Artification as Process

Abstract

The term ‘artification’ springs from a simple idea: art is not a given and cannot be defined once and for all as the consecrated body of works of established institutions and disciplines. Rather, it is a construct and the result of social processes that are located in time and place. Although this last statement is so fundamental to the sociological outlook as to border on truism, it entails adopting a socio-historical perspective that is less common than one would expect. This introduction recalls some of the empirical findings on culture on which the concept is based, while placing the theory of artification within the framework of process sociology. The apparent simplicity of the idea of artification is deceptive; it leads to a materialistic and socio-genetic perspective the implications of which have yet to be fully discovered.

In this introduction, I review some of the fruitful empirical findings on culture that provided the basis for the concept of artification (Shapiro, 2004a), and indicate elements of the theory they have enabled me to devise (Shapiro, 2004b) and elaborate with Nathalie Heinich (Heinich and Shapiro, 2012; Shapiro, and Heinich, 2012) within the framework of process sociology, thereby underscoring that artification is a trend rather than a result. Hopefully, envisioning the artifying process as one among many ongoing, intertwining processes of change should help to allay the perpetual danger of reification.

I will illustrate how such a long-term social and cultural trend, in which many people’s actions and ‘perspectives intermesh to form a process unintended, unplanned and uncontrolled by anyone’ (Mennell, 1989: 267), is in keeping with the outlook of Norbert Elias. Delving into the worlds of fashion (Crane, this issue), the circus (Cordier, 2007; Sizorn, this issue), magic (Jones, this issue), theatrical production (Proust, this issue), ceramics (Bajard, this issue) and practices such as cinema, breakdancing, gastronomy or graffiti, as well as into the exemplary case of painting, one starts to grasp the multi-faceted, dynamic and contradictory nature of the artifying process. In all these cases, artification emerges not as a linear development but as a composite process, the cumulative result of concurrent trends that may be met by obstacles and contrary developments. Artification also progresses contemporaneously with other trends such as sportification, commercialisation and so on, whose advocates may alternatively compete or collaborate. As Mennell (1989: 267) so aptly writes: people’s actions and perspectives ‘intermesh’. In this issue, John Hughson adopts a somewhat different perspective, pointing to parallels or similarities between football and art, rather than the process of artification as it is conceptualised here.

There are many questions about how art forms come about. What are the concrete conditions of emergence and development of what we conventionally call art? When is there artification? that is to say, how and when do things acquire the traits of what we call art and come to be collectively sanctioned as such, throughout society, by and large? What are the social processes that transform productions into such ‘works of art’? How do makers become artists? When do friends turn into audiences, and when do observers become critics? How do art worlds emerge? How do such transformations affect people, their status and everyday life? Thinking in terms of artification is at once a research programme that challenges us to scrutinise the relationship between synchrony and diachrony in social change and an attempt to answer these questions in ways that are simultaneously practical, symbolic and contextual, in a processual perspective. ¹ It demands that we research not only how we come to call things art, and people artists, but what conditions triggered that change and what it entails. To be sure, art history has addressed the historical transformation of craftsmen into artists. But the scope of our perspective is much wider and diverse; observation reveals that the sources of artification are manifold and go well beyond the sole example of craft.

Artification as a Long-Term Process of Change

The shift from craft to art and the appearance of artists as a distinct category in Europe from the early Renaissance to the 19th century are both now well documented. Painters, who in the middle ages were defined as image-makers – that is, manual workers of lowly social status – as the result of incessant battling for greater authority over their own production, emerged over the course of about four centuries as the ennobled makers of artefacts of heightened value called ‘art’, whose main function was to be contemplated, commentated, and admired (Heinich, 1997; Martindale, 1972; Warnke, 1993). Allowing for specific variations, the paradigm of this transfiguration is valid for musicians (DeNora, 1997; Elias, 2010) and writers (Bénichou, 1999 [1973]; Viala, 1985).

