Schools of Activity and Innovation
Author(s): Samuel Gilmore
Source: The Sociological Quarterly , Summer, 1988, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp.
203-219
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4121476
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4121476?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Sociological Quarterly
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SCHOOLS OF ACTIVITY AND INNOVATION
Samuel Gilmore*
University of California, Irvine
Explanations of artistic innovation have generally focused on political or psychological
factors influencing individual socialization. This article suggests an
alternative approach focusing on the organizational processes in an art world,
specifically the production of concert music. Concerts are produced through the
collective activity of musical specialists. Compatible collaborators identify each
other by constructing "schools of activity" that group conventional concert
practices and practitioners. Different schools, however, do not simply represent
alternative conventions, rather they represent degrees of convention that correspond
to varying aesthetic interests in innovation and virtuosity. The first part
of this article examines the organization of artistic activity and the formation
of schools. The second part presents data from the concert world illustrating
the organization of alternative types of artistic practice.
INTRODUCTION
Art is used to describe a variety of types of aesthetic expression. Variou
can be classified along dimensions of greater or lesser emphasis on artisti
vation (i.e., focus on creativity), and greater or lesser emphasis on artistic virt
(i.e., focus on skill). Some innovation and virtuosity appear in all artistic
but in many artistic communities there emerges an overriding emphasis towar
aesthetic dimension or the other. The preeminence of innovation or virtu
artistic practices identifies types of artistic communities. For example, at
treme, predominantly innovative activity characterizes the "avant-garde",
the other extreme, predominantly virtuosic activity characterizes a "repe
type of art world. In between, lie a number of mixed types combining
degrees of innovative and virtuosic aesthetic expression.
While it is technically possible for a strong emphasis on both innovati
virtuosic interests to coexist within a single art world, the practical pro
coordinating these interests make the social arrangement difficult to maintain
*Address all correspondence to: Samuel Gilmore, School of Social Sciences, University of C
Irvine, Irvine, CA 92717.
The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 29, Number 2, pages 203-219.
Copyright ? 1988 by JAI Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 0038-0253.
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
204 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 29/No. 2/1988
INNOVATION: Strong ---------------------------- Weak
Avant-garde Mixed Repertory
activity activity activity
VIRTUOSITY: Weak ----------------------------- Strong
Figure 1. Aesthetic Interests and Types of Artistic Activity
rapidity of innovative change in the conception of artistic form is at cross purposes
with the time it takes practitioners to develop the compatible virtuosic skills needed
to realize new artistic forms. Thus there tends to be a reciprocal relationship in
collective artistic activity between innovative and virtuosic interests with an increasing
emphasis on one leading to a deemphasis of the other. Artistic innovation
need not directly determine the degree of virtuosity in any given event or individual,
but a community of aesthetic interest develops a socially distinct collective practice.
Types of artistic activity can be located simultaneously along both aesthetic dimensions
as shown in Figure 1.
Traditional studies of artistic activity tend to focus on political, economic, or
cognitive factors to explain aesthetic interests. On a macro level, innovative artisti
work is often associated with political upheaval and revolution (Schorske 1981;
Gay 1968; Hauser 1951). This "reflection model" (Peterson 1976) uses a theory of
shared cultural context to link societal and artistic interests. On a micro level, there
are numerous investigations of artistic creativity that focus on specific individual
experiences or the structure of cognition to explain innovative activity (Gardner
1973; Ghiselin 1959). While there is merit in these attempts to model the psychosocial
environment by which artistic activity is influenced, often too little attention
has been paid to the concrete social processes through which artists produce
distribute and support their work. I will argue that innovation and virtuosity in
artistic activity is strongly influenced by these social factors in the organization of
artistic social worlds.
Several previous studies of the arts are relevant to this argument. A growing
literature identified as the "production-of-culture" perspective (Peterson 1976) has
produced excellent examples in both the popular and fine arts to support the
significance of formal organizational processes on types of artistic expression. Efforts
in the popular arts focus on the problems of "mass culture" production
conducted in bureaucracies and culture industry systems (Hirsch 1972; DiMaggio
and Hirsch 1976; Peterson and Berger 1975; Faulkner 1983). Following a core
research tradition in organization, these studies show how rational administration
can buffer decision making from uncertainties in creative artistic activity without
breaking down the bureaucracy. The emphasis is on how to maintain a semblance
of efficiency in cultural organizations. Similarly in the fine arts, some recent studies
of collective artistic production demonstrate the effect formal decision making and
coordination processes in large organizations have on rationalizing innovation (Adler
1979; Coser, Kadushin and Powell 1982). This article attempts to further elaborate
the organizational influence on the arts by analyzing artistic activity outside
formal organization, in open interactional systems.
