Art Markets, Sociology and the Emotional Art Object

Art Markets, Sociology and the Emotional Art Object

Marta Herrero*University of Plymouth

Abstract

In its current state the sociology of art markets is characterized by an externalist approach to theanalysis of art value in which the art object is the repository of beliefs, judgements given to it byart market actors. However, a review of the literature on art museums poses a challenge to thisexternalist approach by focusing on the mutually constitutive relationship between the art object,its exhibition and museum context, and viewers. The article reviews this literature exploring theadvantages of this line of research for a meaningful sociology of art markets. It will argue for theneed to overcome its current externalist focus with studies of the emotional dimension of art mar-ket objects as well as of the practices of art market actors.

Sociology and the art object: perspectives and debates

Sociological studies of art have endeavored to analyse art within its own social context ofproduction, distribution and consumption, focusing on how institutions, museums, galler-ies, dealers, and publics have had an impact on artists’ careers and reputations, and thetypes of art to gain public recognition (Crane 1987; DeNora 1995; Herrero 2007; Langand Lang 1998; Prior 2002). This line of approach, also called ‘externalist’ (Zolberg1990), places its emphasis on how social actors act upon the art object assigning it withvalue and prestige. However, as a number of commentators (Bowler 1994; DeNora2000; Eyerman and McCormick 2006; Eyerman and Ring 1998; Hennion and Grenier2000; Tanner 2003; Zolberg 1990) have pointed out, it has been unable to incorporatethe meaning of artworks into its analysis. In his call for a ‘meaningful sociology of thearts’, Eyerman (2006, 31) suggests that the meaning of artworks is not simply conveyedby the beliefs and values art world members give them. Rather, meaning emerges in theinteraction between subjects and art objects, which in turn is shaped by the unique abilityof artworks to evoke an experience of pleasure, expression and emotion in those whoexperience them (Eyerman 2006; Hennion and Grenier 2000; Witkin 1995).

Sociological analyses of art markets have mostly followed the steps of a sociology ofart, analysing the practices of art market professionals and artists, and how these endowthe art object with both aesthetic and financial value (Bourdieu 1993; Moulin 1987; Vanden Bosch 2005; Velthuis 2005; White and White 1965). However, the importance ofart as an aesthetic object has remained outside the analytical remit of this type of research.Rather, a key concern has been to show how, in the art market, price is not the onlytype of value attached to art, because it is intricately linked to its cultural value, thebeliefs and values art market actors assign to it (Moulin 1987; Velthuis 2005). However,in accounting for the economic-cum-cultural value of the art market object, sociologistshave left aside the question of meaning, especially when this is understood as beingembedded in not only values, but also in the emotional response of market actors towardsthe art object. Thus, following Eyerman’s call for a meaningful sociology of arts, this

Sociology Compass 3/6 (2009): 911–919, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00241.x

ª 2009 The AuthorJournal Compilation ª 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

article will argue that a core issue in a ‘meaningful sociology of art markets’ is to investi-gate how emotions, that is, emotional responses, e.g. awe, respect, admiration, disgust, oreven rejection, shape or influence the practices of those selling, promoting and buyingart. Drawing on literatures on art museums as well as on current sociological research onart markets, it will explore some of the ways in which a ‘meaningful sociology of artmarkets’ can account for the meaning of the art object by bringing an emotional dimen-sion to art market practices.

Art museums: engaging with the art object

In what follows, I review contributions to the literature on art museum studies. Thefocus here will be on those authors whose work has explored, in some detail, how theinteraction between museum visitors ⁄ users and the art object takes place, what makes thisexperience possible, and, how this experience has changed historically. A well-knowncontribution to the literature on art museums is Bourdieu’s work, especially The Love ofArt (Bourdieu and Darbel 1991) and Distinction (Bourdieu 1982) where he argues thataesthetic judgement is not the result of some unique, inner sensibility of the individual,but a social faculty resulting from class upbringing and education. To be able to appreci-ate a painting, an individual must have the right amounts of this cultural capital. Bourdieuhas provided a very convincing argument about how class-based differences lead peoplehave different experiences of art. However, some of the literature on museums is able toadd to this argument by looking at how the experience of museum visitors is mediatedby the museum space and the physical arrangements of objects, and how this form ofmediation can lead to evoke specific types of feelings and emotions in visitors.

