Evaluation in Interaction: The Pragmatic Approach to Artistic Judgement

Kamila Lewandowska

doi:10.18778/1733-8069.17.3.05

Authors

Kamila Lewandowska The Aleksander Zelwerowicz National Academy of Dramatic Art in Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2189-239X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.17.3.05

Keywords:

artistic evaluation, interaction, pragmatism, symbolic interactionism

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss the pragmatic approach to studying artistic evaluation. The paper engages with recent literature and examines current trends in research on amateur and expert artistic judgement, arguing that the pragmatic scholarship has much to offer to the sociology of art and culture. It demonstrates the growth of qualitative research inspired by interpretivist approaches and symbolic interactionism, highlighting the main areas of researchers’ interest, such as (1) (Social) interaction between evaluators and artistic objects, or (2) Pragmatic rules and the situational character of artistic evaluation. This paper also identifies research gaps and provides directions for future research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Kamila Lewandowska, The Aleksander Zelwerowicz National Academy of Dramatic Art in Warsaw, Poland

Kamila Lewandowska, Assistant Professor at the A. Zelwerowicz National Academy of Dramatic Art in Warsaw. She is a holder of the Outstanding Young Researchers scholarship awarded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. She leads a research project titled “Between Art and Research: The Evaluation of Creative Arts in Performance-Based Research Funding Systems,” funded by the National Science Centre, Poland. Her research interests focus on the evaluation of art and research in public sector management.

References

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