In open artistic activity systems, variation in aesthetic interests is related to the
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Schools of Activity and Innovation 205
coordination and cooperation of particip
arrangements through which artists and
straints on the aesthetic nature of their
as "artistic conventions" (see Becker 198
conventions is related to variation in th
collaboration. The organization of this k
in the following discussion of social wor
ORGANIZING COLLECTIVE ARTISTIC ACTIVITY
The social arena in which collaborative artistic activity takes place has been
an "art world"; that is, a production system comprised of producers, distrib
and consumers "whose cooperative activity, organized via their joint know
of conventional means of doing things, produces the art works that art wo
noted for" (Becker 1982, pp. x). An art world organizes and identifies art
activity.
As Becker points out, participants' definitions of artistic activity are not haphazard
individual claims to particular artistic statuses, but mutually interdependent
claims produced through the coordinated and interdependent organization of artistic
activity. Individuals evaluate the claims of artistic status by potential collaborators
and acknowledge them through their willingness to interact. Group
recognition of these individual claims is a shared definition of collective activity.
Analytically, art worlds are part of a more general approach to organizational
categories called "social worlds" (Park 1927; Shibutani 1955; Strauss 1978). A
social world consists of "common or joint activities or concerns bound together by
a network of communication" (Kling and Gerson 1978, pp. 26). Potentially, this
definition covers a wide ranging number of collective activities located everywhere
from ideological (e.g., environmental politics) to recreational arenas (e.g., stamp
collecting) (see Strauss 1978). While some social world researchers use the category
to indicate the boundaries of shared experience (e.g., regulars at a bar) (Unruh
1979), more relevant here are social world approaches acting as "production systems"
(Becker 1976), organizing the collaborative processes of work. The organization
of work is usually considered the province of formal organization
researchers.
Like a formal organization (i.e., the firm), a social world coordinates the interdependent
activities of production, but it does so through an "open system"
(Thompson 1967) in which potential collaborators are not specifically identified or
linked before collaboration takes place. Instead, participants in a social world
develop skills and even prepare individual contributions to collaboration independently,
with only a generalized collaborator in mind. Participants coordinate
related activities by orienting themselves to practices to which others have also
oriented themselves. Thus social worlds coordinate production by organizing activities,
not by organizing people per se. This is the major difference in the coordination
processes of social worlds in comparison with the administrative
apparatus of the firm (see Gilmore 1987).
Actual collaboration in a social world takes place through a free-lance system
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
206 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 29/No. 2/1988
that channels individuals performing related activities in
Participants establish membership in these production system
willingness to cooperate with each other. The coordination
ever, is generally not simply a dyadic issue. Since a large
is engaged in a variety of dyadic and repeated transactio
establish commonly agreed upon practices that coordinate
among all potential coalitions, during both present and f
type of interaction represents a collective "coordination p
and is exemplified by a social world production system.
The coordination literature identifies two basic processes of
explicit and tacit agreement (Schelling 1960; Lewis 1969;
A common practice defined through an explicit agreeme
direct interaction among collaborating participants at th
place or by fiat. But the dyadic process is inefficient and th
like administration, depends on the recognition of the autho
by other participants. Instead, a common practice may b
agreement by participants conforming to past agreeme
others to do the same. This type of collective agreement
1969), is effective when collaborators seek to maintain su
aging collaboration in an ongoing production system. Su
dination mechanism may be used by participants in art w
Art Worlds and Schools of Activity
Art worlds act as social and cultural referents to guide t
ipants who are seeking like-minded collaborators. The re
individuals and conventional practices used in artistic act
designated individuals and practices delineate an artistic
scale, individuals and artistic practices define collectiviti
denote more specific artistic identities. Schools are a cat
that have been constructed in several ways. Collaborativ
"schools of activity", can be differentiated from "school
alysts produce to classify artists in historical or critical rese
Formally, a "school" connects a population of art worl
social referent), and the artistic practices this population
(i.e., the cultural referent). In a frequently used example
Renoir, Degas, etc., are associated with such techniques
and subject matter, fuller-bodied paints and broad brush
joined form the school of impressionism (Merrill 1970;
White 1965). Art historians and musicologists use these
study aesthetic change and establish artistic movements wit
(Kubler 1962). Taken together and aligned as a series, sc
cerns of an artistic medium and its historical developmen
Raymond Williams (1981) points out, however, that man
schools do not clearly exist as forms of association. Sch
and critics as categories of cultural historiography often do
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Schools of Activity and Innovation 207
Table 1
Comparing Types of Schools
Schools of Thought
1. Constructed through a labeling
process.
2. Category is formed through attribution
by nonparticipant evaluators (e.g.,
critics and historians).
3. Category formation takes place
through focus on artistic products.