This centuries-long process is not only continuing, but intensifying in front of our very eyes. The trend manifests itself in many directions, as artification grows in scope, quickens in pace and extends its geographical expansion. There is an ever-widening span of activities and of people concerned with artification. The process is accelerating; artification no longer takes centuries, but decades, and sometimes only a span of a few years, it seems, for certain groups of producers to see their work transformed into art and their persons transfigured (through training and changes in lifestyle, for instance), and then widely acknowledged as artists. There is also an extension of art organisations to areas where they were formerly unknown, and an increase in the number of people that help them function. The population of educators, organisers, critics, gallery owners, heads of museums, collectors, donors and more, as well as persons with analogous functions in the realm of music, dance and theatre is steadily growing in parts of Africa, Asia, Oceania and South America where some years ago these occupations were unheard of (Djebbari, 2013). The process of artification is not characteristic of the West alone, but is now an integral part of social and political change world-wide. Thus, the transfiguration of ‘traditions’ into ‘art’ can be part of the process of nation-building (Andrieu, 2007; Djebbari, 2013) and may be a conduit for certain groups to assert identity or ascendancy on the local or national level (Myers, 2002; Tarabout, 2003).

Ten Processes of Artification

Analysing scores of monographs and research presentations, I have come to identify 10 or 11 microprocesses that constitute the macroprocess of artification. As the phrasing conveys, I do not believe the number of microprocesses should be taken literally, since it designates categories whose boundaries are contingent, which could be constructed otherwise and which are open to interpretation and variation. Perhaps there are 9 or 13 processes of artification. Furthermore, the contributions in this issue do not tick all the boxes, nor is it necessary that they should. The contributors explore unexpected alleys that will help us refresh and expand the model; they put the onus on what they deem crucial for their argument. What is important to note is that the processes listed here bridge a large span of practices dispersed in space and time, that they are rooted in observation, are congruent with reality and retain a sound explanatory quality. I believe this to be of merit and to indicate that generalisation is possible.

The most salient constituent processes of artification that I believe are worth retaining are: displacement, renaming, shifting categories, organisational and institutional change, functional differentiation, redefining time, legal consolidation, patronage, aesthetic formalisation, and intellectualisation. What I propose here is a way to think about change in a processual manner, not a doctrine set in stone. Let us now examine these microprocesses through the lenses of the case studies published in this issue. I shall also give examples taken from other research.

Displacement

Although I doubt there can be a single cause for any phenomenon, extracting or displacing a production from its first observed context may be one of the main prerequisites for artification. Separating an object from its ‘initial’ environment creates the conditions for it to circulate, be renamed, transformed and exchanged. This happened when paintings shifted from frescoes to the easel in 14th-century Italy, when graffiti was photographed and published in books, when jazz was first transcribed in to musical notation, when film broke away from its initial site at fairs, or when breakdancers stepped off the streets to go on stage. The established/outsider theory can be of use here (Elias and Scotson, 2008 [1994]). Displacement often means extracting the object, practice or person from their everyday setting and placing it or them in an environment deemed appropriate for established artists, for example a museum or a theatre. In this issue, Graham Jones describes one such move, in which a magician speaks at a university research symposium. This is part of the magician’s calculated effort to reposition magic as a form of high culture. Another example is given by Diana Crane with fashion collectibles, one of the three categories of fashion she defines. These objects enter museums as a form of cultural heritage and acquire artistic value. For some trapeze artists studied by Magali Sizorn, displacement consisted of distancing themselves from circus animals and promoting performances in theatrical venues rather than in the circus ring. John Hughson recalls that land enclosure displaced folk football from large-scale recreational gatherings to smaller spaces.

Renaming

Terminological change is another important step in the artifying process that often goes hand in hand with physical displacement. In contemporary France, the emergence of the expression danse hip-hop was contemporaneous with the displacement of young people doing smurf from the streets to the stage (Shapiro, 2012). Names may be at the centre of conflicts of interest, and are tools for cultural recognition. Serge Proust indicates how metteur en scène (theatre director) won over the word régisseur (manager). It was crucial for this profession to win the fight and be labelled artiste, auteur and créateur. Those three nouns (artist, author, creator) are decisive descriptors for all persons with a stake in the artifying process in France. Flora Bajard mentions the importance of those terms for ceramicists in southern France, as does Diana Crane in her discussion of fashion designers. Furthermore, the French expression haute couture ² is many distinctive notches above dressmaking; using it in English lends an extra-special lustre to the activity.

