This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Albertsen, N. Articles by Diken, B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Artworks’ Networks

Field, System or Mediators?

Department of Urban and Landscape Development, Aarhus School of Architecture, Denmark

Bülent Diken

Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, UK

Focusing on the connections between the artwork and its internal and external network, the article presents four different approaches to the sociology of art developed by Lyotard, Bourdieu, Luhmann, and Hennion and Latour. While Lyotard, from a phiosophical point of view, emphasizes the transcendence of the artwork in relation to its network, for Bourdieu the work of art is part of a network and the ‘social genesis’ grounds the artwork as an artwork. In contrast to Bourdieu, Luhmann conceives of art as an autopoietic system and the artwork as a communicative artefact. Yet, in this, the materiality of the artwork disappears in communication, which is why Hennion and Latour’s approach to the world of art as heterogeneous networks of human and non-human mediators is significant. ‘Thinking with’ these different approaches, the article produces three main results. First, Bourdieu’s and Luhmann’s otherwise very different sociologies significantly parallel each other regarding arts and modernity. Second, the question of the artwork radically unravels the difficult relationship between social theory and material objects. In this respect most contemporary social theories (e.g. Bourdieu’s and Luhmann’s) remain essentially modernist. Third, a focus on artworks demonstrates that the conceptual vocabulary of social theory and the sociology of art must be reconsidered. Furthermore, the article demonstrates the discovery of a ‘lucid illusio’ and specifies a Spinozist moment in Bourdieu’s social theory.

Key Words: actor-network • autopoiesis • communication • fetish • illusio • mediators • necessitation • sociology of art • Welt

Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 21, No. 3, 35-58 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0263276404043619


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Guggenheim Building memory: Architecture, networks and users Memory Studies, January 1, 2009; 2(1): 39 - 53. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Bennett The Work of Culture Cultural Sociology, March 1, 2007; 1(1): 31 - 47. [Abstract] [PDF]