4. Derives elements of artistic practice
relevant to legitimating artistic
activity. Produces a "legitimation
mechanism" in the form of an artistic
style.
5. Establishes within role linkages (i.e.,
composer to composer ties).
6. Category is based on similarity of
members.
Schools of Activity
1. Constructed through a work process.
2. Category is formed through interaction
of participants who are members of
the school.
3. Group formation takes place through
focus on artistic processes.
4. Derives elements of artistic practice
relevant to coordinating artistic
activity. Produces a "coordination
mechanism" in the form of an artistic
convention.
5. Establishes between role linkages (i.e.,
composer to performer ties).
6. Category is based on collaboration
between members.
of social interaction and exchange. We can compare the former, schools of thought,
to the latter, schools of activity, by examining the construction of these artistic
categories. Both processes designate artistic identities, but the participants, processes
and purposes behind the construction of each type of school are quite
different.
Schools of thought are constructs used to organize meaning in critical aesthetic
analysis and art history, which cluster aesthetic elements attributed to artistic products
by evaluators. Art critics use these groupings of aesthetic characteristics to
analyze artistic expression. Each grouping represents an artistic style. Evaluators
use styles to denote significant expressive elements in artistic work, to fit individual
works into larger categories, and to analyze the relationship between these categories
in an artistic tradition. Thus style is a legitimation mechanism for artistic
analysis and integration.
Schools of activity are constructs participants use to coordinate collaborative
work. These schools identify the common practices used by interdependent specialists
in an artistic division of labor. Collaborators identify these practices through
interaction and exchange, and maintain them in the form of a convention. Thus
convention is a coordination mechanism for an artistic work group. Table I summarizes
the comparison between different types of schools.
Critics, art historians, and other nonparticipant evaluators construct schools of
thought through the examination and comparison of artistic products. As such,
schools of thought are categories based on similarity, produced through a labelling
process, and are used for analytic purposes. In contrast, schools of activity are
constructed through the interaction and exchange of artistic work by artistic colThis
content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
208 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 29/No. 2/1988
laborators. Therefore schools of activity are actual socia
dependent differences (i.e., collaboration), produced throu
are used to help organize collaborative activity. The latter
relevant category for the sociological analysis of artistic a
meaningful artistic identities for the participants and id
practices that coordinate artistic collaboration.
Using Schools in Concert Collaboration
To explore the use of schools in concert collaboration, I
and channels through which classical music concerts are
certs are collective events organized through the cooper
situated participants in the concert world. Composers and
porary coalitions when producing a concert and then diss
litions to produce future concerts. Collaborators find par
by using identities associated with schools of activity to indi
practices. I documented this production and distribution
posers to describe how they get their music played, and
they make programming decisions and arrange perform
through open, unstructured interviews between one and f
these artists, and where relevant to my focus, I also inte
management, music critics, musical patrons, and others in
1982). All together, I conducted 97 interviews, thirty in
research in Chicago and 67 additional interviews during 9
New York.
These interviews make it clear that artistic identities formed through schools of
activity play an essential role in organizing concert collaboration. While stylistic
identifications formed through schools of thought might be used in publicity campaigns
to attract an audience (e.g., "serialist" or "minimalist"), the musicians
engaged in collaborative concert activity orient themselves by using conventional
identifications formed through schools of activity (e.g., repertory or avant-garde).
Many composers remarked that schools of thought did not exist in contemporary
concert worlds as real social groups. Several composers referred to such schools
as "fabrications" and one said simply, "People make them up." This composer
also suggested that schools of thought were "put ons" by critics and historians,
and did not believe that most composers are interested in affiliating themselves
with aesthetic groups. Another said,
I don't think one can really talk about schools of thought. I think it's largely
a fictitious construct. I feel no more close to a lot of people with whom I'm
normally associated in public terms than I do to people with whom I'm not
associated. In general I would say my closest collaborators are certainly not
the people with whom I'm usually lumped.
Other composers said similar things, e.g., that normally most composers do not
exchange scores with their peers, nor solicit evaluation, even from like-minded
practitioners. Instead composers who are identified as members of the same school
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Schools of Activity and Innovation 209
of thought usually do not interact and are wary o
others work. In one case, two fairly well known c
a unique contemporary style are reliably reported
for fifteen years. Although composers are aware of t
represented by schools of thought, the members
lectively to develop stylistic orientations.
This does not mean that composers do not intera
have a musical "reference group" (Merton and Ros
through which they orient themselves and arrange t
composer described his associations as follows.
