel. 1990. “Art worlds: developing the interactionist approach to social organization.” Pp. 148-178 in Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies, edited by H. S. Becker and M. M. McCall. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226041056.003.0007
Giuffre, Katherine. 1999. “Sandpiles of Opportunity: Success in the Art World.” Social Forces 77(3):815-832.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3005962
Griswold, Wendy, Gemma Mangione, and Terence E. McDonnell. 2013. “Objects, Words, and Bodies in Space: Bringing Materiality into Cultural Analysis.” Qualitative Sociology 36:343-364.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-013-9264-6
Hanrahan, Nancy Weiss. 2013. “If the People Like It, It Must Be Good: Criticism, Democracy and the Culture of Consensus.” Cultural Sociology 7(1):73-85.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975512453656
Heath, Christian and Dirk Vom Lehn. 2004. “Configuring Reception: (Dis-) Regarding the “Spectator” in Museums and Galleries.” Theory Culture & Society 21(6):43-65.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404047415
Heinich, Nathalie. 2010. Socjologia sztuki. Warsaw: Oficyna Naukowa.
Google Scholar
Heinich, Nathalie. 1997. “Expertise et Politique Publique de l’Art Contemporain: Les Critères d’Achat dans un Fonds Régional d’Art Contemporain.” Sociologie du Travail 2(97):189-209.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/sotra.1997.2315
Heinich, Nathalie. 2007. Faire Voir. L’Art à l’épreuve de ses Médiations. Paris: Les Impressions Nouvelles.
Google Scholar
Heinich, Nathalie. 2011. “The Making of Cultural Heritage.” Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 22(40-41):119-128.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/nja.v22i40-41.5203
Heinich, Nathalie. 2012. “Mapping Intermediaries in Contemporary Art According to Pragmatic Sociology.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 15(6):695-702.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549412450634
Heinich, Nathalie. 2015. La Sociologie à l’épreuve de l’Art. Entretiens avec Julien Ténédos. Bruxelles: Les Impressions Nouvelles.
Google Scholar
Hennion, Antoine. 2001. “Music Lovers: Taste as Performance.” Theory, Culture and Society 18(5):1-22.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760122051940
Hennion, Antoine. 2007. “Those Things That Hold Us Together: Taste and Sociology.” Cultural Sociology 1(1):97114.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975507073923
Hennion, Antoine and Line Grenier. 2000. “Sociology of art: New stakes in a post-critical time.” Pp. 341-355 in The International Handbook of Sociology, edited by S. R. Quah and A. Sales. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608405.n16
Hutter, Michael and David Stark. 2015. “Pragmatist perspectives on valuation: An introduction.” Pp. 5-21 in Moments of Valuation: Exploring Sites of Dissonance, edited by A. Berthoin Antal, M. Hutter, and D. Stark. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702504.003.0001
Huutoniemi, Katri. 2012. “Communicating and Compromising on Disciplinary Expertise in the Peer Review of Research Proposals.” Social Studies of Science 42(6):897-921.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712458478
Janssen, Susanne. 1997. “Reviewing as Social Practice: Institutional Constraints on Critics’ Attention for Contemporary Fiction.” Poetics 24:275-297.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(96)00010-1
Karpik, Lucien. 2010. Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400835218
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039681
Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674054158
Lamont, Michèle. 2012a. “Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation.” Annual Review of Sociology 38(21):201-221.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022
Lamont, Michèle. 2012b. “How Has Bourdieu Been Good to Think With? The Case of the United States” Sociological Forum 27(1):228-237.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01309.x
Langfeldt, Liv. 2004. “Expert Panels Evaluating Research: Decision-making and Sources of Bias.” Research Evaluation 13(1):51-62.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154404781776536
Latour, Bruno. 1996. “On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications.” Soziale Welt 47(4):369-381.
Google Scholar
Lewandowska, Kamila. 2019. “License to Judge: Fleshing out Expertise in Cultural Policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 25(3):337-349.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2017.1285288
Lewandowska, Kamila. 2020. “‘Talking Sense’ about Art: Evaluation of Theatre as a Social Process.” Studies in Theatre and Performance. doi: 10.1080/14682761.2020.1810500.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14682761.2020.1810500
Lewandowska, Kamila and Emanuel Kulczycki. 2021. “Science Policy as Implicit Cultural Policy: Evaluation of the Arts in Polish Academia.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 27(2):202-217.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2021.1873963
Lewandowska, Kamila and Zofia Smolarska. 2020. “Striving for Consensus: How Panels Evaluate Artistic Productions.” Qualitative Sociology 43:21-42.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-09439-7
Lizé, Wenceslas. 2016. “Editorial: Cultural Consecration and Legitimation–Modes, Agents and Processes.” Poetics 59:1-4.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.10.004
Mead, George H. 1932. “The Physical Thing.” Pp. 119-139 in The Philosophy of the Present, by G. H. Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Merriman, Ben. 2017. “The Editorial Meeting at a Little Magazine: An Ethnography of Group Judgment.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 46(4):440-463.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241615615918
Nylander, Erik. 2014. “Mastering the Jazz Standard: Sayings and Doings of Artistic Valuation.” American Journal of Cultural Sociology 2(1):66-96.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ajcs.2013.13
Pénet, Pierre and Kangsan Lee. 2014. “Prize & Price: The Turner Prize as a Valuation Device in the Contemporary Art Market.” Poetics 43:149-171.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2014.01.003
Steier, Rolf, Palmyre Pierroux, and Ingeborg Krange. 2015. “Embodied Interpretation: Gesture, Social Interaction, and Meaning Making in a National Art Museum.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7:28-42.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.05.002
Stets, Jan E. and Peter J. Burke. 2003. “A Sociological Approach to Self and Identity.” Pp. 128-152 in Handbook of Self and Identity, edited by M. R. Leary and J. P. Tangney. New York: The Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51:273-86.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095521
Timmermans, Stefan and Steven Epstein. 2010. “A World of Standards but Not a Standard World: Toward a Sociology of Standards and Standardization.” Annual Review of Sociology 36(1):69-89.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102629
Vom Lehn, Dirk, Christian Heath, and Jon Hindmarsh. 2001. “Exhibiting Interaction: Conduct and Collaboration in Museums and Galleries.” Symbolic Interaction 24(2):189-216.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2001.24.2.189
Wohl, Hannah. 2015. “Community Sense: The Cohesive Power of Aesthetic Judgment.” Sociological Theory 33(4):299-326.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275115617800
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.