10
Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical
Interdependencies and the
Transformation of Centers
and Peripheries in the Globalizing
Visual Arts
Larissa Buchholz
In 1978, the postcolonial theorist and artist Rasheed Araeen railed against
what he considered a myth, namely the “internationalism of contemporary
art.” In a manifesto on visual art, presented at the Institute of
Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London, he declared:
The myth of the internationalism of Western art has to be exploded ...
Western art expresses exclusively the peculiarities of the West... It is merely
a transatlantic art. It only reflects the culture of Europe and North America
... The current “Internationalism” of Western art is nothing more than a
function of the political and economic power of the West, enforcing its
Special thanks for comments on earlier versions of this chapter go to Gil Eyal, Erkki Sevanen,
Victoria Alexander, Debra Minkoff, and UlfWuggenig, as well as to Estelle Lee and Claudia
Fendian for their support as research assistants.
L. Buchholz (E3)
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
© The Author(s) 2018
V.D. Alexander et al. (eds.), Art and the Challenge o fMarkets Volume 1,
Sociology of the Arts, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64586-5_10
277
278 L. Buchholz
values on other people. The word international should mean more than
just a couple ofWestern countries. (Araeen 1997 [1978], 98)
Only two decades later, Rasheed Araeen—who had meanwhile become
the editor of the British journal Third Text, one of the most influential
theoretical platforms for non-Western art or art produced by “Diaspora
intellectuals”— had drastically changed his opinion. In his view, the recognition
of non-Western artists in the globalizing art scene had decisively
grown; “young, post-colonial artists from Africa or Asia” would no longer
be segregated from their white/European counterparts, he remarked,
adding “[bjoth of them display and circulate within the same space and
the same art market, recognized and legitimated by the same institutions”
(Araeen 2001, 23). Other intellectuals of the artistic field echoed this
assumption of a tendency toward a more egalitarian globalism with even
stronger claims, purporting either the dawn of a new “global dialogue
between Western and Non-Western art” (Scheps 1999, I6ff; Dziewior
1999, 345) that would overcome asymmetric center-periphery relations,
or the demise of a “Western-centric” m odelthat would entail “essential
changes to definitions, functions, and existential states of contemporary
art” (Hanrou 1994, 79).
Such rather euphoric proclamations have been strongly debunked as
“illusions” by Alain Quemin (e.g., Quemin 2002, 2006, 522). Based
on systematic empirical research, he and other sociologists (Quemin
2002, 2006; Buchholz and Wuggenig 2005; Buchholz 2008) argued
that despite important global transformations in contemporary art,
this cultural realm continues to be heavily dominated by artists from
select Western countries, whereas artists from so-called non-Western
regions (such as Latin America, Africa, and Asia) remained highly marginalized.
As Quemin poignantly summarized, “globalization has certainly
not challenged in any way the US-European duopoly” (Quemin
2006, 543f).
W hat are we to make of such strikingly different accounts? The declaration
of radical shifts versus the argument of an unchallenged reproduction
of center-periphery configurations? Drawing upon and extending
tools of Bourdieu’s field theory, in this contribution, I seek to propose an
intermediate position that moves beyond the dichotomous alternatives of
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 279
either radical change or outright reproduction. My argument unfolds in
four parts: I first provide a brief review of conceptions of center—peripheries
in globalization of culture research. In this context, I discuss how a
field approach could offer useful contributions to elaborate upon them,
particularly in regard to the notion of the relative autonomy of culturally—
in relation to economically based hierarchies in cultural fields. The
second part delves into empirical analysis. Informed by the field approach,
I examine the evolution of asymmetries in the global exhibition space and
the global auction market. This analysis reveals that transformations of
center-periphery hierarchies are underway in both global spaces, but that
they follow different temporalities. In the third part— drawing from
additional qualitative interview and discourse data— I show how intermediaries’
invitation strategies of artists across borders defy a simple
binary logic of dominating “Western” centers vis-a-vis dependent “nonWestern”
(semi)-peripheries. My findings point instead to relational,
albeit asymmetric, dynamics that inform multidirectional cross-border
flows of valuation— and that, I argue, are best captured through the
notion of asymmetric interdependencies. I conclude by making the case
for a multidimensional and relational global field approach to examining
(shifting) asymmetries in global cultural production, permitting to
account for three key aspects: their duality, their cyclical nature, and their
embeddedness in asymmetric interdependencies.
The Multidimensionality of Center-Periphery
Inequalities
While the center-periphery distinction has been disqualified as a perspective
to account for the directionality of flows or cultural influences in
the global cultural economy (e.g., Appadurai 1990), several empirical
works have shown that it fertile to engage with the unevenness of global
cultural markets. This also holds true for the case of the contemporary
visual arts, as the introduction indicated: sociologists have found that
strong inequalities regarding the success of artists from different countries
persisted well into the new millennium. For decades, very few countries
from the Northwest, particularly the United States and Germany, have
280 L. Buchholz
dominated this artistic realm (Quemin 2002, 2006, 2012; Buchholz and
Wuggenig 2005; Buchholz 2008). As Quemin concludes, “a strong hierarchy
of countries controls the organization of and participation in the
international contemporary art world and market ... beyond the development
of international exchanges, the art world has a clearly defined
center comprising a small number of Western countries, among which
the US and Germany are preeminent, and a vast periphery, comprising
all other states” (Quemin 2012, 70ff.). Similar conclusions regarding the
persisting unevenness of globalizing cultural markets have been reached
in studies that examined the market for book translations (Heilbron
1999; Sapiro 2010), world music (Brandellero and Pfeffer 2011), or
entertainment movies (Moretti 2013c [2001]). In all cases, the centerperiphery
distinction highlights just how big a gap in macrolevel inequalities
remains, and how much such gaps remain intertwined with
geographic reference units, such as countries.
Nevertheless, while empirical scholarship has demonstrated the
utility of the center—periphery distinction to describe persistent macroinequalities
in globalizing cultural markets, to theorize them, I suggest,
it is useful to refine the model in two important directions. First,
it is crucial to disentangle more precisely what dimension of geographic
macroinequalities one is addressing: place-based inequalities
among sites of production/mediation (e.g., the hegemony of New York/
United States), or inequalities at the level of cultural producers/goods
(e.g., US American contemporary art)? In empirical terms, both
dimensions of macroinequalities can strikingly drift apart. They should
thus be kept analytically apart. For example, Phillips’ insightful study
of the international market for jazz recordings revealed that locations
that are at the margins in terms of place-based inequalities can be central
with regard to the success of artistic creations— and vice versa.