There are just a few people with whom I collab
those are not composers, they're performers. T
performance group).... As a matter of fact, the
professional and artistic associations. I would im
relatively few colleagues to whom they feel rea
exchange ideas on a groundwork of near unani
musically or in any other area. The people I ta
Most composers describe a similar organization
asked to indicate the most significant musical relatio
they invariably mention performers with whom t
a concert. While these composers often have a n
with other composers, they do not work with them
do not treat their association with other composers i
groups. Instead, the reference groups they use to
schools of activity.
SCHOOLS OF ACTIVITY IN THE CONCERT WORLD
Schools of activity show up in the concert world in two hierarchically related
levels: subworlds, and smaller units of organization I call cliques. Each level identifies
musicians and the practices they use in concert collaboration, but they differ
in the scope and detail of these practices. Subworlds are relatively large in popu
lation and differentiate the general practices shared by participants in alternativ
concert organization. These general practices include compositional theories (e.g.,
orientation towards harmony), musical notation, instrumentation and performan
techniques. Cliques are far smaller in population than subworlds and are more
detailed in identifying concert practices used by members. These practices includ
techniques associated with the talents of particular performers and with specifi
pieces. Both levels of practice act as guides for musicians interested in collaboration,
but subworlds represent the most fundamental differences in musical practices and
thereby play a far greater role in organizing concert activity.
New York is the central and largest location of concert activity in the world. It
size and resources enable it to support three subworlds representing alternativ
schools of activity. Each subworld is identifiable through linked social and cultur
referents. The social referent identifies the individuals who use a particular pro
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
210 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 29/No. 2/1988
duction and distributional network and the accompanyi
support systems through which concerts are organized. Th
tifies the musical practices used to produce these concerts. Th
to each other as follows:
Social Referent
Midtown organization
Uptown organization
Downtown organization
Cultural Referent
Repertory practices
Academic practices
Avant-garde practices
"Midtown" refers to the major symphony orchestras, touring soloists, and chamber
groups booked into the big performance halls like Lincoln Center and Carnegie
Hall, and to the arts management and concert marketing organizations on 57th
street. The participants in this subworld are the best known in the concert world
and are generally recognized to be the premiere performer virtuosi in the concert
world. "Uptown" refers to the composers and performers affiliated with universities,
who use on campus rehearsal and performance sites. Uptown musicians are
fairly well known by other musicians, but are not familiar to the average concert
goer. Concerts take place primarily on campus, but are also organized off campus
at smaller halls like Symphony Space and the 92nd street YMCA. "Downtown"
refers to the nonspecialists, the composer/performers living in small performance
lofts in Soho or near available performance spaces in Greenwich Village. Concerts
are organized by participants at performance spaces like The Kitchen and Experimental
Intermedia Foundation. Some composers in this subworld have become
quite popular, but most work in relative anonymity and are better known by fellow
travelers in the avant-garde than by mainstream members of the concert world.
Table 2 lists typical concert participants, sites and programming styles in the three
subworlds.
Each subworld is a wholly encompassed organization of musical activities with
a relatively distinct identity. This does not mean that these subworlds are completely
separate and autonomous. Rather, they resemble Campbell's "fish scale model"
(1969) of interdisciplinary knowledge production in the sciences, with a pattern of
overlapping peripheries and only partially distinct cores. The cores of musical
production in each subworld can be analyzed separately in order to explore the
significance of conventional musical identities.
The three subworlds in this concert world are produced through two segmentation
processes. The first differentiates the musical practices organized around repertory
programming (i.e., music written before the twentieth century) from the practices
used in contemporary music (i.e., music written by living composers). This segmentation
distinguishes Midtown from the compositional subworlds and primarily
guides performers. In the second, the compositional subworlds are differentiated
by variation in approaches to innovation. Uptown, the academic subworld, supports
gradual aesthetic change and emphasizes monolithic forms of cultural activity (i.e.,
dominant paradigms). Downtown, the avant-garde subworld, supports radical aesthetic
change and emphasizes pluralistic forms of cultural activity. Each subworld
represents an alternative for integrating individual musical practices into a collective
framework.
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Schools of Activity and Innovation 211
Table 2
Subworlds in Concert Music
MIDTOWN REPERTORY CONCERTS
Participants
New York Philharmonic
Zubin Mehta
Itzthak Perlman
Isaac Stern
Vladimir Horowitz
Yo-Yo Ma
Mstislav Rostropovich
Juilliard String Quartet
Sites
Avery Fischer Hall at Lincoln Center
Carnegie Hall
Styles
Repertory programming, such as Bach,
Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and
Tchaikovsky.