Since the emergence of princely collections, during the Renaissance, museums andtheir displays of objects have been means of communicating certain forms of feelings andemotions in their visitors. For example, princely collections displayed all the most pre-cious possessions of the royalty in order to communicate the power of the monarch. Thearrangement of objects was a means to impress visitors, at least those who were able togain access to these collections, by causing feelings of awe, reverence, and a sense ofrespect towards the power of the royal sovereign (Hooper-Greenhill 1992; Lorente1998). As Duncan (1995, 22) puts it: ‘The point of such show was to dazzle and over-whelm both foreign visitors and local dignitaries with the magnificence, luxury, andmight of the sovereign, and, often through special iconographies – the rightness or legiti-macy of his rule’. The emergence of modern museums was another kind of attempt, thistime by states and governments, to regulate the conduct and behavior of citizens in theirmuseum visits. These museums articulated forms of ‘civic seeing’ (Bennett 2006, 263),drawing the attention of viewers towards the objects on display which representedknowledge or modernity’s meta-narratives (Hooper-Greenhill 1992) about the evolutionof mankind, and the position of visitors in this evolutionary scale. A related key aim ofmodern art museums, and of galleries of contemporary art, was to instil in visitors feelingsof national pride by either displaying national art collections, both chronologically andinto national schools (Lorente 1998), or the works of a single artist, usually male.

Modern art museums have changed since their emergence in the 19th century, butwhat remains is the ability of displays and exhibitions to inspire specific emotional statesin their viewers. The aestheticization of art provides a clear example of how the artobject is presented as an object of aesthetic contemplation, isolated from any wider socialcontext of its original social context of production and consumption. In his book, Experi-ence or Interpretation: The Dilemma of Museums of Modern Art, Serota (1996) argues that

912 The Sociology of Art Markets

ª 2009 The Author Sociology Compass 3/6 (2009): 911–919, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00241.xJournal Compilation ª 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

curatorial practices have shifted from curatorial interpretation, which displays artworkschronologically and according to school, as mentioned above, and towards a form ofcuration as the making of ‘mise-en-scene’ still prevalent in modern art museums.Here curators are merely facilitating an environment for the experience of the artwork.For example, the physical space of the museum can help convey feelings of intimacy andcomfort, by creating small gallery spaces devoted solely to the contemplation of art(Grunenberg 1994). It can also evoke a sense of contemplation and worship, as Serotanotes in describing an exhibition of Jackson Pollock’s work:

The walls are illuminated by a wash of artificial light, dramatizing the paintings and separat-ing them from the space of the spectator. The other walls in the room … are similarly hungwith slightly smaller paintings by Pollock. For the visitor to the museum there are no dis-tractions the control of space and light and the focus on a group of related paintings serveto intensify the experience of Pollock’s work, creating that hushed transcendental moodwhich we associate with a chapel … If at the National Gallery and elsewhere we may some-times feel that we are attending lessons in the history of art, here we are definitely out ofschool and at worship, with all our faculties given over to the experience of the work itself.(Serota 1996, 9–10)