Specifically, while New York figured as a central place for the global
diffusion of jazz tunes (Phillips 2013, 5 If.), at the level of cultural
goods, a “disproportionate advantage” existed for “recordings that
emerged from more disconnected cities than when compared with
more central cities like New York (...) particularly when the outputs
in question are difficult to categorize” (Phillips 2013, 9, 16). In other
words, “music from highly disconnected sources tended to have glob-
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 281
ally broader long-run appeal than those originating from [central]
places like Chicago and New York” (ibid., 51).
Yet apart from the importance to distinguish between two analytically
distinct dimensions of center-periphery inequalities, the second
modification that I deem important is to take into account that centerperiphery
configurations at the commercial pole of a globalizing realm of
cultural production can and do differ from those at the more cultural- ®
institutional pole. In other words, one may have to deal with a dual macropower
structure. At the level of places, such a duality becomes
immediately apparent when one looks to the literary realm. While in the
contemporary visual arts, New York City has been consistently at the very
top, in literature this is not the case: Paris is the preeminent intellectual
literary center, and London and New York are the major commercial
publishing centers (Casanova 2004 [1999], 164-72).
Yet also at the level of cultural production, a duality between specific
cultural and commercial inequalities is important to consider and
theorize. One model to work with in this regard is Bourdieu’s theory
of the field of cultural production. This approach argues that cultural
realms are fundamentally structured around a dual symbolic economy.
It consists of the opposition between a heteronomous pole— in which
competition for economic gains prevails and in which cultural producers
are evaluated particularly according to their economic success—
and a relatively autonomous pole (e.g., Bourdieu 1993, 115-19;
Bourdieu 1996, 142—46). The latter sphere adheres to an economy of
specific cultural legitimacy that does not coincide with and even
reverses principles of the economic pole (ibid.). Here, the primary
stake is “specific symbolic capital,” that is, specific recognition by a
highly specialized professional public (such as other artists, critics,
curators). Artists become evaluated on the basis of culturally specific
criteria that are relatively autonomous from “profane,” commercial or
temporal considerations (Bourdieu 1993, 29-73). Transposed to the
global arena, the field approach would thus lead us to analytically distinguish
and theorize two distinct modes of hierarchization, based on
conflicting principles within the same cultural universe: the principle
of specific symbolic recognition and the competing principle of economic
success, corresponding to a hierarchy that is based on “specific
282 L. Buchholz
criteria of peer judgement” and a “hierarchy according to commercial
success” (Bourdieu 1996, 114).1
Nonetheless, Bourdieu formulated his autonomy versus heteronomy
distinction with regard to a particular place and time: France at the end
of the nineteenth century. Meanwhile, alternative models have emerged
that have called Bourdieu’s dualistic model of fields of cultural production
into question (cf. Zahner 2006; Graw 2009; Crane 2009). With the
rise of market forces, they argued that the opposition of art versus money
has become blurred. Market success has become an integral factor of
artistic prestige and may even precede and determine cultural evaluation.
As Diane Crane (2009, 337) suggested by referring to an American art
critic, “prices now determine reputations” (Tomkins 2007, 71). Is
Bourdieu’s model of a dual symbolic economy outdated? There are two
ways to approach this question: first, conceptually it is necessary to disentangle
more precisely the different dimensions in which the distinction
between an autonomous and a heteronomous pole, between art versus
money has been cast. In the evolving debate, distinct dimensions have
tended to be conflated, and positions to have talked past each other in
view of the kinds of evidence they draw upon. Second, empirically. Often
the debate has relied on particular cases or case studies (especially Andy
Warhol or Damien Hirst) to argue for the dissolution of the old opposition
of art versus money. However, it has not supplemented the evidence
with more large-scale statistical analyses of the broader structure of an art
field.
Against this background, a research study on the global context found
that the autonomy versus heteronomy distinction holds on empirical
grounds in view of two specific indicators: the distribution of artistic
recognition and the temporality in which specific symbolic capital precedes
the accumulation of economic capital in transnational artistic
careers (Buchholz 2013). Specifically, drawing from statistical analysis of
several hundreds of the worldwide leading contemporary visual artists,
this examination discerned an overarching divergence between artists
whose success is based on “specific criteria of peer judgement” and artists
who rank high in terms of “commercial success” (Bourdieu 1996 [1992],
114). Only a minority group of artists is successful in both dimensions.
Indeed, the stakes of symbolic artistic prestige and economic capital tend
L
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 283
to be inversed in the global arena: higher economic capital goes along
with lower symbolic capital, and vice versa. The same Chinese artist who
achieves multimillion-dollar prices at Sotheby’s and joins the ranks of the
economically most successful artists globally is unlikely to gain worldwide
cultural esteem to the same extent. This dual constellation is also
reflected in the distribution of aesthetic media, with a clear polarity
between installation art versus painting. Furthermore, in all examined
careers, symbolic capital came before the accumulation of economic capital.
In no case did success in the global auction market precede or even
strengthen global symbolic success.
To be sure, these structural findings do not mean that the autonomy
versus heteronomy polarity might not prove outdated in other dimensions.
In addition, in the global context, its institutional basis is a completely
different one and thus has to be reformulated, also in view of the
rise of new financial circuits and logics (cf. Buchholz 2013). W hat such
findings do indicate, however, is that the contemporary visual arts in the
global context have a dualistic structure in terms of the (e)valuation of
cultural production— something that I depict as a dual cultural world
economy. Hence, it seems fertile to transpose the distinction to an examination
of center-periphery dynamics, too.
If we do so, the dualistic field model also offers us interesting hypotheses
that pertain to the analysis of patterns of transformations. In fact,
Bourdieu’s model argues that changes in the hierarchical orders of an
autonomous and a heteronomous pole follow dissimilar mechanisms and
temporalities. In particular, it states that at the relatively autonomous
pole, a major mechanism for change rests in the opposition between fractions
of the heterodoxy and of the orthodoxy. Representatives of the former
are frequently composed of new, younger entrants who dispose of
relatively low field-specific recognition and seek to acquire it by challenging
dominant modes of evaluation through strategies of distinction
(Bourdieu 1996, 154-61,239-42; cf. Swartz 1997, 124f.). The orthodox
fractions, by contrast, tend to be older and already wield a high amount
of symbolic capital, as well as to defend established norms. Importantly,
this polarity implies, in turn, that changes at the relatively autonomous
pole should unfold in the more gradual rhythm of cohorts or generations,
since innovative strategies tend to be enacted by younger aspirants and
284 L. Buchholz
their peer intermediaries, who still need to build up field-specific recognition
over time until they can fully establish their distinctive
position-takings.