UPTOWN ACADEMIC CONCERTS
Participants
Milton Babbitt
Elliott Carter
Jacob Druckman
Charles Wuorinen
Mario Davidovsky
George Crumb
Joan Tower
Group for Contemporary Music
Speculum Musicae
Ursulla Oppens
Harvey Sollberger
Gilbert Kalish
Sites
McMillan Theatre at Columbia University
Borden Auditorium at Manhattan
Conservatory
Symphony Space
92nd Street YMCA
Styles
Serialism, Neo-tonalism
DOWNTOWN AVANT GARDE CONCERTS
Participants
John Cage
Philip Glass
Steve Reich
Robert Ashley
Pauline Oliveros
La Monte Young
Phil Niblock
Sites
The Kitchen
Experimental Intermedia Foundation
Styles
Minimalism, Process, Drone, Aleatoric
Performers' Subworlds
The decision to work as a Midtown musician or in the composer concert subworlds
primarily concerns performers, because contemporary composers have very few
opportunities in Midtown concert organization. Midtown is the largest and most
visible subworld in concert music and, unless performers look elsewhere for alternatives,
it represents the institutionalized, default referent for most socialization
activities.
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
212 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 29/No. 2/1988
Generally, the socialization of professional concert perfo
predictable path in concert music (e.g., Graffman 1982).
training are required to produce the skills necessary to co
nearly all performers use formal channels of social integratio
usually start practicing at an early age and enter a conser
Here, performers enter an extremely competitive arena t
promising and through well established connections betwe
the conservatory and arts management personnel, chann
professional careers.
Alternative concert subworlds act as referents for performe
careers outside the Lincoln Center-Carnegie Hall bound eli
not successful as soloists on the touring circuit or as memb
generally turn to free-lance work. The free-lance perform
mented into smaller subworlds, because as a rule, free-lanc
can not compete sucessfully for jobs across the concert wo
to establish a professional reputation among orchestral con
formers develop and market skills that other performers
themselves in a musical "niche." Accordingly, free-lance pe
themselves by competing as repertory specialists in Midto
temporary specialists in compositional subworlds.
Midtown concerts consist predominantly of repertory with
on interpretation. Performance practices are developed in
reading standard notation and playing standard orchestral
dard way). Free-lance performers who identify themselves
often develop a more limited professional focus, for example,
music" baroque concerts or opera. In so doing, they can
and polished skills to a distinct performance market and d
among contractors. The ability to play a baroque or operatic s
difficult, but it can involve detailed nuances in rhythmic
The most highly skilled performers are the most efficien
surprisingly, Midtown concerts are organized through th
lucrative labor market in the concert world.
Alternative options for performers are located through compositional subworlds.
Programs in Uptown and Downtown concerts consist primarily of newly composed
pieces with occasional contemporary repertory. The aesthetic emphasis is on compositional
ideas and techniques. Performers who define themselves as contemporary
specialists must develop skills in contemporary performance practice. These skills,
such as reading "open" notations and new instrumental techniques, do not replace
conservatory techniques, but are learned in addition to traditional techniques. The
key characteristic of contemporary specialists is flexibility (i.e., the ability to adapt
to different types of concert activity). Newcomers develop new skills by emulating
established contemporary performers and by playing as frequently as they can. For
example, one contemporary performer explained,
I learned how to do this work by following my ears. I started in some student
concerts at Columbia and I now feel I can do almost anything I'm asked to
do. It was on the job training. You don't learn to play buzz tones at Juilliard.
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Schools of Activity and Innovation 213
Compositional subworlds guide both newc
this socialization and work process. The o
takes place through the identification
collaborators.
Composers' Subworlds
The segmentation between academic and avant-garde concert activity primarily
concerns composers. As with performers, the social referents consist of an institutionalized
subworld, Uptown, and a less formally organized alternative, Downtown.
New York's compositional music world is large enough (i.e., has the critical
mass of resources and population) to separate into subworlds. Composers in these
schools of activity have some relations with each other, but tend to maintain fairly
distinct musical identities. One Uptown composer said,
I suppose you can consider Pxxxxxx (an avant garde composer) to be a
composer, but I don't think anybody around here pays any attention to what
he does. I think of his work as music that painters like.
Similarly, a Downtown composer said,
I don't see much room for compromise. It you don't follow serialist techniques,
they just aren't interested in your music. I've been trying for years
to get Dxxxxxx (an Uptown composer) to come to my concerts. Fat chance!.
While composers share some recognition of common social status for all contemporary
composers when faced with the dominance of Midtown repertory concert
organization, there are clear distinctions in aesthetic ideology that act to produce
differences in social support organization.
Like the referents for performers, Uptown and Downtown compositional subworlds
act as alternative possibilities for composers' socialization and work organization.
Uptown offers more concert resources than Downtown, but to avail
themselves of this financial and performance support, composers must become
academics, since it is through the university that Uptown composers gain access
to jobs, concert halls, performers and other concert resources. Downtown composers,
on the other hand, primarily generate resources through nonmusical sinecures,
performance space in their own lofts, and interpersonal performance
arrangements. As such, the Uptown musical world is more exclusionary than
Downtown.
