This article engages with several of the key issues raised by Georgina Born in her article in this issue. It begins with a consideration of the emphasis on ‘production’ in Born’s piece, and argues that production studies are marked by an attentiveness to complexity that is often absent in studies of cultural reception. This response engages polemically with Born’s call for a cultural analysis that includes moments of critical judgement, and argues against approaches to culture that are centrally concerned with questions of human creativity.
Bourdieu, P. ( 1987) ‘L’institutionnalisation de l’anomie’ , Les Cahiers du Musée National d’Art Moderne19/20(June): 6-19.
2.
Bourdieu, P. ( 1992) Les règles de l’art. Genèse et structure du champ littéraire. Paris: Seuil.
3.
Bourdieu, P. ( 1996) The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Translated by Susan Emanuel. [English translation of Les règles de l’art (1992)]Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
Fuller, M. ( 2005) Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Gaonkar, D.P. and Povinelli, E.A. ( 2003) ‘Technologies of Public Forms: Circulation, Transfiguration , Recognition’, Public Culture15(3): 385-97.
6.
Griffin, M. ( 1996) ‘Literary Studies +/- Literature: Friedrich A. Kittler’s Media Histories’, New Literary History27(4): 709-16.
7.
Massumi, B. and Manning, E. (no date) ‘Technologies of Lived Abstraction’, URL (consulted 30 June 2009): http://www.senselab.ca/Book%20Series%20Proposal.doc.pdf
8.
Urban, G. ( 2001) Metaculture: How Culture Moves through the World. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