Extended to the global level, the argument of the heterodoxy versus
orthodoxy polarity as a mechanism for change carries a crucial, but hitherto
overlooked, implication: it leads us to hypothesize that any effects of
globalization on challenging a West-centric orthodoxy would be refracted
in relation to the relative power position of artists and their peer intermediaries,
which in turn tends to correspond to differences in age. By implication,
transformations of center—periphery inequalities in regard to the
most successful artists should follow a more gradual rhythm of cohorts.
Such systematic variations should not be observed in regard to the economic
heteronomous pole, however. According to the field model, the
heterodoxy versus orthodoxy opposition does not apply here. In this context,
changes would be driven by more market driven factors and would
be more susceptible to the external environment, such as broader economic
boom or bust periods.
The following section will test these arguments of Bourdieu’s field
model by comparing how globalization has affected center-periphery
inequalities at the level of cultural production in the global exhibition
space and the global auction market. The last section will complement
this analysis by exploring the effects of global transformations on placebased
center—periphery relations.
The Duality of Transformations
To extend the field approach for investigating the dynamics of centerperiphery
inequalities in the contemporary visual arts, an important
question to ask of course is whether we can presume a global field_to
begin with. Several indicators speak for it. Since the end of the 1980s,
7 this cultural realm has witnessed a number of important global transformations
that entailed the emergence of an interdependent global space
for cross-border flows, competition, and valuation in which the ultimate
stakes of contemporary art have become redefined in global terms
(Buchholz 2013,2016): first, the creation ofan institutional infrastructure
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 285
for cross-border circulation and valuation that reaches across six continents.
This infrastructure evolved not only out-of-the-spectacular global
expansion of the art auction market (e.g., Moulin 2003 [2001]; van den
Bosch 2005). It also emerged through the extension of cultural-institutional
circuits to a worldwide scope, with globally recruited artists, cosmopolitan
star curators, and contemporary art biennials and art museums
spread around the globe. Second, the rise and proliferation of global art
discourses, which, as I show elsewhere in detail, entailed the emergence
of new global imaginations and meanings, and the gradual construction
of a more global gaze (Buchholz 2013). Third, the establishment of global
practices of evaluating artistic recognition and value, notably the rise of
global artist rankings since the end of the 1990s. Although such global
rankings have been quite contested within the contemporary art field,
their establishment and worldwide visibility have contributed to globalize
the stakes and forms of capital among players from different corners
of the world (ibid.). It is the convergence and partial interaction of these
three transformations over the past three decades-—the establishment of
a global art infrastructure, the cultural construction of a global gaze, and
the institutionalization of genuinely global practices of evaluation—
which, I argue, have laid the institutional ground for the emergence of a
global field (Buchholz 2013, 2016).
Regarding novel global artist rankings, two of them can serve us also as
sources to scrutinize whether and how center—periphery inequalities at
the level of cultural production diverge between the specific symbolic and
economic dimension: (1) the Artprice ranking, which assesses the most
successful visual artists in the global auction market on the basis of their
annual volume of sales. As the ranking draws from information of more
than 2900 auction houses on five continents, it represents an indicator of
economically based inequalities.2 (2) The Artfacts ranking, which determines
the uneven distribution of artistic recognition in the global exhibition
space, relying on a vast database of more than 100,000 artists and
exhibitions across 140 countries.3 The ranking thereby operates with a
complex multidimensional index that assigns artists “exhibition points,”
which, in turn, define their relative positions in a world artistic hierarchy.
Since the index seeks to represent criteria of art professionals that operate
outside of immediate market constraints (Artfacts.net 2003),4the ranking
286 L. Buchholz
offers a suitable and reliable indicator for the evolution of specific symbolic
inequalities in Bourdieu’s sense (for more methodological remarks
on reliability, cf. endnote 5).5
W ith each of these data sources, two kinds of analyses were pursued:
first, an examination of the evolution of the hierarchies from 1998 to
2007 at the level of the top 100 artists only. The year 1998 was the earliest
year for which valid data could be obtained from Artprice for the contemporary
art category of interest (interview). The end year of 2007, in turn,
represents the year when journalistically published rankings reported the
rise of Chinese contemporary artists in the global auction market for the
first time. Departing from prefabricated journalistic rankings, this contribution
comparatively reexamines the extent of their success by drawing
upon an academically informed sampling strategy that is consistent for
both rankings.6 For each sample, the geographic origins of the 100
selected leading contemporary visual artists were identified. Afterward,
the relative shares of artists’ “exhibition points” or sales volumes were
summarized at the level of the countries of origin (cf. Quemin 2002,
2006; Buchholz and Wuggenig 2005).
This first kind of analysis serves as a background for a second and previously
not pursued examination of dynamics across cohorts. Here, the
same analytical procedures as above were employed to compare developments
between different age groups within either the global auction market
or the global exhibition space in the last year of analysis. In this regard,
the greatest available number of artists for both ranking databases
(A7= 500 for the Artprice ranking) was divided into four age groups of
equal size. These groups were cohorts of those born in (a) 1976—67, (b)
1966-57, (c) 1956-46, and (d) <1945, and each contained 40 artists.7
Tables 10.1 and 10.2 show results for the top 100 tier of the global
auction market and the global exhibition space from 1998 to 2007. The
shares of countries are each listed from the highest to the lowest percentages.
Tracing first dynamics among the three most dominant countries in
the global auction market reveals considerable changes (cf. Table 10.1).