The choice of participation in alternative subworlds has direct consequences fo
concert practices. Uptown composers use compositional practices that constrai
instrumentation, notation, and compositional theories, while Downtown practic
allow innovation in all these areas. For example, Uptown instrumentation is usual
acoustic and consists primarily of standard nineteenth-century orchestral instru
ments, although some composers use electronics and computers. Instruments ar
played with new techniques, but performance practices respect the original acoustical
design of the instrument (i.e., violins are not used as drums). In Downtown
instruments are frequently amplified and there is considerably more variation
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
214 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 29/No. 2/1988
the kinds of instruments and the performance techniques used. Thu
composers may borrow instruments from other cultures or invent
performance practices are changed to consistently produce the most
possible.
Similarly, Uptown notation and compositional theories incorporate less radical
change than Downtown and seek to maintain a musical tradition. Uptown notation
combines both conventional and new symbols to represent changes in performance
techniques, but there is only one interpretation of the notes and the performer can
read the notes without the composer's assistance. The organization of notes in
Uptown (i.e., compositional theory) is elaborately constructed and is primarily
legitimated through peer evaluation, as evidenced by Uptown composers' concern
over the theoretical justification of their work. In comparison, Downtown notation
is graphic and open to interpretation, when it is used at all. Frequently, Downtown
compositions are communicated orally or described in written language. Compositional
organization may be as elaborate as Uptown in some cases, but participants
seem less concerned about the theoretical justification of their music than about
the way it "sounds." Consequently, Downtown composers are not constrained to
provide a priori legitimation of their compositional practice.
The Uptown academic subworld is the predominant choice by student composers
because the institutionally structured training process makes available musical resources
(e.g., university buildings, equipment and student performers), and some
financial support, either in the form of a stipend or a job. One composer explained
that he stayed in school to get access to compositional resources he could not afford
otherwise.
I was at Columbia in the mid-sixties. I got my masters in '66 and my doctorate
much later on, but I hung in there because of the Electronic Music Center.
I wanted to get in the Electronic Music Center, so I kept taking these courses.
That was the only way to do it. It wasn't the degree.
For novices, socialization in Uptown is highly visible through institutional referents.
Programs at Columbia and Juilliard are widely known and accessible
through application even to those who may know very little about the organization
of Uptown compositional activity. Downtown socialization is considerably more
informal and ad hoc. There are no degree-granting institutions and, for the most
part, novices must find their own way, organizing their own student-teacher relationships
and creating their own financial support, generally through nonmusical
sinecures (e.g., driving a cab). To be successful in Downtown, student composers
require some preliminary knowledge of the concert world. Thus, most student
composers enter the concert world by way of Uptown.
The alternative concert identities represented by different subworlds need not
be mutually exlusive, but in practice they are. Composers are clearly differentiated
in the New York concert world by Uptown and Downtown designations and performers
are differentiated by Repertory and Contemporary designations. The significance
of these associations is clear when performers and composers try to change
subworlds or to integrate activities in two subworlds simultaneously. Such "crossover"
participants experience problems in recognition and acceptance with estabThis
content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Schools of Activity and Innovation 215
lished participants. For instance, one comp
moved Downtown said,
I had a terrible time when I first came
at Columbia and sit in the lobby of McM
walk right by me. Then I would come d
didn't know what to make of me there
I was Downtown and the Downtown pe
several years before I became comforta
invitations to do performances.
Similarly, performers who establish rep
and audiences in the contemporary subwor
ertory and arrange concert dates on the M
pianist said,
I would like to be able to mix contemporary and repertory programming, but
management tells you it's not possible. They claim once you are established
as a contemporary performer people come to your concerts to hear contemporary
programming. Management says they don't know how to sell a
"mixed" program. I wish this wasn't the case, but that's the way it is for now.
A few crossover musicians maintain a viable identity in more than one subworld,
but they are exceptions to the typical situation. Most concert world participants
belong to one subworld at a time.
Concert Activity and Cliques
At a more micro level than subworlds, cliques provide more specific evidence
of the way schools of activity organize concert activity. Cliques are established by
relatively stable clusters of concert collaborators through repeated interaction.
Compatible musicians form these cliques to facilitate future concert activity. The
link between musicians and concert practices is unambiguous because the correspondence
is made directly through collaboration. Participants in each clique, however,
are also constrained by the general conventions of the subworld to which the
clique belongs.
Both composers and performers become members of concert producing cliques,
but they are linked differently. Clique affiliations are initially constructed between
composers and performers through the exchange of a score, but this interaction
between activity related actors (i.e., composers and performers) forms associations
between clique members who do the same thing (i.e., composer to composer links).