In this extract, it is clear that the positioning of works helped by the use of curatorialtechniques like the creation of intimate spaces that enable a feeling of contemplation andeven worship, is a way of mediating a particular type of experience for museum visitors.Here some of the principles of a meaningful sociology of arts are in operation insofaras the meaning of the artwork ⁄ s in display emerges out of the interaction betweensubject ⁄object and the exhibition as a medium that enables the presentation of the artobject in ways that can evoke certain feelings in viewers. A counterpoint to this way ofpresenting the artwork, but which also exemplifies the link between exhibitions and thefacilitation of emotional states, can be found in the surrealist exhibitions, prevalent afterthe First World War, which emerged in Europe and the US and continued until thebeginning of the Second World War. A persuasive example was that by Surrealist artistswho, from 1938 on, started to impose their artistic style of their displays. The 1938Surrealist exhibition Exposition Internationale du Surrealisme in Paris, sought to provide aspace that would discomfort viewers by creating unexpected encounters between themand the artworks on display. As Kachur (2001, 37) puts it: ‘An unexpected, more cor-poreal interaction thus replaced the usual encounter with pictures on a wall. Instead ofthe eye taking refuge in a pictorial space, the spectator’s body was confronted by a seriesof kinaesthetic equals, life-sized personages’. For example, Marcel Duchamp’s installation,1,200 Coal Sacks, consisting of 1,200 empty coal-bags hanging from the ceiling wasintended to ‘discomfort the viewers’, who were made uncomfortable at the possibility ofa sack falling over their head.

The general lesson to be learned from this literature is that historically, and at present,museums continue to inspire certain feelings and emotional states in their viewers ⁄visitors.Even though the aims of museums have changed, and their techniques of displays havereflected these changes, what prevails is a sense of the ability of curatorial practices to cre-ate particular environments where one can feel dazzled, or even experience feelings ofawe, civic pride, of contemplation and worship, as well as a sense of discomfort. In allthese cases, the art object can evoke certain ways of feeling, not on its own, nor eventhrough the beliefs and values assigned to it, in this case, by the ideologies espoused by aparticular institution, but in its interaction between viewer ⁄medium (museum ⁄exhibitionspace).

The Sociology of Art Markets 913


The sociology of art markets

Sociological approaches to art markets can be characterised as externalist, focusing on thecollective action of artists, dealers, auctioneers, responsible for turning the artwork into acommodity with exchange value (Bourdieu 1993; Moulin 1987; Velthuis 2005; Whiteand White 1965). Such studies have generated empirically rich analyses of various artmarket sectors – the primary or commercial gallery sector where the works of artists aretraded for their first time; art dealers, or the re-sale secondary system, which deals mostlywith purchase and sale of artworks not new to the market; and, the tertiary system ofauction houses. Some key often-cited examples of this literature within the sub-field areMoulin’s (1987) study of the French market for contemporary art, Bourdieu’s (1993)analysis of the art market as a market for symbolic goods, and, more recently, Velthuis(2005) book on the pricing practices of contemporary art dealers in Amsterdam and NewYork. This literature follows two main lines of enquiry.

Firstly, it analyses the art object as the repository of both economic and symbolic value.Bourdieu (1993) uses the terms economic capital or value and symbolic capital to tracethis distinction. The artwork represents or stands for varying amounts of symbolic capital,seen as a form of prestige or reputation. For example, an artwork is endowed with sym-bolic capital when a wealthy and well-known collector buys it, or when it becomes partof a prestigious museum collection. The balance between economic and symbolic capital,in Bourdieu’s account, is related to an artwork’s positioning within the field of restrictedproduction (FRP) or the field of large-scale production (FLSP). In the former, artworksare endowed with high amounts of symbolic capital, whereas in the latter it is the eco-nomic capital of an artwork or an art form, which derives from its commercial success,that prevails.

The relationship between economy and culture in the art market is precisely the focusof Velthuis’ empirical exploration into the pricing practices of dealers of contemporary artin New York and Amsterdam. He arrives at a similar conclusion to Bourdieu, in the artmarket the art object is subjected to two types of values or signifying practices, economicand cultural. But he argues that even price itself cannot be treated as being purely eco-nomic; it always has a cultural dimension. This happens when dealers enact this distinc-tion when they exhibit artworks in the front gallery space and suppress any references totheir financial value, whereas in the back room of the gallery, where all the commercialtransactions take place, the artwork is treated in terms of its economic value.