In 1998, the distribution of economic success still resembled what
Quemin (2006) has called a US-German duopoly, since contemporary
art from the United States (36%) and Germany (32%) clearly dominated,
followed by a relatively feeble third position of the United
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 287
Table 10.1 Countries of origin of the leading contemporary visual artists in the
global auction market, 1998 and 2007
1998 2007
Rank Country
Percentage
share Country
Percentage
share
1. United States 36.0 United States 29.9
2. Germany 32.0 China 29.8
3. United Kingdom 8.5 United Kingdom 13.0
4. Italy 3.3 Germany 12.5
5. Colombia 2.4 Japan 4.3
6. Romania 1.7 Colombia 1.8
7. Belgium 1.6 Italy 1.6
8. Japan 1.6 India 1.4
9. Cuba 1.6 Spain 1.2
10. Austria 1.5 Korea 1.0
11. Australia 1.3 Romania 0.8
12. Nicaragua 1.2 South Africa 0.5
13. Chile 1.1 Ukraine 0.5
14. Spain 0.9 Russia 0.5
15. France 0.8 Australia 0.3
16. Mexico 0.8 Ireland 0.3
17. Argentina 0.7 France 0.2
18. Uruguay 0.5 Denmark 0.2
19. Sweden 0.5 Belgium 0.2
20. Canada 0.4
21. Iran 0.4
22. Israel 0.4
23. India 0.3
24. Iceland 0.3
25. Brazil 0.2
Source: Artprice © 2008
Kingdom (8.5%). However, this West-centric constellation has not
remained unchallenged ten years later. In 2007, art from China rose up
to the league of central countries (29.8%), while approaching the leading
position of the United States rather closely, with a share that is only 0.1%
lower. In the same year, the position of Germany weakened (32-12.5%).
It fell back to the fourth position, being excelled by the rise of artists from
the United Kingdom (8.5-13%).
In comparison, such strong changes are not evident in the global exhibition
space, which is marked by more inertia (cf. Table 10.2). While one
can recognize shifts within the US-German duopoly from 1998 to 2007,8
288 L. Buchholz
Table 10.2 Countries of origin of the leading contemporary visual artists in the
global exhibition space, 1998 and 2007
1998 2007
Rank Country
Percentage
share Country
Percentage
share
1. United States 38.5 United States 33.0
2. Germany 15.1 Germany 18.8
3. France 8.5 United Kingdom 12.6
4. Switzerland 5.8 France 5.0
5. United Kingdom 4.7 Austria 4.0
6. Italy 4.6 Belgium 3.6
7. Japan 3.6 Switzerland 3.5
8. Denmark 3.0 Japan 2.1
9. Austria 2.6 South Africa 1.8
10. Belgium 1.9 Canada 1.7
11. Romania 1.7 Slovenia 1.4
12. Netherlands 1.7 Mexico 1.4
13. Sweden 1.5 Ukraine 1.2
14. Ukraine 1.3 Denmark 1.0
15. Canada 1.2 Serbia 0.9
16. Argentina 1.0 Romania 0.8
17. India 0.9 Netherlands 0.8
18. China 0.9 Spain 0.8
19. Australia 0.8 Poland 0.8
20. Lebanon 0.7 Lebanon 0.8
21. Italy 0.8
22. Cuba 0.7
23. China 0.7
24. Argentina 0.6
25. Albania 0.6
26. India 0.6
Source: Artfacts.net © 2008
the overall dominance of these two northwestern countries has remained
largely unchallenged. They continued to command most specific symbolic
capital, with a share of more than 50% (from 53.6% in 1998 to 51.8%
in 2007).
The impression of inertia is amplified if one further interrogates how
much countries outside the Northwest could improve their overall share
from 1998 to 2007, as summarized in Table 10.3. It rises by merely 2.9%
(from 10.9% to 13.8%). This stands in stark contrast to the global auction
market, where the share of non-northwestern countries almost
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 289
Table 10.3 Share of non-northwestern countries among the leading 100 contemporary
visual artists of the global auction market and the global exhibition space,
1998 and 2007
(a) Global auction market (b) Global exhibition space
1998 2007 1998 2007
14.5% 40.9% 10.9% 13.8%
Sources: Artprice © 2008 | Artfacts.net © 2008
triples in the same period, increasing from 14.5% to 40.9%. This remarkable
change is mainly due to the dramatic rise of China (0 to 29.8%), as
detailed above. Yet it also results, to a lesser degree, from the rise of other
Asian countries in the upper ranks, such as India (0 to 1.4%) and Korea
(0 to 1%). And while South Africa (0 to 0.5%), Ukraine (0 to 0.5%), and
Russia (0 to 0.5%) have also improved their position, the rise of nonnorthwestern
countries in the global auction market can thus be largely
attributed to the ascension of countries in Asia, most notably China.
The comparison between the upper tier of the global auction market
and of the global exhibition space thus reveals that the latter is marked by
a stronger tendency toward the reproduction of older center-periphery
asymmetries. However, once one directs the focus to an analysis between
cohorts, as reported in Table 10.4, one can discern changes in the structure
of hierarchy in the specific symbolic dimension of inequalities in the
global exhibition space, too. However, these changes follow a more gradual
rhythm across cohorts. Indeed, as the field model would predict, one
can find systematic variation between different age groups: the younger
the cohort, the more decentralized and dewesternized the structure of
hierarchy among countries.
For one, the number of the included countries more than doubles
from the oldest to the youngest cohort, rising from 11 to 14, then to 20,
and, finally, to 21. Moreover, the presence of non-northwestern countries
rises significantly from 8.8% in the oldest cohort to 16% and 22.8%
among the two middle cohorts to, finally, up to 27.9% in the youngest.
Interestingly, a closer look reveals that the strongest jump occurs for the
age group of artists born between 1957 and 1966. While it is outside the
scope of this contribution to provide a complete explanation, it is helpful
to keep in mind, as stated at the beginning of this section, that the
290 L. Buchholz
Table 10.4 Countries of origin of four cohorts of the leading visual artists in the
global exhibition space, 2007
N Countries Percentage share of
Cohort Country % of origin non-Western artists
<1945 United States 46.0 11 8.8
Germany 19.9
United Kingdom 9.0
France 6.2
Austria 4.1
Japan 3.3
Ukraine 3.2
Canada 3.0
Serbia 2.3
Greece 1.5
Italy 1.5
1946-55 United States 41.4 14 16
Germany 22.3
Austria 6.2
South Africa 5.9
Italy 4.8
Japan 2.7
Switzerland 2.4
France 2.4
Lebanon 2.4
United Kingdom 2.4
Canada 2.1
India 2.0
Hungary 1.6
Chile 1.4
1957-66 United Kingdom 19.4 20 22.8
Germany 16.0
United States 12.9
Belgium 12.2
Switzerland 5.4
Netherlands 5.4
Argentina 3.4
Algeria 3.0
Mexico 2.4
Romania 2.4
France 2.3
Spain 2.2
Cuba 2.1
China 1.8
Brazil 1.7
(continued)
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 291
Table 10.4 (continued)
A/Countries Percentage share of
Cohort Country % of origin non-Western artists
Bulgaria 1.6
Lithuania 1.6
Australia 1.4
Ireland 1.4
Japan 1.4
1967-76 United Kingdom 23.0 21 27.9
United States 13.7
Germany 10.6
Poland 8.6
Denmark 6.0
Austria 5.1
Mexico 3.0
China 2.9
Albania 2.7
Brazil 2.4
Netherlands 2.4
Italy 2.3
Sweden 2.3
Belgium 2.2
Switzerland 2.1
Estonia 2.1
Israel 2.0
Algeria 1.7
Venezuela 1.7
South Africa 1.7
Romania 1.5
Source: Artfacts.net © 2008
globalization of the art field has gained momentum since the end of the
1980s— regarding both the formation of global institutional circuits and
the rise of global art discourses. This coincides with the period when the
artists in this cohort stood largely at the beginning of their careers. Thus,
in view of the global transformations that were underway at that time,
this age group can be considered as the first actual “global generation”
regarding the globally expanded context in which it could operate.