Reshuffling Rankings, Making Breaks

Changing names goes hand in hand with changes in rankings. Shifting their affiliation from the mechanical to the liberal arts was a major victory for painters at the onset of the Renaissance. It put them on a par with scholars and lent a high intellectual status to their practice (Heinich, 1993). Over time breakdancing went from first being seen as disorderly conduct (Banes, 1994), then as play for children, after that as a fad for teens, and now a professional endeavour (Shapiro, 2012): this is at once a categorical shift and a rise in social ranking. Graham Jones writes that the New Magic company can be seen in prestigious theatrical venues as they seek to break from previous connections with the nightclub scene and work to frame their performances as dramatic composition rather than ‘acts’. In his article, Serge Proust shows how theatre directors replaced what was once the foundation of their authority (an exclusive link to the French literary tradition) with a claim to innovation through an idiosyncratic variety of sources (physical elements, spatial structuring, Asian theatre, etc.). Magali Sizorn describes how contemporary trapeze artists now ascribe greater value to expressing interiority over displaying virtuosity.

Organisational and Institutional Change

Changes to names and categories are in turn intertwined with organisational and institutional change. A classic example is painters’ and sculptors’ shift from the craft guilds to the Royal Academy during the Renaissance. The artification of hip-hop dancing in France was enhanced by the institionalising effect of troupes and festivals (Shapiro, 2004a). While modern magicians work as singular individuals, the New Magic movement studied by Graham Jones organises its activities as a collective, following in the steps of theatre or dance troupes that are artified or engaged in the artifying process. The counter example of fashion is an interesting case. As Diana Crane indicates, artification in the occupation of haute couture was halted in the postwar period by the decline of couture as a business and the curtailment of designers’ creative autonomy. This was linked to major financial and organisational change: the formation of international conglomerates. The artifying process among trapeze artists studied by Magali Sizorn and the ceramicists studied by Flora Bajard seems to be enhanced at this time by the blossoming of small collectives. For John Hughson, the trend toward the rationalisation of rules and constraints in football tends to promote artistry in players’ style.

Differentiation of Functions

Collectives change over time, and a gradual differentiation of functions, in particular the individualisation of labour, enhances artification. Over time, an authoritative figure may emerge, as power shifts from the recipient to the producer (Elias, 2009). As it moved from the master’s workshop to the painter’s studio, painting in western Europe underwent a continual process of individualisation: by the 19th century, activity that was once collective gradually became solitary (Heinich, 1993). Graham Jones describes how the division of labour in New Magic more closely resembles theatrical productions than typical magic acts; the authors are not the performers. Serge Proust charts the emergence of the theatre director at the end of the 19th century, to the disadvantage of actors and spectators. Conductors had gained prominence over musicians in symphony orchestras during the 19th century and the figure of the choreographer asserted himself over dancers about a century later (Sintès, 2015). Diana Crane describes how in the mid-1800s the couturier imposed his authority as the source of ideas for clothes that were made by others, in contrast to the seamstress and tailor who were subservient to their clients. In all these cases, producers assert artistic legitimacy by gaining ascendancy over both their collaborators and the recipients of their work. This introduces them into a mode of production, a mode of valuation and a balance of power that are the hallmarks of the modern art world: the regime of singularity (Heinich, 1997). ³