A second line of enquiry explores the role of cultural values and beliefs in the practicesof art market actors. Bourdieu (1993) argues that the amounts of cultural capital, educa-tion, determine an individual’s position in the art market. Those with high amounts ofcultural capital pertain to the FRP, whereas those with lower amounts operate within theFLSP where the main criterion of art value is its commodity status. Velthuis’ analysisreaches a similar conclusion: cultural values and beliefs play a prominent role in dealers’pricing practices. He thus refers to culture as being relational insofar as it enables ‘artists,collectors, and dealers mutually construct the landscapes of meaning they inhabit’ (2005,5). As he notes, rather than being solely motivated by the making of economic profit, artmarket actors ‘may be inspired by concerns of status, care, love, pride or power’ (2005,6) and that gives rise to ‘different understandings, practices, information, obligations,rights, symbols, and media of exchange’ (2005, 5). Even though Bourdieu’s and Velthuis’understanding of culture differs – Bourdieu uses the term embodied or incorporatedcultural capital, that is, the habitus or cultural dispositions of individuals that influencetheir practices, whereas Velthuis refers to the ways in which cultural values, price, love,



are externalised and thus influence the practices of market actors, nonetheless, theirconclusions are similar. Culture does influence art market actors’ behavior, even to theextent that it is being used by actors to differentiate amongst themselves. This point ismade clear by Velthuis who explains how dealers perceive auctioneers’ behavior andpricing strategies as being guided, largely, by the maximization of economic profit,whereas they see themselves as ascribing cultural value to artworks they represent. Inher account of the French art market, Moulin observes a similar duality of behavior atplay. Art dealers express a duality of motives, when they try ‘to conceal to the mercan-tile aspects of their profession’ and at the same time, ‘protect the purity of [society’s]cultural values’. Examples of the latter are dealers’ statements such as they ‘sell onlywhat they like’; ‘art counts more than money’, and ‘every show is a statement of faith’(1987, 59).

So far, sociological research on art markets appears to have ignored some of the pre-mises raised in the earlier section on art museums. That is, how the interaction betweenart objects and actors does not take place solely at the level of culture, or the articulationof beliefs and values about the artwork, but it also has an emotional dimension that needsto be accounted for.

Towards a meaningful sociology of art markets: the emotional art marketobject

The last part of this article explores further some ideas in Bourdieu’s, Velthuis’ andMoulin’s work referred to above. It will argue that even though this point is not madeexplicit in their work, they do suggest a way forward for a meaningful sociology of artmarkets that takes into account the art object as an ‘emotional object’, capable of creatingan emotional response in those who deal with it in their everyday, market practices.

As mentioned earlier, Bourdieu’s research on art markets has focused on the role ofculture and beliefs in the actions of market players, and on the production of symbolicvalue. However, if we treat art as the outcome of the production of belief, meaning,given to it by art world members, we are also ignoring an emotional dimension of theartwork, or the possibility that art objects may elicit in those who experience them feel-ings of awe, or a state of worship. Bourdieu’s work, however, accounts for this type ofengagement when he acknowledges the role of emotions in his theory of art perception.Nonetheless, as it will be argued, his theory is not without its problems.

Bourdieu’s theory of art perception (Bourdieu 1993) exemplifies his views on the rela-tionship between class divisions and cultural consumption. In order for individuals tounderstand and capture the meaning of artworks (objectified cultural capital) they need tohave the same cultural code (a function of their embodied cultural capital), as that repre-sented in the painting, so that the code in the painting, put there by the artist, matchesthat of the observer (1993, 215). ‘Less educated beholders’ (ibid, 216–217) are comfort-able experiencing figurative types of art because they only require the application of‘extrinsic categories and values’ (ibid, 220), which organise their everyday perception,e.g. a house, a tree. However, when the information presented in artworks exceeds the‘deciphering capabilities of the beholder’, as in the case of avant-garde art, these are per-ceived as being ‘devoid of signification’ (1993, 218). By contrast, educated beholders arethose endowed with high amounts of embodied cultural capital, which allows them toapprehend and understand works of art. In considering ‘natural’ their mode of perception,they exemplify what Bourdieu calls the illusion of the ‘fresh eye’ or the ‘naked eye’,whereby the artwork is attributed:



