Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Evaluation in Interaction: The Pragmatic Approach to Artistic Judgement

dc.contributor.authorLewandowska, Kamila
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-05T08:43:21Z
dc.date.available2021-11-05T08:43:21Z
dc.date.issued2021-08-31
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/39669
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en
dc.description.abstractCelem 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.pl
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPrzegląd Socjologii Jakościowej;3pl
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectartistic evaluationen
dc.subjectinteractionen
dc.subjectpragmatismen
dc.subjectsymbolic interactionismen
dc.subjectocena artystycznapl
dc.subjectinterakcjapl
dc.subjectpragmatyzmpl
dc.subjectinterakcjonizm symbolicznypl
dc.titleEvaluation in Interaction: The Pragmatic Approach to Artistic Judgementen
dc.title.alternativeEwaluacja jako interakcja. Pragmatyzm w badaniach ocen artystycznychpl
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number96-110
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationThe Aleksander Zelwerowicz National Academy of Dramatic Art in Warsaw, Polanden
dc.identifier.eissn1733-8069
dc.referencesAbbing, Hans. 2002. Why are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.en
dc.referencesAcord, Sophia K. 2010. “Beyond the Head: The Practical Work of Curating Contemporary Art.” Qualitative Sociology 33(4):447-467.en
dc.referencesAcord, 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.en
dc.referencesAdipa, Priscilla. 2019. “Talking Events: How Social Interaction and Discourse Shape Cultural Participation, Aesthetic Evaluation, and Meaning-Making” Poetics 77:1-11.en
dc.referencesBabon, Kim M. 2006. “Composition, Coherence, and Attachment: The Critical Role of Context in Reception.” Poetics 34:151-179.en
dc.referencesBecker, Howard S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.en
dc.referencesBecker, Howard S. and Michal M. McCall, eds. 1990. Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesBeljean, 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.en
dc.referencesBenzecry, Claudio E. 2011. The Opera Fanatic: Ethnography of an Obsession. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesBenzecry, Claudio E. and Randall Collins. 2014. “The High of Cultural Experience: Toward a Microsociology of Cultural Consumption.” Sociological Theory 32(4):307-326.en
dc.referencesBlumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.en
dc.referencesBoltanski, Luc and Laurent Thévenot. 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Translated by C. Porter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.en
dc.referencesBourdieu, Pierre. 1980. “The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods.” Translated by R Nice. Media, Culture and Society 2:261-293.en
dc.referencesBourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.en
dc.referencesBourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.en
dc.referencesBruder, Kurt A. and Ozum Ucok. 2000. “Interactive Art Interpretation: How Viewers Make Sense of Paintings in Conversation.” Symbolic Interaction 23(4):337-358.en
dc.referencesCattani, 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.en
dc.referencesChong, Phillipa. 2013. “Legitimate Judgment in Art, the Scientific World Reversed? Maintaining Critical Distance in Evaluation.” Social Studies of Science 43(2):265-281.en
dc.referencesDe Nooy, Wouter. 1988. “Gentlemen of the Jury: The Features of Experts Awarding Literary Prizes.” Poetics 17:531-545.en
dc.referencesDe Nooy, Wouter. 1999. “A Literary Playground: Literary Criticism and Balance Theory.” Poetics 26:385-404.en
dc.referencesDeNora, Tia. 2003. After Adorno: Rethinking Music Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesEspeland, Wendy N. and Michael Sauder. 2007. “Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds.” American Journal of Sociology 113(1):1-40.en
dc.referencesEspeland, Wendy N. and Mitchell Stevens. 1998. “Commensuration as a Social Process.” Annual Review of Sociology 24(1):313-343.en
dc.referencesEyerman, Ron and Lisa McCormick, eds. 2006. Myth, Meaning, and Performance: Toward a New Cultural Sociology of the Arts. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.en
dc.referencesFine, Gary A. 1993. “The Sad Demise, Mysterious Disappearance, and Glorious Triumph of Symbolic Interactionism.” Annual Review of Sociology 19:61-87.en
dc.referencesFriedland, 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.en
dc.referencesGemser, 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.en
dc.referencesGielen, Pascal. 2005. “Art and Social Value Regimes.” Current Sociology 53(5):789-806.en
dc.referencesGilmore, 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.en
dc.referencesGiuffre, Katherine. 1999. “Sandpiles of Opportunity: Success in the Art World.” Social Forces 77(3):815-832.en
dc.referencesGriswold, Wendy, Gemma Mangione, and Terence E. McDonnell. 2013. “Objects, Words, and Bodies in Space: Bringing Materiality into Cultural Analysis.” Qualitative Sociology 36:343-364.en
