START: 08/05/2009 16:46 END: 08/05/2009 18:37

PARTECIPANTS

 Lizardo Omar

 Torrisi Giovanni

 Siemssen Frederik

 Savini Federico

 Everhart Katherine

 Domenico Sivilli

[Lizardo Omar] Ok, it looks like it worked.

[Torrisi Giovanni] good morning prof. Lizardo. Nice to have you with us. unfortunately we are not many.... obviously we will need to review somehow our recruiting techniques...

[Lizardo Omar] No problem. It's finals week here, so maybe that's keeping some people away!

[Torrisi Giovanni] but since we are all here, I guess we can do the meeting nevertheless.

[Everhart Katherine] Good Morning!

[Torrisi Giovanni] maybe we can as well wait some more minutes before beginning the actual chatting. Good day Katherine, how are you?

[Siemssen Frederik] See, more people are arriving!

[Everhart Katherine] Excellent. I'm glad to "see" you all.

[Lizardo Omar] Waiting a bit is OK with me.

[Torrisi Giovanni] fine. in the meanwhile we can properly "chat"... Frederik was asking me from where prof. Lizardo is connecting today. maybe we can just quickly present ourselves and our interest in the issue at stake. I'll begin. I am very much interested in the inter-connections between information science (IT) and communication science (Sociology), thus how data and information is treated into communication and vice-versa...I look forward in trying to understand together with prof. Lizardo how cultural consumption can change in a knowledge based society. Please Omar, your turn.

[Lizardo Omar] I am interested in social theory in general and the sociology of culture consumption and cultural taste (among other things) in particular. I have a PhD in sociology from the University of Arizona (Tucson), and I am currently an Assistant Professor in the Sociology Dept at the University of Notre Dame, which is located in South Bend, a misnamed city that is in fact in Northern Indiana, about 1 1/2 hours driving distance from Chicago.

[Torrisi Giovanni] perfect. let's quickly finish the presentations with the others, in order Katherine, Federico and Frederik.

[Everhart Katherine] I am currently in my first year at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. I am interested in culture, particularly music- but how this intersects with identity and memory.I was a teaching assistant for a cultural consumption class last semester, so I find this discussion incredibly interesting.

[Torrisi Giovanni] Federico. Your turn.

[Savini Federico] Hello to everybody.... I am a Master student at the University of Amsterdam, in Metropolitan studies. I work on innovative governance in urban planning and civic participation within urban policies frames I am a sociologist

[Torrisi Giovanni] and last but not least, Frederik.

[Siemssen Frederik] I am very interested in the notion of culture as it has come to manifest itself in our materially saturated societies, especially in light of the so-called experience economy. As such I am very interested in experiences as events of leisure that serve a codifying role and are highly culturalised. My research takes place around the notion of the Urban in the intersection between architecture, philosophy and sociology. Also I am very interested in the role of aesthetics vs. ethics. Particularly in relation to architectural objects and conglomerations and their ethical function vs. their aesthetic function.

[Torrisi Giovanni] Now that we have clarified our respective backgrounds, we can begin the proper academic discussion on the paper. We can post the Questions using the "question" button"... I'll send the questions as they arrive and prof. Lizardo can answer them directly.

[Question from Torrisi Giovanni] I am very much interested in understanding the opinion of prof. Lizardo about cultural consumption and stratification in a knowledge based society. we are in a era in which many cultural manufacts are widely available and mainly for free on the internet. In few words, everybody that has got a speedy connection can easily access to a virtually infinite archive of movies and music, images and books, regardless their class. how does this change the scenario?

[Lizardo Omar] Do I just shoot (attempted) answers right away?

[Torrisi Giovanni] Yes. thank you.

[Lizardo Omar] I think that's a really good question. In terms of the sociology of cultural stratification there are a host of important issues that present themselves...First, there is the question of how much of "previous" forms of cultural advantage are preserved or retranslated into the "knowledge-economy" scenario. Then there's the issue of what new opportunities for advancement and differentiation are opened up. I think an important thing to keep in mind is that any type of technological transformation of this scale is going to open up as many new "niches" for the production of new advantages as is going to result in the preservation of old ones. But to deal with your question more directly, there are I think two issues to consider: first, there is the issue of access to the internet, and then there's is the issue of "given" that you have access are you going to "take advantage" of the cultural opportunities that are available? I think that the non-profit arts (e. g. museums) offer an interesting point of comparison in this respect. Bourdieu had a great line to the effect that Museums could just put up signs that said "only the culturally capable admitted" but they didn't need to because it happened anyways. So my sense is that even if there's a lot of culture that is "available" (for free, or easily) it does not mean that cultural ranks are going to dissappear because there's always the issue that it is only those who are already equipped with the capacity to appropriate that culture that take advantage of availability.