In the global auction market, by comparison, similar systematic
variations across cohorts cannot be observed. Here, there are no linear
transformations, but rather volatile patterns (cf. Table 10.5). The
292 L. Buchholz
Table 10.5 Countries of origin of four cohorts among the top 500 visual artists in
the global auction market, 2007
Cohort Country % Number
Percentage share of
non-Western artists
<1945 United States 43.3 13 23.0
Germany 26.1
China 7.6
Colombia 5.1
Japan 4.3
United Kingdom 3.8
Italy 2.2
Romania 2.0
Russia 1.7
Australia 1.7
Spain 0.8
Ireland 0.8
Korea 0.6
1946-56 United States 52.0 12 33.3
China 21.7
Germany 9.2
India 4.3
Japan 3.7
Italy 3.5
South Africa 2.2
United Kingdom 0.9
Cuba 0.7
Serbia 0.7
Denmark 0.6
Austria 0.5
1957-66 China 59.9 13 65.1
United Kingdom 25.4
Japan 3.7
United States 3.1
Germany 2.3
Spain 2.3
Australia 0.6
Switzerland 0.5
Italy 0.5
Brazil 0.5
France 0.4
India 0.4
Ireland 0.4
(continued)
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 293
Table 10.5 (continued)
Percentage share of
Cohort Country % Number non-Western artists
1967-76 China 29.5 12 48.6
Germany 15.3
United States 15.2
United Kingdom 15.2
India 10.2
Denmark 4.7
Indonesia 2.8
Poland 2.6
Korea 1.3
Kenya 1.2
Italy 1.0
Japan 1.0
Source: Artprice © 2008
overall number of countries changes from 13 to 12, then to 13, and,
finally, to 12. And although the share of countries outside the northwest
increases between the oldest and the youngest age group, a nonlinear
pattern is virulent, beginning from 23% to 33.3%, and 65.1%
down to 48.6%. While such more volatile dynamics might be the
result of an array of complex factors, they confirm the hypothesis.that
the commercial pole principally differs in patterns of change across
cohorts.
Taken together, the findings of this section suggest that changes of
center-periphery asymmetries at the level of cultural production have
occurred in both the specific symbolic and the economic dimension, but
that they follow different temporalities. Whereas the global auction market
is characterized by a comparatively rapid, yet principally more volatile
pattern, the global exhibition space is marked by cycles of longue duree,
characteristic of more autonomous subspaces with charismatic structure '
in which change tends to unfold across cohorts. In this sense, the field
model of a dual symbolic economy—with its theoretically grounded distinction
of different dimensions of hierarchies and respective logics of
change— leads us to question a totalizing dichotomy between change and
reproduction. By distinguishing different segments of a globalizing art
294 L. Buchholz
field, one can discover more complex dynamics of change, marked by the
simultaneity of shorter and longer cycles in which transformations of
center—periphery configurations at the level of cultural production occur.
Asymmetric Interdependencies
and the Globalization of Strategies
Having explored dynamics of center-periphery asymmetries at the level
of cultural production, this last section illuminates how globalization in
the contemporary visual arts has affected place-based center-periphery
relations. In this regard too, I propose to go beyond a reproduction perspective.
The latter holds that, despite globalization, the overarching
locus of control has remained in Western centers, and that intermediaries
from these centers— which group into “informal academies” with shared
conventions— continue to prefer artists from central Western countries
as a strategy to minimize the risk of selection in a highly uncertain evaluation
process (Quemin 2002, 131ff., 147-55).
By contrast, directing the focus from a small elite in Western centers
to globalizing field-level dynamics leads us to a more dynamic and relational
view in two ways: first, an artistic field is a space of constant contestation
over specific forms of capital which no group can control
permanently. In global fields, such struggles assume cross-continental
dimensions. Indeed, in the contemporary visual arts, globalization has
entailed the morphological and geographic expansion of intermediary
and institutional players that seek to position themselves in an emerging
global game, both from the centers and from the peripheries (Buchholz
2013). Thus, instead of the perpetuation of one-sided control at Western
centers, a global space of rivalry is emerging. Second^knd related, in the
wake of such global transformations, the strategies of selection and support
among gatekeepers can themselves globalize. This applies both to
intermediaries at the centers, which support artists from (non-Western)
peripheries, and, conversely, to more peripheral locations, which support
art from the centers to enhance their legitimacy in the global arena and
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 295
to promote their own artists more effectively. These field-level dynamics—which
I will illustrate next with regard to the global exhibition
space— indicate that it is fertile to go beyond a binary and deterministic
view of dominating Western centers versus dependent (non-Western)
peripheries. Rather, in a period of accelerated globalization, we can conceive
of both as becoming increasingly interdependent through an emerging
global logic and related competitive exchanges, leading to complex,
multidirectional, and yet asymmetric interdependencies (Straubhaar
1991).
To consider at first transformations in regard to (semi)-peripheries:
over the past decades, art institutions for exhibiting “international” contemporary
art have considerably spread around the world, beyond the
traditional Western strongholds. Indeed, by 2011, they reached 92 countries
on six continents (Buchholz 2013). Yet, crucial is not just the mere
fact of diffusion. More importantly, this development entailed that
(semi-)peripheral locations have assumed a greater share in the dynamics
of cross-border flows and valuation of successful “international” contemporary
artists. For example, if we examine the exhibition activities of US
American artists who were part of the top 100 league in 1998 and 2007,
we see a clear dynamic of territorial expansion, with an increasing involvement
of exhibition institutions at more peripheral sites. Whereas in 1998,
the leading US American artists were exhibited in 24 countries, in 2007,
their exhibitions considerably expanded to 45 countries.9 More important
in this context, the number of exhibition sites outside the dominant
Northwest significantly increased in the same period from 8 to 21. To be
sure, these locations’ relative significance in the global culture game
should not be overestimated. Yet such figures signal that the conditions of
cross-border flows and valuation of art from the centers have become
more global, encompassing the increased involvement of exhibition institutions
beyond the Western centers.
