Two Paradigms – Two Art Worlds: On Constructing the Difference as a Strategy for Validating the Concept of the Artist and Art

Agata Sulikowska-Dejena

doi:10.18778/1733-8069.17.3.06

Authors

Agata Sulikowska-Dejena University of Rzeszów, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5582-0597

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.17.3.06

Keywords:

modern paradigm, contemporary paradigm, constructing the difference, art world, visual arts

Abstract

The subject of the article is two art worlds in the field of visual arts which currently exist side by side in Poland. These worlds operate as part of two different paradigms of art, which is why two different definitions of the art and artist apply to them, and, in consequence, also different models of operation. What is important in the case of both communities is the process of constructing the difference and separating out their own communities of meanings, being a strategy to lend credence to their own concept of the art and artist, as well as their position in the art world. The aim of the article is to describe the process of constructing internal boundaries in the Polish art world and its division into two separate worlds, what means have been used in that process, as well as what are the consequences of belonging to the two separate art worlds for their participants.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Agata Sulikowska-Dejena, University of Rzeszów, Poland

Agata Sulikowska-Dejena holds M.A. in Art History (a graduate of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań); currently a PhD student at the University of Rzeszów (Institute of Sociological Studies). Her scientific interests include the sociology of culture and the sociology of art, contemporary art, anthropology, and qualitative methodology. She is an art curator and an author of papers on contemporary art, identity, and female artists.

References

Banasiak, Jakub, ed. 2009. Raster. Macie swoich krytyków. Antologia tekstów. Warsaw: 40000 Malarzy.
Google Scholar

Becker, Howard. 2008. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Google Scholar

Bernatowicz, Piotr. 2019. Sztuka współczesna nie musi być wcale lewicowa. Retrieved February 20, 2021 https://dorzeczy.pl/kraj/118987/sztuka-wspolczesna-nie-musi-byc-wcale-lewicowa.html
Google Scholar

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Google Scholar

Cohen, Anthony. 2001. Symbolic Construction of Community Key Ideas. London, New York: Department of Social Anthropology University of Manchester.
Google Scholar

Dziamski, Grzegorz. 2010. Przełom konceptualny. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Google Scholar

Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 2009. Odkrywanie teorii ugruntowanej. Cracow: Zakład Wydawniczy Nomos.
Google Scholar

Gorczyca, Łukasz and Michał Kaczyński. 2009. “Słowniczek artystyczny Rastra.” Pp. 21-55 in Raster. Macie swoich krytyków. Antologia tekstów, edited by J. Banasiak. Warsaw: 40000 Malarzy.
Google Scholar

Heinich, Nathalie. 2014. Le paradigme de l’art contemporain. Structure d’une révolution artistique. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
Google Scholar

Heinich, Nathalie. 2019. Sztuka jako wyzwanie dla socjologii. Gdansk: Słowo/ Obraz/ Terytoria.
Google Scholar

Konecki, Krzysztof T. 2000. Studia z metodologii badań jakościowych. Teoria ugruntowana. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas. 2016. Pisma o literaturze i sztuce. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe SCHOLAR.
Google Scholar

Piotrowski, Piotr. 1999. Znaczenia modernizmu. Poznan: Rebis.
Google Scholar

Rabizo-Birek, Magdalena, ed. 2011-2013. Sztuka Podkarpacia, vol. 1, vol. 2, vol. 3. Rzeszow: Podkarpackie Towarzystwo Zachęty Sztuk Pięknych.
Google Scholar

Stake, Robert. 1994. “Case Studies.” Pp. 236-247 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
Google Scholar