Normative and Legal Consolidation

Legal consolidation is another important step on the path of artification. The famous court case ‘Brancusi vs the United States’ attests to this. In 1928 an American court famously ruled that Bird, made by Constantin Brancusi was indeed a sculpture and not a utilitarian object, as first stated by American customs officials, and would thus not be subject to high import tariffs (Heinich, 1996). A remarkable example a contrario is cooking. The fact that in spite of strong artifiying trends, chefs have not been able to sustain legal authorship for their work – for example by exercising copyright over recipes (Leschziner, 2007) – is one indication of factors limiting artification in that field. The French courts granted theatre directors recognition as auteurs in 1971, according to Serge Proust. In the USA, legal decisions that culminated with the end of censorship restrictions in the 1960s encouraged the development of art cinema (Bauman, 2007). In her article, Flora Bajard describes how militant ceramists criticise the norms that disqualify craftsmen as artists and seek to establish a new cultural classification through legal action. They have filed court cases on conflicting definitions of originality vs utility. They lobby for legislation that would create a status of artist-artisan in order to abolish the distinction between fine and applied arts and the fiscal disparities it implies. Magali Sizorn indicates how important it is in France for the circus to be overseen by the Ministry of Culture rather than another department: this entails a host of administrative and regulatory effects that tend to favour artification. John Hughson argues that following 1961 legislation that triggered considerable wage increases, some footballers felt more independent and thus became more inventive in their style of play.

Redefining Time

Embracing existing artistic conventions leads to doing or making things in completely new time frames. I can only suggest here a few of the vast changes in timing that derive from the fact that artification is a process of institutionalisation, internal and external, that is, concerning content and organisation.

While each round of breaking in the street lasts a few seconds, a spectacle can last an hour or more. Giving a staged production thus modifies the span and structure of time, and demands that dancers develop new technical, aesthetic and organisational skills (Shapiro, 2004a, 2012). Graham Jones shows how the application of theatrical conventions and new technology characterises an emergent kind of magic that its advocates call New Magic. Magali Sizorn describes similar transformations by trapezists. What in the traditional circus environment was a series of short ‘acts’, is now conceptualised as a structured, organic narrative. Sizorn also notes that the contemporary trapezists Flying Cranes (a Russian company) and Arts Sauts (a French group) who seek to artify their practice by introducing intricate aerial choreography extend the duration of their acts and the duration of the total show as the moves become more complex and cooperation among participants is ever more imbricated. As for art ceramicists, they turn away from the repetitive, industrial-type labour of the previous generation; Flora Bajard describes how the organisation of their working day changes as they ‘take their time’ to do individualised, signature work.

Another result of artification as a process of institutionalisation is changing people’s relation both to past generations and to the future. Flora Bajard suggests how contemporary ceramicists regard their practice as a career inscribed in art history, and their production as an oeuvre, a body of work. Nevertheless, an aspiration of this sort can be quite problematic. Serge Proust’s article provides an illustration by concluding with the portrait of a disenchanted stage director musing about the impermanence of his work, since contrary to the western ideal of art, theatre direction leaves no material trace that will withstand the passage of time. This is an interesting instance that poses many questions, including how distinctive processes of artification can contribute to a person’s artistic legitimacy in different ways.

Aesthetic Formalisation

For newcomers who are moving in the direction of artification, innovating aesthetically can mean adopting the aesthetic norms of an established (or antecedent) art. In the realm of the allographic arts this usually means following theatrical conventions, as we have seen in the section on time; in the realm of autographic arts (Goodman, 1976), it means going with the conventions of visual art. Diana Crane reminds us that in the 1930s, Schiaparelli designed clothes that illustrated the aesthetic principles of surrealism, and that contemporary couturiers use strategies that are analogous to those of the avant-garde in painting and sculpture. Art ceramicists described by Flora Bajard are influenced by an Asian aesthetic introduced through American journals. Breakdancing, circus, and magic are all affected by contemporary innovations in theatre that focus on semantics. Graham Jones describes a production of the New Magic movement that draws upon academic anthropological research, incorporates computer technology, and is performed in established venues.