At first glance, these dynamics may suggest simply an expansion of art
institutions in dependent peripheries that dutifully adhere to reproducing
dominant Western aesthetic positions. However, interviews with representatives
of art institutions that exhibited US American art in 2007
suggest a more complex competitive impetus, which even lends itself to
usurpation.10 All of the interrogated exhibition spaces understood
296 L. Buchholz
themselves as “international” in their mission and practice, both in view
of self-presentations on their website and of statements made during the
interviews.11 Yet while respondents remained generally vague about the
criteria that qualify an institution as “international,” several converged
with the assumption that it is important to stage exhibitions with artists
who are “internationally” acclaimed.
W hen asked more specifically about the reasons for exhibiting art from
the United States, most rejected the idea that the institution’s choices
would be based on explicit considerations of the “nationality” of an artist;
that is, that specific artists would be chosen because they are US American.
Nevertheless, at the same time, interviewees stated that it is crucial to
present “US American” artists, saying, for instance, that it is “very important
to have them,” that “of course we try to get them,” or that “it is very
significant, of course ... one cannot claim an international position without
showing them.” Thus, in a globalizing art field, the most successful
national art traditions seem to be credited with more universal cultural
legitimacy. This intricate symbolic mediation between dominant
“national” artistic positions and their assumed “universal” artistic authority
becomes more apparent in remarks that justify the importance of US
American artists with reference to nonnational categories, stating that
they have assumed a “very strong cultural influence over the world since
the 1950’s and 1960’s,” that “modern art history is very focused on US
American art,” or, as one respondent put it, that “they have a very high
quality; [that] they were and to some extent still are in the contemporary
spearhead of art world culture, which means that our artists are sort of in
a dialogue with American artists, which means that they are close to new
thinking in the arts, which we of course are.”
Given the universal aesthetic authority attributed to established US
American art and statements that the “international” legitimacy of an
exhibition space is partly defined by the kind of internationally
acclaimed work it shows, the interviews convey that art institutions in
more peripheral non-northwestern contexts import dominant Western
art to also enhance their own symbolic standing. Importantly, such
dynamics do not stand in opposition to local loyalties. On the contrary,
most institutions saw it as one of their tasks to support the work
of artists from their own countries. The import of aesthetic positions
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 297
with “universal” appeal would thereby allow to build up a “context” for
their promotion in the first place— creating greater visibility, while
constructing a symbolic bridge for a “dialogue” between established
global and more emerging local aesthetic positions. In this sense, art
institutions at (semi-)peripheries that display globally recognized aesthetic
positions do not so much operate within a simple logic of dependency.
By thereby striving to strengthen their own symbolic position
and to become more forceful in supporting “local” artists, they actually
engage in intricate strategies of usurpation.
Conversely, to direct the focus to developments at centers: here, a
closer analysis of the exhibition sites of non-northwestern artists from the
two youngest cohorts of globally leading artists (cf. Table 10.4) reveals
the globalization of strategies among intermediaries. In the period from
1998 to 2007, 93% of the leading non-northwestern artists had the highest
number of exhibitions in a dominant Northwestern country. In fact,
the United States and Germany figure clearly as the two most important
contexts for the showcasing of their work: 60% among them had the
majority of their exhibitions in the United States, 18% in Germany, and
11% in France.12These proportions imply that globalization did not go
unnoticed among gatekeepers in Western core countries, too. It affected
also their logic of competition and position-takings: the extension of the
field and growing interculturalization in the arts (Zijlmans 2007) seem to
have contributed to a greater propensity for heterodox choices and strategies
of distinction vis-a-vis West-centric artistic orthodoxies.
The emerging global outlook and its cohort-related support can be
illustrated by paying attention to the evolution of global art discourses
(Buchholz 2013). Since the new millennium, such discourses gained in
momentum and greater take-for-granted status, signaling a growing
belief in the global as an actually existing (immanent) condition for contemporary
art and its institutional landscape. In this vein, they also
became associated with stronger appeals to rethink institutional strategies
and curatorial methodologies and norms. A ground-breaking and widely
discussed example in this context was the global restructuring of the prestigious
Documenta exhibition in 2002. By breaking up the exhibition
structure into a “series of events” that crisscrossed “the globe,” the
Documenta XI was interpreted to contribute to the invention of a new
298 L. Buchholz
“global exhibition” genre. Importantly, the curators explained their innovative
approach not only with reference to a critique of the Documenta’s
Eurocentric past. They justified it also in relation to an actually existing
global present and future, for example, when they argued that it was the
current “global moment” that required a “reevaluation” of this institution’s
“methodology.”
Interestingly, the director and lead curator Okwui Enwezor (born 1963)
was not only Nigerian in origin, but also falls into the same age group as
the first, more global cohort ofleading contemporary artists (cf.Table 10.4).
As the established Artforum International reported, in the new millennium,
other curators from the same age group too underlined their plans
to pursue a “global perspective” or “global issues” at the time of their
appointment to established art exhibition spaces in London and Paris— as
if such an expanded vision was seen as a critical component for innovative
curatorial work. Yet, the strengthening of an emerging global outlook is
perhaps nowhere more discernible than in the way in which the accusation
of the lack of a “global perspective” against the curator of the 2007 Venice
biennial— the established and older Robert Storr (born 1949)— could
inflame a whole controversy in the same prestigious Artforum, involving
heated justifications, counterarguments, and clarifications among other
more established exhibition-makers, too. To be sure, while further systematic
research is required to specify the globalization of curatorial strategies
at Western centers, these findings implicate that an account of artistic
selection processes in Western centers that relies on the idea of risk-aversive
“informal academies” is not sufficiently complex. It implies a too consensual
and static model of strategies of aesthetic selection and distinction
among cultural intermediaries that operate in the artistic core.
Conclusion
Taking the contemporary visual arts as a case, this chapter has addressed
a central question in debates about the globalization of culture, namely as
to what extent global transformations affect older center-periphery hierarchies
in realms of cultural production. Theoretically, I argue that to
L
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 299
engage with this question, it is necessary to analytically distinguish clearly
between inequalities in terms of geographic places and in view of the
cross-border success of cultural producers from different parts of the
world. Additionally, I argue for the importance to theorize more specifically
how dynamics of inequalities can diverge in different segments of
the same globalizing cultural universe. In this regard, I make the case for
a globally extended field approach as one fertile path for developing a
more differentiated understanding in view of differences between cultural-institutional
and economic global art spaces.