[Everhart Katherine] Great point.

[Lizardo Omar] Of course we still have to deal with the fact, that simple internet use is still tied to a host of stratification variables (in particular educational attainment), so even the simple issue of access to the internet continues to be a problem. Not only that, we are now realizing that even if you have some crude measure of access, the quality of the "online experience" is likely to be highly structured by previous competence and in particular early introduction into the medium. It does not matter if there's a lot of stuff out there if it requires a lot of expertise to find it!

[Siemssen Frederik] Regarding your museum point of view, I have noted that especially within the realm of modern art (be it video, image or installation) where some friends of mine function as curators in different cities, what really defines the cultural consumption is what the art world itself regards as art, ie. considers and defines as "artistic" outcome or cultural production. Ie. a magnified photo of a frying pan and to eggs is art if taken by someone already commonly recognised as an artist. As such a lot of the value assigned is decided amongst the people that curate and support the artists. In this way the notion of talent and technical ability becomes second. I realise that there is a direct line from Duchamps Urinal to this, but the difference is, that the provocation today is absent and everyone can exhibit something similar - but only in very certain cases is it art. What is your view on this.

[Lizardo Omar] I think you are correct in that regard. The artistic field today is highly "autonomous" in that the definition of art... becomes almost tautologous (as both Becker and Bourdieu intimated): art is what the field decides is art. But this was something that was always an implicit tendency in the artistic field (going back to the famous urinal), it has just become "purified" of late. Institutionally, this means that "gatekeepers" (such as curators) are now in a position to dominate the field. For lay audiences, that also means that keeping up with "what is art now" becomes fairly labor-intensive! Of course it is important to realize that whether "talent or technical ability" is a criteria for judging something as art, is always something that is in a state of contestation... both within and outside the artistic field, and thus never really "settled"

[Everhart Katherine] Actually, I posted a question that follows along this line of discussion- Giovanni- can you add it?

[Lizardo Omar] I'll do that.

[Torrisi Giovanni] Just in few words. I agree with Lizardo's questions about knowledge based society and I guess that a modern analysis of the cultural consumption cannot avoid them. Accessing the internet can be done at different levels and this creates new stratification layers, that are somehow different from the previous one. Moreover, with the so-called web 2.0, not just the art consumption changes but also the art production. Nowadays it is easy to post our "artistic" photos or our masterpiece, or blog, on the internet without need to pass from an editor, or from a gallery producer. I am not writing that these changes nullify social stratification in cultural consumption but that there is a strong need of an analysis that takes into account these new variables. Bauman is not enough.

[Question from Everhart Katherine] I really enjoyed the "troubling" of the linkage between social location and consumption, particularly the inclusion of critics, the professionalization of the arts. I was wondering if you could speak/write more about what you think about how embodied cultural capital and the increasing fragmentation/audience segmentation of culture might connect with cultural omnivores? I suppose I was thinking on this last night in that if contemporary society is based on embodied cultural capital- then what would be valued is the ability to "talk" (or decode) all types of culture- popular/high/folk, etc.

[Everhart Katherine] This question is changing the topic a bit- it was my other that discussed the nature of curators and deciding what is art- but we can return to this later...

[Lizardo Omar] I think that's a good point. The link between "culture talk" and stratification is something that was fairly explicit in early theories of stratification (I'm thinking of the early work of Randall Collins)...But appears to have become less emphasized lately. I think further unpacking the various species of (and senses in which) cultural capital can be embodied is productive... language and the ability to explicitly "decode" aesthetic experiences is an important component and it is clearly linked to experience in formal education... but it is also important to note that in certain contexts (which need to be defined with more care) talk and "decoding" may be less valuable than "direct" experience

[Everhart Katherine] Could you clarify what you mean by these different contexts- by way of what is different in the decoding versus direct experience?

[Lizardo Omar] this kind of embodiment is a little harder to come by, since it requires early and sustained contact with "culture" (in its many forms) outside of scholastic environments

[Everhart Katherine] Is it Bourdieu's direct versus indirect?