Patronage

Under the academic system the king bestowed pensions on a very small elite of painters; the modern institutionalisation of government grants gives subsidies and endowments. These support systems enhance the perception of an ontological difference between art and other activities deemed unworthy of such official monies, and contribute to what Shyon Bauman calls the purification of genres (Bauman, 2007: 166). In France today, public policy has played an important part in the artification of many cultural practices since the 1980s, irrespective of changes in government. It is also based on an ideology that cuts through social class: art fosters social cohesion and strengthens the body politic (Looseley, 1997 [1995]). As Graham Jones writes, in France state patronage is an opportunity for cultural producers to avail themselves of the ‘twin promises of symbolic distinction and delivery from the market-driven demands of show business’(p.322, this issue). The magicians, ceramicists, trapezists and theatre directors described in these pages who aspire to art all depend to a degree on government subsidies. John Hughson describes various aspects of royal and political patronage of football in England.

Intellectualisation

Finally, the intellectualisation of practice, that is, ‘the production of analysis and commentary’ (Serge Proust) is an efficacious component of artification. Biographies of painters were first published in the Renaissance (Pommier, 2007), art critique was first published in the 18th century, and academic art history developed dramatically during the 19th century (Shiner, 2001). These occurrences intensified the growing trend toward the intellectualisation of both the onlookers’ and the painters’ relationship to painting. In France, media discourse on breakdancing took an ‘aesthetic turn’ in the 1990s, when bona fide reviewers began writing about ‘dancers’ rather than ‘kids from the banlieues’; in turn, the content of hip-hop ballets became increasingly reflexive (Shapiro, 2003). Similarly, Magali Sizorn identified a shift toward reflexive discourse in trapeze and the development of a circus d’auteur. A further step toward artification is taken when apprenticeship gives way to formal training, as evidenced by the foundation of circus schools. Flora Bajard indicates that the first French art ceramicists were trained in fine art schools, and mentions the importance of the dissemination of books and the expansion of a specialised press in advancing the artification of ceramics by providing a forum for debate and controversy in the aftermath of the Second World War.

Graham Jones’ contribution gives an unexpected twist to this discussion by concentrating on symbolic distinction. He focuses squarely on the matter by describing how a magician succeeds in presenting himself as an intellectual and scholar in a scholarly setting (the university). In describing a discursive conflict between the magician as an ‘insurrectionary agent of artification’, and a musician as ‘cultural gatekeeper’, Jones reveals the embodied, situated nature of talk: argument operates in the artifying process. Furthermore, the magician’s theatrical performance is presented not as a series of tricks, but as ‘a sequence of signs, commenting on the nature of being and time’. Many of the contributors to this issue underline how semantics and ‘the authoritative constitution of meaning’ (Serge Proust) partake in the process of artification.

Conclusion: Theorising Artification

As I have suggested, I believe an Eliasian perspective is in order here. Artification is integral to the civilising process and recalls trends such as those revealed by Norbert Elias’ analyses of classical theatre in 17th-century France (Elias, 1994 [1939]), stages of African art (Elias, 2009), poetry in Germany and France, and Mozart’s trajectory (Elias, 2010), as well as Norbert Elias’ and Eric Dunning’s inquiry into the socio-history of football (Elias and Dunning, 2008 [1986]). In these examples, as well as in the cases examined in this special issue, adopting a developmental perspective helps us understand change as at once the intertwined transformation of individuals’ behaviour, institutional structure and workings, and creative practice. The artifying process is sustained by advances in participants’ foresight, planning and organisational skills, as they gradually interiorise and exercise greater self-restraint. Ever more persons are involved, chains of interdependence become longer and more enmeshed, thus contributing to transforming producers into artists and mundane actions into artistic events appreciated for their aesthetic, emotional and cognitive value. Nevertheless, hindrances to artification are observed. Artification may be met with resistance by persons for practical or ideological reasons, for example when breakdancers state their desire to remain underground and refuse opportunities to perform on stage in the name of authenticity and as a protest against commercialism (Shapiro, 2004a). Obstacles may be linked to changes in the division of labour, to industrial reorganisation and changes in the structure of capital, as in the fashion industry (Diana Crane) and at restaurants (Shapiro, 2019). An artifying process can meander, as we see in the case of the circus (Magali Sizorn). And it may leave its participants filled with doubt, as Serge Proust’s article so aptly illustrates. Because artification is ongoing in all of these domains, we have yet to observe the full extent of its variation and complexity.