Against this background, the chapter has empirically examined the
evolution of country inequalities in the global exhibition space and the
global auction market. This analysis reveals that transformations of center-periphery
hierarchies at the level of cultural production have occurred
in both cultural and economic cross-border art spaces, but that they follow
different temporalities. Characteristic of relatively autonomous subspaces
with charismatic structure, changes in the global exhibition space
tend to unfold more gradually in cycles of longue duree, mediated across
cohorts.
Finally, the chapter also explored how globalization in the contemporary
visual arts has affected place-based center-periphery relations.
Focusing on dynamics of cross-border flows in the global exhibition
space, I argue that, in a period of accelerated globalization, geographic
center-periphery configurations in the arts do not have to remain static
and one-sidedly determinist. A holistic field-level approach reveals
increasingly interdependent dynamics, albeit in a principally asymmetric
constellation. Peripheries can employ strategies of usurpation that simultaneously
strengthen the established artistic orthodoxies of the centers,
but may also challenge their status in the long run. Centers in turn remain
not completely independent and static. They are themselves affected by
an emerging global logic, which also manifests itself in the rise of cosmopolitan
strategies of showcasing art from “non-Western” peripheries.
Overall, the chapter underlines that the question of whether globalization
has affected older center—periphery configurations cannot be
answered in a totalizing fashion. A global field approach offers a multidimensional
and relational perspective. It allows to uncover a variety and,
partically, even contradictory set of processes. Together, they suggest
300 L. Buchholz
going beyond the dichotomy between reproduction and radical change.
The intermediate, transformational view that I advocate acknowledges
that global transformations over the past three decades have had effects
on an older West-centric order and related practices of mediation, without,
however, going into the opposite extreme and proclaiming its complete
demise.
Notes
1. Sapiro (2010) has demonstrated the usefulness of this distinction for
examining effects of globalization on diversity in the French and US
American national book market, but has not extended its implications to
an examination of center—periphery dynamics at the global level.
2. information on the database as provided in 2008 in an interview with a
specialist working for Artprice.
3. Artfacts assigns “exhibition points” on a multidimensional basis according
to the logic of a weighted index for visibility and reputation, mainly
considering: (a) the number ofartists participating, ft thereby assigns the
following weighing ofpoints: solo shows > duo shows > group shows; (b)
the type of institution: public institutions with a permanent art collection
(usually international art museums) > no permanent collection
(such as contemporary art centers); (c) geographic location: capital cities
with vast numbers of museums and galleries > small cities or towns; (d)
the international reputation of other artists who participate in the exhibition.
These dimensions are related in a series of equations for determining
the weighed sum of an artist’s exhibition points, which yields a
ranking of his or her international visibility. For a theoretical and methodological
justification of this international reputation index, see
Artfacts.net (2003).
4. As the director ofArtfacts underlined in an interview in Spring 2012, the
index seeks to represent the evaluation of professional curators, that is,
“the curator’s point of view,” and not the judgment of dealers. Thus,
Artfacts deliberately excludes information on the market success of
artists.
5. In contrast to an alternative indicator for international artistic prestige
(the Kunst-Kompass ranking), the Artfacts ranking seems a more reliable
source. Instead of drawing from surveys of subjective judgments by art
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 301
professionals (whose design may change over time, such as in the KunstKompass
ranking), the Artfacts list is derived from a set of objective
algorithms that are deployed across all exhibitions and years in a consistent
way. Thus, the data source offers a more reliable indicator of artistic
recognition for analyzing trends over time. Another benefit is the
relational logic of the database in the sense that artists are qualified by
the status of the exhibitions, cities, other artists, and so on with which
they become associated as well as by the strength of these relationships.
Such a measurement logic does not only correspond with the relational
perspective of the field approach (cf. Bourdieu 1996, 166—73); it also
has been empirically validated for understanding “the dynamics of
artistic prestige” at a more local level (De Nooy 2002).
6. The sample included only living visual artists who were born in 1925 or
after, corresponding to the birth year of Robert Rauschenberg, the oldest
core member of Pop Art. This style was chosen as a reference point for
defining the selection of artists because it represents a turning point for
the historical emergence of “contemporary art” (cf. Crane 1987) as
defined by Moulin (2003, 39).
7. That was the maximum size that could be obtained for all age groups in
both rankings. More specifically, as the Artprices, base source for sampling
contained only 500 ranked visual artists (modern and contemporary)
for 2007, the youngest cohort that could be sampled reached the
number of 40 artists only.
8. In view of the relative position of artists from the United States, which
changed from 38.5% to 33%, and from Germany, with an increase from
15.1% to 18.8%.
9. Information about the geographic distribution of exhibitions of US
American artists was derived from Artfacts, which lists for each artist the
institutions and locations by year in which they have presented their
work.
10. In 2008, ten semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with
directors or leading representatives of the group of art institutions in
non-northwestern countries that exhibited US American artists in
2007. These art institutions were selected at random among the total of
respective exhibition spaces. The interviewees included Englishspeaking
art professionals in China, Estonia, Israel, Hungary, Singapore,
Brazil, Poland, and South Korea. Each interview lasted at least half an
hour.
302 L. Buchholz
11. The prevalent emic term used was “international,” rather than global.
The findings from the interviews suggest however equivalency with the
way the term global is used in this contribution, namely as referring to
a scale that is multicontinental, that is, covers several continents. For
this territorial qualification of the concept “global,” see Held et al.
(2003).
12. The data are again derived from the documentation of exhibition activities
and respective locations in the Arfacts database.
References
Appadurai, A. 1990. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural
Economy. Theory, Culture & Society 7 (2): 295—310.
Araeen, R. 1997. Westliche Kunst kontra Dritte Welt. In Inklusion: Exklusion.
Versuch einer Kartografie der Kunst im Zeitalter von Postkolonialismus und globalerMigration,
98—103, ed. P. Weibel. Cologne: DuMont. (Orig. pub. 1978).
--------- . 2001. Art & Post-colonial Society. In RemarksonInterventive Tendencies:
Meetings Between DifferentEconomies in ContemporaryArt, ed. H.P. Jakobsen,
L.B. Larsen, and Superflex, 19-25. Kopenhagen: Borgen.