a magical power of conversion capable of awakening the potentialities latent in a few of theelect, and which contrasts authentic experience of a work of art as an ‘affection’ of the heart orimmediate enlightenment of the intuition … ignoring the social and cultural conditions under-lying such an experience. (Bourdieu 1993, 234)

This type of ‘charismatic ideology’ (ibid, 234) legitimates the social privilege of a few bypretending that it is a gift of nature, as opposed to an acquired socio-cultural form of per-ception. Despite his mention of an emotional component, ‘an ‘‘affection’’ of the heart’,in the experience of art appreciation, Bourdieu makes clear that this is only a cognitiveact; ‘perception of painting is a mental thing’ that happens only when the viewer has theappropriate cultural code to decipher the painting, which also contains the same code(1993, 220). This assertion is not surprising given his idea of art as the outcome of a col-lective belief. However, in another instance Bourdieu does acknowledge the possibility ofan emotional response to artworks when he differentiates between two forms of aestheticappreciation: the ‘enjoyment which accompanies aesthetic perception reduced to simpleaesthesis’ and ‘the delight procured by scholarly savoring’ (ibid, 220).

The reference to enjoyment and delight suggests that those with higher amounts ofembodied cultural capital are able to articulate a stronger emotional response towards art-works. This distinction illustrates how emotions can be used as a form of capital insofar asan emotional response is utilized by some, educated, competent beholders, as a valuedresource that helps them distinguish themselves from others (Silva 2007, 144).1 Followingfrom here it would be pertinent to ask: how do art market actors use emotional capital,their various levels of emotional engagement with artworks, in order to differentiate them-selves from others? Having said that, This aspect of his work has been criticized for itsdeterminism insofar as art perception and cultural consumption, more generally, are onlythe result of class differences, while not taking into account how other factors such as gen-der also affect this type of consumption (Lizardo 2006). Despite this, the notion of ‘emo-tional capital’ offers the potential in the context of a new sociology of art markets thatseeks to incorporate the role of emotions into market actors’ engagement with artworks.

A source of empirical material on how art market actors think and operate can befound in Velthuis’ and Moulin’s accounts which are particularly illustrative of how emo-tions play a role in actors’ practices. Velthuis explains that the discourses dealers to defineand discuss prices with collectors are emotionally charged. Thus, defining a price as a‘market price’, and providing solely economic reasoning as to its appropriateness ‘wouldfail to persuade collectors’ (Velthuis 2005, 139). This is why dealers evaluate and judgetheir prices with terms of an emotional nature. As he notes:

My respondents [art dealers] called prices ‘humble’, ‘seductive’, ‘understandable’, ‘offensive’,‘cautious’, ‘outrageous’, ‘daring’, or ‘sympathetic’. They realized that prices can cause ‘irritation’and ‘madness’ among collectors, or that they can be ‘scary’ and ‘dangerous’ for artists. (Velthuis2005, 136)

This example suggests that dealers make sense of prices not only in economic terms, e.g. asbeing the result of levels of supply and demand for the work of a particular artist, but alsoin ‘moral terms’ (ibid, 139) in order to make them appealing to collectors. The questionthat emerges from this example is whether this type of vocabulary is used to refer to thework of all artists, or applies, more specifically, to the work of certain artists? Moulin pro-vides us with a different angle on the role of emotions in the art market. In her chapter oncollectors of modern and contemporary painting, she draws extensively on quotations thatexplain the reasons and motives behind the making of private art collections. She notes



how those collectors who explain their motivation for collecting as a ‘love of art’,2 are ‘fondof describing their behavior as irrational and invoking psychoanalytic explanations’ (1987,81). The following references illustrate some of the motivations of collectors:

I buy whenever lightning strikes … I buy when a painting has an effect on me, when it’s irre-sistible; It was a newly born passion; Painting is my passion; it’s my life; My purpose is not tomake money. It’s a diversion, a passion, a revived passion, an obsession. (Moulin 1987, 81)

Moulin’s references to passion and painting’s effects on art collectors are not only types ofbehavior, but also ways of expressing an experience of pleasure and emotion that canshape, influence, their practices in the art market, e.g. leading them to buy art.

