societal sense, but also questions of domination and subordination in matters aesthetic: in style, influence, creative direction, and aesthetic ideology as well as in the more mundane contexts of artistic production, artistaudience relations, and in the roles of artworld entrepreneurs (gallery owners, museum directors, collectors, and agents). The ordinary categories are transformed and specified by the peculiar functions and interests of the artworld, so that aesthetic desiderata come to appear as the defining terms for power, governance, and interests. The blunter political-economic categories take on the protective coloration of artworld concepts: production and consumption are mediated as creation and appreciation; of becomes cultural diffusion; buying becomes collecting. The duality is not simply a semantic overlay of aesthetic euphemisms on a ground of stark social realities. Rather, it exhibits a real duality within the artworld itself, both as a world of art-a world of creative and imaginative praxis defined by aesthetic norms and categories-and as a social and historical artworld within a larger society or culture-a world of production, exchange, and distribution in which goods are produced, livelihoods earned, and profits made. My paper attempts to analyze the interconnection between these two aspects of the artworld. It does this in order, first, to bring to bear an analysis of the crisis in the aesthetics of contemporary art upon the crisis in the political economy of the contemporary artworld; and second, to sketch the political economy of that artworld so that I can explain what I take to be the crucial symptom of the crisis, namely, the domination
Read full abstract