[Lizardo Omar] More like direct exposure versus mediated exposure (through texts or scholarly or critical commentary) The direct versus indirect classification that I was working with in the paper referred more to kinds of "appropriation" which in plain English, I guess would be different ways to make a cultural work "mine" (I can either own it, or I can "own" the specific experience that it produces in me)

[Everhart Katherine] Thanks for the clarification. I'm not as familiar with Bourdieu as I would like to be.

[Question from Everhart Katherine] Similar to Frederik's comment about museums and curators- I am curious about the role of the critic in the process discussed in your paper. I recently attended a talk with a curator and was spellbound by his claim that there are certain people who have the education and ability and training to decide what types of art should be public art. Obviously critics play a gate keeping and reproduction of capital role- but I wonder about the ease of "commenting" that is part of our online culture. In that generally all forums (discussion boards, youtube videos, online articles) have an opportunity for the people to comment/critique. How might this increased focus on the "critic" shape the connections you made in your paper?

[Lizardo Omar] I think the role of critics is crucial. In that respect some of the recent research in American sociology (I am think of Shyon Baumann's work on "intellectualization") has been converging... nicely with Bourdieu's later work on the connection between the conditions for "autonomy" in artistic fields (which required an internal critical apparatus) and the emergence of certain styles of consumption among lay publics. There is even some suggestive evidence from Marketing (Holbrook et al) that shows that lay public taste (in movies I believe) actually converges.. over time with that of critics, which shows that (contrary to some theories that see them as just providing chatter) they do have some capacity to mould tastes. but I think that what they do is that they provide actors with a vocabulary to talk about tastes, which is of course something that is pretty hard to do otherwise@

[Question from Siemssen Frederik] Have you dealt with newer theories of aesthetics, such as Bourriauds relational aesthetics throughout your work? If so, what is your opinion?

[Everhart Katherine] Thanks Prof. Lizardo. I have other thoughts on this- that can be saved for another time. Perhaps we should move onto another.

[Lizardo Omar] Unfortunately, when it comes to aesthetic theories I must confess that I'm a bit out of phase! Although "relational aesthetics" does sound appealing. Can you give me the two sentence summary? :)

[Torrisi Giovanni] please Frederik, feel free to jump in and clarify.

[Siemssen Frederik] It basically boils down to the fact that works of art now engage the user, that the communication goes both ways. But it is much wider than that, so I was looking more for an personal take on his writings. I am not sure whether to like it or not, but he is very big in France. But, in relation to the above: with the dissolution of the distinction between high-brow and low-brow culture into no-brow culture, it seems that attempts at defining stratification become fairly ephemeral. Do you agree? @

[Lizardo Omar] I certainly will have to put that on the reading queue. Sounds a bit like it is inspired pragmatist aesthetics (e.g. Dewey). Well it depends. The problem that a lot of research is running into is the following: at an institutional level, there is a lot of talk of the "dissolution" of the canon, but for those of us who stare at arts participation surveys, there is not dissolution of stratification in aesthetic consumption. In fact, in many settings the linkages between experience in the educational system (which Bourdieu and Darbel where already harping on in France in 1966) have only become stronger. Of course, this also implies some degree of "democratization" if only because there are more "educated" persons than before! @

[Siemssen Frederik] Thank you, theory and practice are indeed two different things!

[Question from Savini Federico] to make precise, I found the article very interesting but also very complex...too much for digesting it in the 40 minutes I read it. My question might treat an aspect which is not directly integrated in the document, but which I think it is of extreme importance in regards to debates on cultural consumption lifestyles. In several cities I visited, Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, Milan, contemporary culture is colonizing old unused spaces of cities. Old factories, industrial sites, harbors, big boats and more in general those urban places which are still in transition in terms of urban form. I am wondering to what extent culture, which claims to be new, alternative, "cool", tends to colonize "in-transition" places. It might be a matter of costs (less expensive space). It can be a matter of political will (pushing outside new, and not orthodox, forms of cultural consumption). But I think also that, coherently with this idea of shifting regimes you write in the paper, in order to move from one regime to another the actual space for culture has a significant role.....Does it fit with your assumptions? Is there a geographical dimension in cultural capital regimes? what do you think about this? ? (too long question I know :)