This second review of the literature on art markets suggests that one of its next tasks isto position the art object at the center of its enquiry. This means taking into account theemotional dimension of art practices, as seen in this last example, looking at how collec-tors respond to art and the specific emotions and pleasures they derive from the experi-ence of art collecting, and the ensuing practices that may follow such emotions.

Conclusion

In sum, the examples provided in this last section suggest that, at present, the sociologyof art markets offers distinct possibilities for lines of analyses outside the confines of anexternalist approach. In different ways, all three authors discussed have opened up lines ofenquiry into the role emotions in the practices of art market actors: how actors use emo-tions as a form of capital, or whether they resort to emotionally charged terms to discussthe nature of art prices, or their personal motivations and responses towards art collecting.All these examples demonstrate that the art market is an arena where emotions areplayed. If we go back now to the arguments raised by the literature on art museums, westart to see how the sociology of art markets can learn valuable insights by focusing onthe mutually constitutive relationship between the art object, its context (in the exhibi-tion and museum space) and art market actors. We can see some evidence of this inexisting research. For example, when art collectors define themselves as a certain type ofactors, e.g. ‘art lovers’, passionate about art, by means of their art collecting practices andinteraction with the art object. But we can still ask further questions: how do the variouscontexts in which art is sold in the art market e.g. the auction room, the gallery space,even its representation in catalogues, help evoke an emotional experience in those whotake part in these settings or interact with catalogues. Similarly, the emotional vocabularyattached to art prices by art dealers, as we have seen, raises questions as to whether notonly prices, but also art objects are being defined along similar, emotional lines? Finally,Bourdieu suggests that art appreciation can facilitate a form of emotional engagementwith the art object, which educated beholders deploy in order to differentiate themselvesfrom others. Is it possible to argue that there is a similar process at work in the artmarket? Do art market actors resort to emotions, seen as a form of capital, in order todifferentiate themselves from others? These are some of the key issues, I suggest, a mean-ingful sociology of art markets is ready to address.

Short Biography

Marta Herrero’s main research areas are the sociology of arts and culture, with specialemphasis on the study of art markets. She is co-editor with David Inglis of Art and



Aesthetics: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences (4 volumes) (Routledge,2008), andauthor of Irish Intellectuals and Aesthetics (Irish Academic Press, 2007). She has authoredarticles in Cultural Sociology, International Sociology and the Irish Journal of Sociology, and iscurrently working on an edited volume on theories and methods in the study of artmarkets, and on a co-edited book (also with David Inglis) titled The Globalisation of Artand Aesthetics. She has been the recipient of awards from the British Academy, the IrishResearch Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences and the Thomas DammannFoundation. She is a Lecturer in the Sociology of Culture at the University of Plymouthin the School of Social where she moved after completing her PhD in Sociology atTrinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

Notes

* Correspondence address: Marta Herrero, University of Plymouth, School of Law and Social Science, DrakeCircus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA. E-mail: [email protected]

1 Silva (2007) uses the term emotional capital in her research on gender and family consumption.2 Another example is the ‘collecting as amusement’ type of collector Moulin uses to refer to those who collect as ahobby (Moulin 1987, 82–85).