In network analysis, these two clustering processes are distinguished as structural
cohesion and structural equivalence respectively (Burt 1978). Composers and performers
are linked directly through cohesion (i.e., relational association through
interaction), while composers and other composers are linked indirectly through
equivalence (i.e., positional association through common ties to performers and
other concert resources). The point is that while composers and performers choose
each other in constructing cliques, composers in the same clique do not. The concert
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
216 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 29/No. 2/1988
practices that clique interaction identifies as relevant stem fr
between composers and performers. These practices form t
convention.
Concert producing cliques appear in two social forms. Many cliques are identif
as performing groups, but others simply identify social focal points to which
dividuals converge to arrange concerts. These focal cliques operate by acquiri
financial and other concert resources, and by providing organization and experi
in arranging concerts. An example of the performing group clique in Uptow
Speculum Musicae. A long-term member of the group described concert org
zation this way:
Well we used to have a favorite set of composers and I'd like to see that ty
of programming reinstituted. We kind of played your basic Uptown. W
always did a piece of Charles Wuorinen. We associated ourselves with him
Milton Babbitt. Played some Davidovsky. People from this area. Ellio
Carter. Played everything that he wrote that we could play. We all have
very nice relationship with him. And so we'll continue to play his music.
We tend to play composers we've played before, those we've been associat
with. We're more apt to play a piece of Elliott Carters say, than we are
Mr. X. We also play their students. We've played a number of Char
(Wourinen) students. Tobias Picker and Eric Lundborg.
An association with this clique facilitates programming and creates a speci
musical identity for these composers and performers. This identity provides cl
members with both internal and external recognition that helps coordinate mu
interaction and reinforces conventional practices within the clique.
An example of a Downtown concert producing clique is La Monte Young's D
Arts organization. This is not a performance group per se, but rather a locu
performance resources and musical personnel who help arrange and participat
concerts at the Dia Arts site. La Monte Young is an avant-garde composer wh
has been around the Downtown scene for over twenty years and claims to h
organized the first concert series in Yoko Ono's loft in 1960. Additionally, h
one of the central members of "Fluxus," an organization that lies between a
artistic movement and a performance group, which revolutionized the avant-g
in the 1960s (Nyman 1974). As a very visible participant in Downtown conce
music, he attracts students and participants to his clique through his reputation an
by the concert producing activities of the Dia Arts organization. One young c
poser/performer described his integration into Downtown and Young's grou
follows.
When I got to New York I started at Juilliard, but it was obvious almost
immediately that they weren't interested in what I was doing. So I went
downtown to talk to John Cage and to La Monte. I auditioned and La Monte
was interested, so I studied with him and did a number of concerts with him
for two years.
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Schools of Activity and Innovation 217
The attraction of La Monte Young's clique
access to performance resources and a plac
by clique members who share a similar orie
Downtown, this does not mean that partici
tionalized set of concert practices. Rather
exploring innovative approaches to concert
new techniques in compositional and perfor
cliques identifies those who are flexible
poser/performer said,
I hire people who want to play my mus
things. It's too difficult to convince most U
my own players, people who know conte
CONCLUSION: SCHOOLS OF ACTIVITY AND INNOVATION
Schools of activity facilitate collaboration among participants in an organi
ical division of labor. They identify conventional practices to which mem
subworld or clique adhere in order to coordinate concert producing activit
schools are not formed on the basis of similarity, as is the case for stylistic "
(i.e., schools of thought), but rather are based on interdependent differ
artistic collaboration. Schools of activity thus act as work reference groups cir
scribing conventional orientations in the concert world. They are social
associational categories that concert world participants use for socializatio
locate compatible partners in collective concert activity.
It should not be surprising that artistic activity, like most other collect
cesses, produces organization to integrate and socialize potential participa
cific schools of activity, either subworlds or cliques, are the framework
organizational differentiation process in the concert world. Identity and recog
in a school of activity is gained by adhering to specific conventions. If m
are not recognized as legitimate participants in a given school, they must
their own concert resources, generally with considerably more effort. Cl
sociation with different schools has real pragmatic and aesthetic consequ
It is also the case that alternative schools in the concert world do not
represent alternative conventions. Each concert subworld organizes colla
activity around different degrees of conventional practice. Midtown, the repe
subworld, attracts participants who adhere to the most conventionalized
in the concert world. Downtown, the avant-garde subworld, attracts part
who are the least conventionalized in the concert world. Uptown, the ac
subworld, attracts participants who wish to maintain moderately convent
practices, but with some flexibility. As such, different types of artistic e
is organized through alternative support systems.