[Lizardo Omar] That's a fascinating issue. In the U.S. one of the most sought-after (and handsomely paid) speakers on urban policy is Richard Florida (http://www.creativeclass.com/) . In essence Florida argues that the only way to save the older dillapated post-industrial centers is to turn them over to the "creative class" so that they can recover them. This is a way to use art, aesthetics and the growing proportion of the population that is the in the creative sector as tool for urban planning and policy. There is a lot to be said about this, but the basic idea is precisely connected to the rise of "aesthetics" (or the aestheticization of public places) as a way to make them more palatable for certain class fractions

[Everhart Katherine] Though I believe Florida ignores the impact of these policies on the remainder of the population that is not directly involved in the knowledge/creative economy. I enjoy Florida's work, though I think some critique of his work may be necessary.

[Lizardo Omar] Oh yes, I only bring it up precisely because I believe that the work needs to be criticized, (it is sociologically naive in many respects)

[Everhart Katherine] indeed.@

[Lizardo Omar] But it also means that institutionally, the regime that accords primacy to aestheticism as I tried to defined is becoming much more of a "lived" reality, not just a "theory" define it. So the connection with space is apposite, and I think important @

[Savini Federico] I didn't expect Florida in my question indeed.....I was trying to go further since florida's theory is as much appealing to politicians as simple.. Rather, I was interested in the ""change" of regimes why are the vehicles of those changes...and, can urban transformation be one of them, but indeed the answer was fine :) thank you a lot.

[Lizardo Omar] My sense is that the regime "change" has probably already occurred, and now we are dealing with the aftermath. Urban transformation will certainly be part of it, for the simple reason that the "creative class" (which Bourdieu liked to remind us is "the dominated fraction of the dominant class") is essentially urban (or is attracted to urban spaces). Urban spaces are interesting also in that they bring into geographic proximity class fractions that are of course light years from one another in social space (the urban poor and the economically poor, but culturally advantaged). In a way the colonizing of the space previously occupied by the former by the now politically empowered latter is an interesting phenomenon. @

[Siemssen Frederik] Very interesting indeed.

[Torrisi Giovanni] Are there any other questions, or comments?

[Savini Federico] I have a shorter question about the concept of democratization of culture... I might go directly into lesson and it might seem simple, but I am interested in that I was reading few days ago that google decided to elaborate a software similar to google earth able to "map" and "scan" in details art works with which any online user can zoom on very small details of those art works and see what actually "the eyes can't see in a museum"

[Lizardo Omar] Interesting!

[Savini Federico] More in general, this stimulated me to think about this idea of democracy in art is that democratic a simple "improvement" of the contact between art works and users I mean making art to be as much as possible enjoyed by people. I might seem a bit apocalyptic (taking the Eco's distinction) but I don't think so however, I don't know then which might be a strategy for democratizing art do you have ideas about this :) ?

[Lizardo Omar] Good question! Well, I think the naive approach would be to think that if access were made universal then art would be ipso facto democratized. Once again, the experience of museums tells us that that is not a good strategy (although it is important to support universal access). You also have to democratize the "means of consumption" but those are linked to experiences that are clearly connected to class-marked environments. So democratization at the level of access has to be accompanied by other forms of democratization. For instance, in the Eurobarometer, it is clear that the Scandinavian social-democratic states are also the highest in overall aesthetic consumption, especially among those respondents that report being "working class" I don't think that's an accident (2001, and 2007 Eurobarometer that is). Anglo-Saxon types welfare regimes (England, Netherlands) don't do as well @ - bye Siemssen!

[Savini Federico] thank you does it exist a WIKI art? :) or, the more democratic is the one which is interactive....the audience is part of the performance

[Siemssen Frederik] Goodbye and thank you once again, I have to leave, but I am leaving the screen on so as not to miss the rest!

[Torrisi Giovanni] Goodbye Frederik, I guess we are finishing too. I would like to thank you all and prof. Omar Lizardo for the very interesting discussion today.

[Lizardo Omar] Thanks for the invite!

[Torrisi Giovanni] It was really interesting. I hope to see you all as well at the next appointment with prof. Freschi. the date is yet to be defined, but I'll get in touch with you by email.

[Everhart Katherine] Thanks! I enjoyed.

[Savini Federico] Ok....goodbye to everyone...Hope to meet you soon again

[Torrisi Giovanni] I am closing the classroom now.