References

Bennett, T. (2006). ‘Civic Seeing: Museums and the Organization of Vision.’ Pp. 263–81 in A Companion toMuseum Studies, edited by S Macdonald. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bourdieu, P. (1982). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bourdieu, P., A. Darbel (1991). The Love of Art: European Museums and their Publics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bowler, A. (1994). ‘Methodological Dilemmas in the Sociology of Art.’ Pp. 247–66 in The Sociology of Culture:

Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, edited by D. Crane. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Crane, D. (1987). The Transformation of the Avant-Garde. Chicago: Chicago University Press.DeNora, T. 1995. Beethoven and the Construction of Genius. Berkeley: University of California Press.DeNora, T. 2000. Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Duncan, C. 1995. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge.Eyerman, R. 2006. ‘Toward a Meaningful Sociology of the Arts.’ Pp. 13–34 in Myth, Meaning and Performance.

Toward a New Cultural Sociology of the Arts, edited by R. Eyerman and L. McCormick. Boulder: ParadigmPublishers.

Eyerman, R. and L. McCormick 2006. ‘Introduction.’ Pp. 1–11 In Myth, Meaning and Performance. Toward a NewCultural Sociology of the Arts, edited by R. Eyerman and L. McCormick. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Eyerman, R. and M. Ring 1998. ‘Towards a New Sociology of Art Worlds: Bringing Meaning Back In.’ ActaSociologica 41(3): 277–83.

Grunenberg, C. 1994. ‘The Politics of Presentation: The Museum of Modern Art, New York.’ pp. 192–211 in ArtApart: Art Institutions and Ideology across England and North America, edited by M. Pointon. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press.

Hennion, A. and L. Grenier 2000. ‘Sociology of Art: New Stakes in a Post-Critical Time.’ Pp. 341–55 in TheInternational Handbook of Sociology, edited by S. R. Quah and A. Sales London: Sage.

Herrero, M. 2007. Irish Intellectuals and Aesthetics. The Making of a Modern Art Collection. Dublin and Portland,Oregon: Irish Academic Press.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. 1992. Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London: Routledge.Kachur, L. 2001. Displaying the Marvellous: Marcel Duchamp, Salvador Dalı, and Surrealist Exhibition Installations.

London: MIT.Lang, G. E. and K Lang 1998. ‘Recognition and Renown: The Survival of Artistic Reputation.’ American Journal of

Sociology 94(1): 79–109.Lizardo, O. 2006. ‘The Uzzle of Women’s ‘‘Highbrow’’ Culture Consumption: Integrating Gender and Work into

Bourdieu’s Class Theory of Taste.’ Poetics: Journal of Empirical Research on Literature, the Media, and the Arts 34: 1–23.



Lorente, J. P. 1998. Cathedrals of Urban Modernity: The First Museums of Contemporary Art, 1800-1930. Aldershot:Ashgate.

Moulin, R. 1987. The French Art Market: A Sociological View. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Prior, N. 2002. Museums and Modernity: Art Galleries and the Making of Modern Culture. Oxford: Berg.Serota, N. 1996. Experience or Interpretation: The Dilemma of Museums of Modern Art. London: Thames and Hudson.Silva, E. B. 2007. ‘Gender, Class, Economic Capital and Consumption in Family Life.’ Pp. 141–62 in Gender and

Consumption: Domestic Cultures and the Commercialisation of Everyday Life, edited by E. Casey and L. Martens.Ashgate: Ashgate Publishing.

Tanner, J. 2003. ‘Introduction: Sociology and Art History.’ Pp. 1–26 In The Sociology of Art: A Reader, edited byJ. Tanner. London: Routledge.

Van den Bosch, A. 2005. The Australian Art Worl: Aesthetics in a Global Market. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.Velthuis, O. 2005. Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. Princeton and

Oxford: Princeton University Press.White, H. C. and C. White 1965. Canvases and Careers: Institutional Change in the French Painting World. New York:

Wiley.Witkin, R. W. 1995. Art & Social Structure. Cambrige: Polity Press.Zolberg, V. L. 1990. Constructing a Sociology of the Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Documents

Art Markets, Sociology and the Emotional Art Object