Artfacts.net. 2003. Artist Ranking. Explanation ofthe System, http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pageType/ranking/paragraph/5.
Accessed 30 July
2012.
Bourdieu, P. 1993. The Field ofCulturalProduction: Essays on Art and Literature.
New York: Columbia University Press.
--------- . 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Brandellero, A.M.C., and K. Pfeffer. 2011. Multiple and Shifting Geographies
of World Music Production. Area 43 (4): 495—505.
Buchholz, L. 2008. Field Theory and Globalization. In Afier Bordieu: Visuality,
Art, Politics, ed. B. von Bismarck et al., 211-38. Orig. Nach Bourdieu:
Visualitat, Kunst, Politik. Vienna: Turia + Kant.
---------. 2013. The Global Rules ofArt. PhD dissertation, Columbia University.
--------- . 2016. What Is a Global Field? Theorizing Fields Beyond the NationState.
The SociologicalReview Monographs 64 (2): 31—60.
Buchholz, L., and U. Wuggenig. 2005. Cultural Globalisation Between Myth
and Reality: The Case of the Contemporary Visual Arts. Glocalogue, 5. http://
artefact.mi2.hr/_a04/lang_en/index_en.htm. Accessed 3 July 2012.
10 Beyond Reproduction: Asymmetrical Interdependencies... 303
Casanova, P. 2004. The World Republic of Letters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. (Orig. pub. 1999).
Crane, D. 1987. The Transformation oftheAvantgarde. The New YorkArt World,
1940-1985. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
— ----- . 2009. Reflections on the Global Art Market: Implications for the
Sociology of Culture. Sociedade eEstado 24 (2): 331-362.
De Nooy, W. 2002. The Dynamics ofArtistic Prestige. Poetics 30 (3): 147—167.
Dziewior, Y. 1999. On the Move. Interkulturelle Tendenzen in der aktuellen
Kunst. In Kunstwelten im Dialog —von Gauguin zur globalen Gegenwart, ed.
M. Scheps, Y. Dziewor, and B. Thiemann, 345-350. Cologne: DuMont.
Graw, I. 2009. High Price: Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture.
New York: Sternberg Press.
Hanrou, H. 1994. Entropy: Chinese Artists, Western Art Institutions: A New
Internationalism. In Global Visions Towards a New Internationalism in the
VisualArts, ed. J. Fisher, 79—88. London: Kala.
Heilbron, J. 1999. Translation as a Cultural World System. Perspectives: Studies
in Translatology 8(1): 9—26.
Held, D„ A. Me Grew, D. Goldblatt, and J. Perraton. 2003. Rethinking
Globalization. In The Global Transformation Reader, ed. D. Held and A. Me
Grew, 67—86. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Moretti, E 2013a. Conjectures on World Literature. In Distant Reading, 43—62.
New York: Verso. (Orig. pub. 2000).
--------- . 2013b. More Conjectures. In Distant Reading, 107—120. New York:
Verso. (Orig. pub. 2000).
--------- . 2013c. Planet Hollywood. In Distant Reading, 91—106. New York:
Verso. (Orig. pub. 2001).
Moulin, R. 2003. Le marche de Tart: mondialisation et nouvelles technologies.
Paris: Flammarion. (Orig. pub. 2001).
Phillips, D.J. 2013. ShapingJazz: Cities, Labels, and the Global Emergence ofan
Art Form. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Quemin, A. 2002. LArt Contemporain International. Entre les Institutions et le
Marche. Nimes: Jacqueline Chambon/Artprice.
--------- . 2006. Globalization and Mixing in the Visual Arts. An Empirical
Survey o f‘High Culture’ and Globalization. International Sociology 21 (4):
522-550.
--------- . 2012. The Internationalization of the Contemporary Art World and
Market: The Role of Nationality and Territory in a Supposedly ‘Globalized’
Sector. In ContemporaryArt and Its CommercialMarkets: A Report on Current
304 L. Buchholz
Conditions and Future Scenarios, ed. M. Lind and O. Vekhuis, 53-83. Berlin:
Sternberg Press.
Sapiro, G. 2010. Globalization and Cultural Diversity in the Book Market: The
Case ofLiteraryTranslations in the US and in France. Poetics38 (4): 419—439.
Scheps, M. 1999. Kunstwelten im Dialog. In Kunstwelten im Dialog —von
Gauguin zur globalen Gegenwart, ed. M. Scheps, Y. Dziewor, and
B.M. Thiemann, 16—20. Cologne: DuMont.
Straubhaar, J.D. 1991. Beyond Media Imperialism: Asymmetrical
Interdependence and Cultural Proximity. Critical Studies in media communication
8 (1): 39—59.
Swartz, D. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology ofPierre Bourdieu. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Tomkins, C. 2007. A Fool for Art: Jeffrey Deitch and the Exuberance of the Art
Market. TheNew Yorker, 64—75, November 12.
Van den Bosch, A. 2005. TheAustralian Art World:Aesthetics in a GlobalMarket.
Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Zahner, N. T. 2006. Die neuen Regeln derKunst: Andy Warhol und der Umbau des
Kunstbetriebs im 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
Zijlmans, K. 2007. An Intercultural Perspective inArt History: Beyond Othering
and Appropriation. In IsArtHistory Global?ed.J. Elkins, 289—298. New York:
Routledge.
11\
"It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad (Men)
World": National and Corporate
Strategies in the Global Audiovisual
Market
Diane Barthel-Bouchier
In 2014, the French-produced film Welcome to New York, directed by
Abel Ferrara, made waves by opening online rather than by means of the
customary theater run. The producers saw this marketing maneuver as a
protest against French legislation that requires a delay of several months
from a films theater opening to its availability in alternative formats
(DVD or online) and an additional delay before it appears on television
(TV). The producers were able to use this maneuver only because the film
had not received a centime of French funding. With its 100% funding by
American sources, it was able to open simultaneously in theaters and
online in the United States, where regulation of the audiovisual industry
differs from that of France.
This is only one example of how the global audiovisual industry has
assumed a complicated pattern of national and international marketing
techniques. It also suggests some of the innovative strategies facilitated by
the introduction of new technologies and alternative outlets. Some of these
strategies revolve around the classic tension between film as art and film
D. Barthel-Bouchier (El)
Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
© The Author(s) 2018
V.D. Alexander et al. (eds.), Art and the Challenge ofMarkets Volume 1,
Sociology of the Arts, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64586-5_l 1
305