dc.referencesHanrahan, 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.en
dc.referencesHeath, Christian and Dirk Vom Lehn. 2004. “Configuring Reception: (Dis-) Regarding the “Spectator” in Museums and Galleries.” Theory Culture & Society 21(6):43-65.en
dc.referencesHeinich, Nathalie. 2010. Socjologia sztuki. Warsaw: Oficyna Naukowa.en
dc.referencesHeinich, 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.en
dc.referencesHeinich, Nathalie. 2007. Faire Voir. L’Art à l’épreuve de ses Médiations. Paris: Les Impressions Nouvelles.en
dc.referencesHeinich, Nathalie. 2011. “The Making of Cultural Heritage.” Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 22(40-41):119-128.en
dc.referencesHeinich, Nathalie. 2012. “Mapping Intermediaries in Contemporary Art According to Pragmatic Sociology.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 15(6):695-702.en
dc.referencesHeinich, Nathalie. 2015. La Sociologie à l’épreuve de l’Art. Entretiens avec Julien Ténédos. Bruxelles: Les Impressions Nouvelles.en
dc.referencesHennion, Antoine. 2001. “Music Lovers: Taste as Performance.” Theory, Culture and Society 18(5):1-22.en
dc.referencesHennion, Antoine. 2007. “Those Things That Hold Us Together: Taste and Sociology.” Cultural Sociology 1(1):97114.en
dc.referencesHennion, 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.en
dc.referencesHutter, 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.en
dc.referencesHuutoniemi, Katri. 2012. “Communicating and Compromising on Disciplinary Expertise in the Peer Review of Research Proposals.” Social Studies of Science 42(6):897-921.en
dc.referencesJanssen, Susanne. 1997. “Reviewing as Social Practice: Institutional Constraints on Critics’ Attention for Contemporary Fiction.” Poetics 24:275-297.en
dc.referencesKarpik, Lucien. 2010. Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.en
dc.referencesKnorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.en
dc.referencesLamont, Michèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.en
dc.referencesLamont, Michèle. 2012a. “Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation.” Annual Review of Sociology 38(21):201-221.en
dc.referencesLamont, Michèle. 2012b. “How Has Bourdieu Been Good to Think With? The Case of the United States” Sociological Forum 27(1):228-237.en
dc.referencesLangfeldt, Liv. 2004. “Expert Panels Evaluating Research: Decision-making and Sources of Bias.” Research Evaluation 13(1):51-62.en
dc.referencesLatour, Bruno. 1996. “On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications.” Soziale Welt 47(4):369-381.en
dc.referencesLewandowska, Kamila. 2019. “License to Judge: Fleshing out Expertise in Cultural Policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 25(3):337-349.en
dc.referencesLewandowska, Kamila. 2020. “‘Talking Sense’ about Art: Evaluation of Theatre as a Social Process.” Studies in Theatre and Performance. doi: 10.1080/14682761.2020.1810500.en
dc.referencesLewandowska, 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.en
dc.referencesLewandowska, Kamila and Zofia Smolarska. 2020. “Striving for Consensus: How Panels Evaluate Artistic Productions.” Qualitative Sociology 43:21-42.en
dc.referencesLizé, Wenceslas. 2016. “Editorial: Cultural Consecration and Legitimation–Modes, Agents and Processes.” Poetics 59:1-4.en
dc.referencesMead, George H. 1932. “The Physical Thing.” Pp. 119-139 in The Philosophy of the Present, by G. H. Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesMead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesMerriman, Ben. 2017. “The Editorial Meeting at a Little Magazine: An Ethnography of Group Judgment.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 46(4):440-463.en
dc.referencesNylander, Erik. 2014. “Mastering the Jazz Standard: Sayings and Doings of Artistic Valuation.” American Journal of Cultural Sociology 2(1):66-96.en
dc.referencesPénet, Pierre and Kangsan Lee. 2014. “Prize & Price: The Turner Prize as a Valuation Device in the Contemporary Art Market.” Poetics 43:149-171.en
dc.referencesSteier, 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.en
dc.referencesStets, 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.en
dc.referencesSwidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51:273-86.en
dc.referencesTimmermans, 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.en
dc.referencesVom Lehn, Dirk, Christian Heath, and Jon Hindmarsh. 2001. “Exhibiting Interaction: Conduct and Collaboration in Museums and Galleries.” Symbolic Interaction 24(2):189-216.en
dc.referencesWohl, Hannah. 2015. “Community Sense: The Cohesive Power of Aesthetic Judgment.” Sociological Theory 33(4):299-326.en
dc.contributor.authorEmailkamila.lewandowska@e-at.edu.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1733-8069.17.3.05
dc.relation.volume17


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Nazwa:
10980-Oryginalny_tekst_artykul ...
Rozmiar:
395.6KB
Format:
PDF
Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0