The degree of convention in each subworld influences the extent of emp
virtuosity and innovation. When concert activity is highly conventionaliz
Midtown, participants are constrained to fit their musical ideas within a v
cumscribed form. Because musical ideas are restricted, the aesthetic em
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
218 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 29/No. 2/1988
on virtuosity or "doing things well." In contrast, when c
conventionalized, as in Downtown, there are fewer const
Concert participants have more leeway to create new musical i
emphasis is on innovation or "doing things differently." Upto
seeking to maintain a balance between limited innovation a
of these subworlds represents a different type of aesthetic in
Thus, the terms of cooperation (i.e., convention) used
school of activity constrain the nature of aesthetic expres
Different types of artistic activity are organized by differen
Schools of activity are the interactional social orders tha
differentiation. While previous explanations of artistic cre
focused almost exclusively on the individual, the approac
the relationship of the individual artist and the collectiv
which he or she operates. The findings would appear to h
types of cultural activity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An earlier draft of this article was presented at the Social Theory and the A
Conference at the New School in October, 1985. I would like to thank Howar
Becker, Linton Freeman, Jonathan Turner and the reviewers of the journal
helpful comments.
REFERENCES
Adler, Judith. 1979. Artists in Offices. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Becker, Howard S. 1976. "Art Worlds and Social Types." American Behavioral Scientist
19:703-18.
. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burt, Ron. 1978. "Cohesion vs. Structural Equivalence as a Basis for Network Subgrou
Sociological Methods and Research 7:189-212.
Campbell, Donald T. 1969. "Ethnocentrism of Disciplines and the Fish-Scale Mod
Omniscience." In Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, edited b
Sherif et al. Chicago: Aldine.
Coser, Lewis, Charles Kadushin, and Walter Powell. 1982. Books: The Culture of Comm
and Publishing. New York: Basic Books.
DiMaggio, Paul, and Paul Hirsch. 1976. "Production Organizations in the Arts." Amer
Behavioral Scientist 19(6): 735-752.
Faulkner, Robert. 1983. Music on Demand. New Brunswick, N J; Transaction Books
Gardner, Howard. 1973. The Arts and Human Development. New York: Wiley.
Gay, Peter. 1968. Weimar Culture. New York: Harper and Row.
Ghiselin, Brewster. 1959. The Creative Process. New York: Mentor.
Gilmore, Samuel. 1987. "Coordination and Convention: The Organization of the Con
World." Symbolic Interaction 10: 209-227.
Graffman, Gary. 1982. I Really Should Be Practicing. New York: Avon.
Hauser, Arnold. 1951. The Social History of Art. New York: Vintage Books.
Hirsch, Paul. 1972. "Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization Set Analysis of Cu
Industry Systems." American Journal of Sociology 77(4): 639-659.
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Schools of Activity and Innovation 219
Kling, Rob, and Elihu Gerson. 1978. "Patterns
Computing World." Symbolic Interaction 1:2
Kubler, George. 1962. The Shape of Time. New
Lewis, David. 1969. Convention. Cambridge, M
Merrill, F.E. 1970. "Le Groupe des Batignolles
by Tamatsu Shibutani. Human Nature and Co
Prentice-Hall.
Merton, Robert and Alice Rossi. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL:
The Free Press.
Nyman, Michael. 1974. Experimental Music. New York: Schirmer Books.
Park, Robert. 1927. "Human Migration and the Marginal Man." American Journal of
Sociology 33:881-893.
Peterson, Richard. 1976. "Revitalizing the Culture Concept." Annual Review of Sociology
5:137-66.
Peterson, Richard and David Berger. 1975. "Cycles in Symbol Production: The Case of
Popular Music." American Sociological Review 40(1): 158-173.
Rogers, Mark. 1970. "The Batignolles Group: Creators of Impressionism." In The Sociology
of Art and Literature, edited by Milton Albrecht et al. New York: Praeger.
Schelling, Thomas. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Schorske, Carl. 1981. Fin-De-Siecle Vienna: Politics and Culture. New York: Vintage Books.
Shibutani, Tomatsu. 1955. "Reference Groups as Perspectives." American Journal of Sociology
60: 522-529.
Strauss, Anselm. 1978. "A Social World Perspective." Studies in Symbolic Interaction 1:119-
28.
Thompson, James. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ullman-Margalit, Edna. 1977. The Emergence of Norms. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Unruh, David. 1979. "Characteristics and Types of Participation in Social Worlds." Symbolic
Interaction 2:115-126.
White, Harrison, and Cynthia White. 1965. Canvases and Careers. New York: Wiley.
Williams, Raymond. 1981. The Sociology of Culture. New York: Schocken Books.
This content downloaded from
46.13.158.75 on Wed, 05 Oct 2022 08:19:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms