ART PRODUCTION AND ARTISTS

For purposes of discussing the art-world transition from "outside" to "inside," it will be convenient — even if also somewhat misleading — to think of the inside as "The Art Establishment" (Rosenberg 1965). It is convenient because there are hierarchies, dominant academic perspectives and art world centers that shape existing patterns of prestige, reputation and income among artists.[1] It is misleading because there are not one but many art worlds, some of them overlapping, and each with its own hierarchy; and there are not one but many dimensions of inclusion or standing within each.

The simplest way to understand the status of being "inside" or "outside" — and the one adopted here — is in terms of a particular operating art world (Becker 1982), such as the one described by the author in previous research (Finney 1993).[2] But art worlds vary enormously, some being local or regional, others comprising major urban art scenes. Furthermore, major centers, like New York, are themselves split into multiple hierarchies that vary in terms of art style (e.g. traditional vs. modern vs. postmodern), commercial orientation (e.g. "graphic design" vs. "fine arts") and utilitarianism (e.g. "craft" vs. "art"). Each particular art world, then, has a hierarchy (or hierarchies) of success or reputation, with those participants suffering marginal or unrecognized status being "outsiders," those enjoying high reputation being "insiders," and "young" or "emerging" artists standing in between.

How, then, do artists cross the zone from "outside" to "inside" in one of these particular scenes? What are the art-world barriers to recognition and how are they overcome? Because the process actually starts quite early for some artists, it is helpful to imagine the typical life-cycle of a professional fine artist.[3] For instance, what social patterns typify the family origins of artists, their socialization and training, their adaptation to the adult art world, their success or failure, and their eventual reputation? In particular, is there evidence to suppose — as would seem reasonable — that "insiders" enjoy an advantage because of early formative experiences?

Surprisingly little research deals with the social origins of modern fine artists. Do they come from privileged backgrounds, like Cezanne or Degas? Or do they conform better to the poverty-stricken image of the peintres maudits, like Utrillo and Modigliani? Do artists differ psychologically in important ways from non-artists? What early experiences are especially formative? As summarized by Zolberg (1990: 107-35), studies by psychologists indicate that artists by no means conform to the popular stereotype of being maladjusted, withdrawn, unpredictable or socially alienated. Indeed, one rare study of the same artists over time found that, while talent and certain personality traits are germane, various socially potent factors, such as gender and ability to adapt to social pressures, are equally important for predicting the success of an artist (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi 1976).

A few sociological studies do give hints of artists' social backgrounds, however, suggesting early advantage for many. While all social classes are represented among modern artists, Simpson's very small sample of SoHo artists (1981) suggested a preponderance of higher-status backgrounds — 75 percent of his artists came from comfortable or affluent middle-, upper-middle or upper-class families. Another more indirect study (Blau, Blau & Golden 1985) found that artists are relatively more numerous in predominantly white-collar cities.

Minority group experience is particularly relevant to current discussions of outsiders. While the number of minority-group artists in America's urban visual art scene is probably increasing (Failing 1989), African and Hispanic Americans are under-represented. Although African Americans account for about 12 percent of the total population, they made up only 3.6 percent of visual artists in 1988 (US Bureau of the Census 1990: 389); and this reality is echoed in their comparatively much lower levels of participation generally in the visual arts (DiMaggio and Ostrower 1990). The early 1990s, however, saw many exhibitions by minority-group artists in the New York scene, as well as the establishment of specialized minority-oriented centers like the Museum for African Art in SoHo and, earlier, the Studio Museum in Harlem.[4]

Minorities and women are both under-represented in America's important urban galleries and museums, but the dynamics giving rise to the imbalance may differ for the two groups. Both have undoubtedly experienced discrimination in the art-world's upper reaches; but unlike the situation for African-Americans, whose under-representation evidently partly reflects their lower levels of interest as a group to begin with (DiMaggio and Ostrower 1990), the lower visibility of women appears to be mainly due to some process of selection or discrimination. At least one must surmise that this is the cause of the great discrepancy between women's documented under-representation at the "top," as opposed to their equal or even majority representation among artists generally (US Bureau of the Census 1990: 389), among artists in local art worlds (Finney 1993), and among art students in particular (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi 1976; Strauss 1970). As suggested by one pair of researchers (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi 1976), who found that women art students were much less likely than men to continue their commitment to art in later life, part of the "discrimination" may work through self-selection. But gender discrimination at the top, as various commentators, such as Lippard (1976) have so often reminded us, as have the posters and performances of the Guerrilla Girls, is undoubtedly also a significant contributor to women's outsider status in the big city art world.

Crossing the insider/outsider boundary may also be seen as a long-term process of artistic career development. For instance, certain early formative experiences generate what several researchers describe as the first stage of a developing artist's typical career (Simpson 1981: Chapter 4; Moulin 1987: Chapter 6; Manfredi 1982: Chapter 5). Simpson describes it as the stage of developing "motivation" (1981). As shown by two studies of early formative influences (Griff 1964; Strauss 1970), many artists cite such experiences as "Saturday morning art classes" during childhood; being treated by primary and high school teachers and fellow students as the "class artist"; recognition and encouragement by particular early art teachers; and art-related work experiences. Some also mention parental encouragement; but just as common, however, are reports of parental discouragement, due evidently to parental fears that pursuing careers in art will lower their children's subsequent socio-economic status.

Through the 1980s the proportion of artists for whom early art schooling was a major formative experience increased.[5] Art educators have long bewailed public school neglect of art, noting, for example, that as of the early 1980s, the number of contact hours in art was fewer than one per week in nearly two-thirds of all primary schools (Chapman 1982; 54). Nevertheless, over half (57 percent) of all primary schools in one study were "served" by a visual art teacher, and this percentage increased by one-third during the 1980s (Moorman 1989). At the high school level during the same period, 85 percent of schools offered visual art education, although only 35 percent of students took it up (Moorman 1989), and in almost no schools was it required (Chapman 1982: 75).

The 1980s growth pattern is even clearer at the college level, especially in programs specifically for training artists. This is one of the starting points, indeed, of transition from "outside" to "inside." The field of potential recruits narrows as some students move to what Simpson (1981) identifies as the second career stage of the emerging artist. At this stage the artist typically declares independence from parental control, begins to embrace the social role of the "artist" (Simpson 1981: Chapter 4), and starts to learn the myriad art "conventions" (Becker 1982) that must be mastered to become a professional (Manfredi 1982: Chapter 5). Commenting on a particularly critical step in this transition, several studies of college art training (Griff 1964; Strauss 1970) indicate that the process of self-sorting into different majors — fine art, commercial art or art education — is highly formative. Gender figures significantly in the process; more women students are likely to favor art education, a factor that may help account for their higher subsequent drop-out rate in fine art and their under-representation in major galleries and museums.

As shown in a recent study (Finney 1995), the learning of existing art-world styles and conventions during the course of acquiring an advanced degree in fine arts is a much more dynamic process than is often supposed in the standard sociological approach (Becker 1982). At their least creative, aspiring artists merely play an existing art-style "game" — that is, they imitate, or even copy, some favorite historical or contemporary style. Indeed, this "strategy" is the norm among hobby and amateur artists.[6] Such imitative strategies are not respected among professional big-city artists, however. Accordingly, especially among students committed to modern or postmodern styles, mastery of convention is often coupled with a highly innovative process of game invention in which an established game (e.g. abstract expressionism) is combined with elements of other stylistic games (e.g. appropriationism, or "word" art), or on occasion, an entirely new game is invented. Indeed, this "burden of ... an independent vision" (Simpson 1981: 77) is one of the most conspicuous norms of the contemporary big-city art world.[7] Consequently, stylistic inventiveness is a central barrier in the transition from outsider to insider status. This is not to say that students adopting modern or postmodern styles do not also imitate or copy; but at their best, the mastery and use of stylistic conventions are more dynamic and innovative than is often recognized by sociologists.

More broadly, the growing significance of college art education must be understood as part of the phenomenal growth of the art world during the 1970s and 1980s, including a dramatic increase in the number of artists — that is, of academically trained "insiders." [8] For instance, the number of painters, sculptors and artist-printmakers in the country increased by 76 percent between 1970 and 1980 — about two-and-a-half times the increase for the labor force as a whole — and some increase continued through the 1980s, although at a lower rate (Bradshaw 1989; Robinson 1989). Thus, even though art school admissions are highly selective, the number of art students has increased dramatically. More generally, one late-1980s estimate put the number of art professionals graduating per year at 40,000, an increase of nearly 50 percent since 1970 (Brown 1989: 19). By 1980 the total number of studio graduates, in particular, was about 15,000 per year (Tompkins 1988: 74). However, paralleling the more recent decline of the art world in terms of sales, prices and gallery closings, these rates of increase have probably slowed or even reversed in the mid-1990s.

In addition, during the 1980s the percentage of nationally known successful artists with an advanced degree (MFA or PhD) has increased dramatically (Larson 1983). As one study reported (Crane 1987: 9-10), in the 1940s and 1950s only 10 percent of prominent artists (the abstract expressionists) had an advanced art degree, while in the 1980s 51 percent of one prominent group (pattern-and-decoration painters) had such a credential. Even with the dramatic growth in the number of galleries over the same period, the county's art schools and programs were turning out more trained artists than the art world could absorb (Larson 1983). The result for artists was illustrated by Ivan Karp's experience at SoHo's OK Harris Gallery:

Thus, the problem of post-graduate survival is aggravated for many artists who, in terms of the current discussion, remain "outside" the system despite their "insider" training to enter it.

Simpson identifies this period after graduation as the typical artist's third career stage (1981: Chapter 4). It is a period of "prolonged incubation" in which the young artist struggles, often against great odds, to gain recognition. It is a time of fateful decisions, such as whether one will enter the "New York scene," with which circles of young artists one will associate, how to develop a style that is simultaneously innovative and marketable, what new styles or media one will embrace, what shows or galleries one will approach, how one will support oneself in the absence of sufficient income from art, and how to promote one's work. As many art students have complained, these are the things art schools don't teach.

Specifically, the artists' resulting adaptation to their immediate art world, its institutions and its networks largely determines — along with a lot of good luck — their status as insiders or outsiders. As the author's study of a local art world illustrates (Finney 1993), a large number of artists of widely differing styles compete for recognition by a few art-world gatekeepers, and the result is an artists' stratification system in which certain types of art and artists are accorded more of an insider status than others. Ranging from lowest (outsider) to highest (insider) status, the primary artists' status groups in this community were naives, hobbyists, serious amateurs, aspiring pre-professionals and professionals.

The naives tended to produce the types of art associated with "grass roots" art, with its well-known primitive style, lacking as it usually does much command of illusionist technique or of materials. Generally, the naives' work was excluded from the community's more prestigious galleries and show spaces, with the important exception of several shows and one gallery shop featuring their work as part of the recent urban art-world "rediscovery" of naive art. Also, the naives did not participate in any of the area's many artist organizations or events, nor did they think of themselves as "artists."

The hobbyists and amateurs tended to embrace traditional, representational styles in watercolor or pastel. Although the hobbyists still saw themselves as outsiders in terms of technical mastery, they demonstrated aspirations for improvement through attending numerous workshops and classes. The more accomplished "serious amateurs" consequently succeeded in achieving local insider status through their frequent sales and inclusion in local shows and competitions. Especially among the amateurs, the level of art-world participation was high. Theirs was a local insider status, however, for these artists generally showed little interest, knowledge or mastery of modernist, abstract or postmodern styles. Accordingly, except among the most accomplished amateurs, these artists were profoundly ambivalent as to whether to call themselves "artists."

The pre-professionals, by contrast, had crossed the line of self-identification and commitment. They were also more centrally visible in local art-world networks, better trained, more technically competent, more likely to work in oils or acrylics on canvas, more likely to be accepted in the local area's most prestigious show spaces, and much more likely to embrace modernist styles, including abstraction. In short, they were definitely the insiders of the local scene. Although most were not art-school graduates, they generally thought of themselves as "artists" and harbored aspirations for eventual full-time, professional status. Like the naives, hobbyists and amateurs, the pre-professionals were overwhelmingly women.

The professionals, finally, differed significantly from most of the others. They tended to be the area's art teachers, working part- or full-time in local school or college art departments; to have completed the MFA; to have shown in more prestigious distant urban settings; both to identify themselves and to be seen by others as "professional artists"; to work in multiple and major media; and to work in both modern and postmodern styles. Significantly, a majority of the professionals were men, although the sex ratio had recently become more balanced. The professionals were active participants in more distant networks, but they either avoided involvement in the local art-world hierarchy, or participated "downwards" as invited urban art-world insiders.

The dynamics of the local scene revealed primary mechanisms that differentiate outsiders from insiders in most visual art worlds. Many artists moved upwards through the various levels as their local art careers unfolded. As they moved upward, their level of professional commitment, art-world involvement, knowledge of art, skill, and artistic style tended to change also. The most important selective mechanisms for insider status were formal art education, acquiring professional attitudes, artistic style, network centrality, jurying, and sales — factors bearing a close similarity to those reported in other studies.[9] Except as noted earlier, truly naive and imitative traditional styles were excluded from the upper levels in favor of modernist abstraction, innovative figuration and sophisticated forms of art brut.

In both local and big-city art worlds (except for the naives), artists at various levels often function within a more-or-less cohesive "status community" (Simpson 1981). Small groups or social circles (Kadushin 1976) of artists whose art-world status and artistic style are similar, associate closely as friends, supporting each other with companionship, encouragement, and information about jobs and show opportunities (Simpson 1981; Moulin 1987; Finney 1993). Strong norms against harsh artistic criticism operate within these groups, protecting participants from stigmatization as "outsiders." So supportive and formative are these communities or "movement circles" (Ridgeway 1989) that new styles sometimes originate there, illustrating that group formation can be one of the mechanisms for making the transition from outside to inside. Important examples include the Batignolles group of Impressionists in the late nineteenth century (Rogers 1970) and the circle of abstract expressionists who congregated at Greenwich Village's Cedar Tavern in the 1950s. Styles have differed greatly, however, in the degree to which their artists have been closely associated in a status community (Crane 1987; 1989).

Some artists are eventually recognized, however, and move on to a fourth stage of career success as art world insiders (Simpson 1981: Chapter 5). Just how to define "success" (i.e. truly "inside" status) is debatable, however. According to one very strict definition, "successful" artists are those who support themselves entirely from art sales. By this definition, only 1-5 percent of SoHo artists are successful (Simpson 1981). By extension, if one accepts the subsequent 1988 US Census enumeration of 215,000 visual artists, simple arithmetic extrapolation from this strict definition suggests there are from 2,150 to 10,750 successful artists in the entire country (US Bureau of the Census 1988).

Although nobody knows the precise figure, nor how it varies from one art world to another, curiously, the 1-5 percent figure is close to the 8 percent of student artists who were found in one longitudinal study still to be pursuing art careers at mid-life (Csikszentmihalyi, Getzels and Kahn 1984). This low success rate is also reflected in lower-than-average artist incomes, according to one large study of painters and sculptors.[10]

A more forgiving definition is defensible, however, for many thousands of artists are supported by art-related institutional salaries or stipends, rather than through sales.

The most significant of these institutions are the nation's colleges and universities, whose art faculties are expected to make art and who have extended periods (summers, sabbaticals) in which to do so. Noting the existence in 1988 of some 1,600 schools and departments of art and design in higher education, one recent estimate put the level of support for college and university art programs at $2 billion annually (Lyons 1990). Up to two-thirds of this amount is probably accounted for in faculty salaries. By contrast, the National Endowment for the Arts allocated only $6 million for its visual art programs in the same year.

Whatever definition one prefers - whether "strict" or "forgiving" - the severe downturn of the art market in the early 1990s, the subsequent closing of many galleries, and the drastic mid-1990s reductions in congressional funding of arts organizations through the National Endowments for the Arts and for the Humanities undoubtedly require some reduction in estimates for the rate of "success" among artists.

However the concept is defined, "successful" or "inside" artists achieve recognition as much by effectively finding their way in the complex institutional and economic world of art as through artistic talent and the aesthetic quality of their work - as sociologists have argued at length (Becker 1982; Moulin 1987; Zolberg 1990; Finney 1993). As just noted, one successful social adaptation is college or university employment. The minimal prerequisite for that is an MFA and, increasingly, some prior success in the world of big-city exhibitions.

In larger metropolitan art worlds, however, recognition by respected galleries and museums leading to sales is more central to achieving insider status, and is undoubtedly the criterion that guides most aspiring and professional artists. The standard is sometimes rather crassly formulated, as in successful artist Jeff Koons' remark that "I want to be as big an art star as possible ... I like the idea of my work selling for a lot of money. That's very sexual to me" (Cox 1989: Al). John Alexander, a successful artist who lectures widely to art-school students, reports their extremely high hopes in this regard (Gardner 1990: 135):

Increasingly, it would seem that artists are coming to appreciate that recognition as an insider requires "hustle" as well as talent and productivity. Some strategies are relatively ineffective, including uninvited approaches to prestigious galleries. More promising are a range of individual, group and marketplace tactics (Rosenblum 1985; Gardner 1990). Some individual assets cited by observers, such as being young, male and handsome cannot always be so easily acquired. Others can, including cultivation of a personal image or "persona," becoming known as an arts writer, and systematic socializing. The payoffs from aggressive "networking" were cynically described by Andy Warhol:

Or, as one artist said to a friend at a New York opening, "I'd love to talk, but I've only got forty minutes to work the room" (Gardner 1990: 137). These reports of mercenary expediency may not describe the typical artist; but there is no doubt that visibility through informal contact and acquaintance is an important dimension in artist recognition (Finney 1993).

Also effective are various forms of sponsorship and group association. These include working in a well-known atelier, such as Tyler Graphics (in Bedford, NY) or Universal Limited Art Editions (Long Island); being a relative, friend or studio assist-

ant of an established artist; founding an artists' group that is subsequently labeled by the art world; association with a "hot" alternative space or artists' cooperative gallery; and active social and market promotion by your gallery if you are already associated with one. In particular, sponsorship by senior, established artists is an especially effective route to recognition (Ridgeway 1989). Well-known artists often act, in effect, as intermediaries between unknown artists and the commercial galleries that serve as primary gatekeepers to recognition.

Development of a conscious "marketing" strategy can also help. Artist Jeff Koons, again, forthrightly counsels that "you have to understand the market you want. Youhave to realize your audience. Then, direct your work to that economy" (Gardner1990). Also, many successful artists' careers have begun through recognition by a well-known regional art critic or museum curator. Whatever the tactic, it is safe to say thatrecognition requires good luck and often lots of hustle.

However, the quest for insider status is complicated by artists' ambivalence and even strain in their orientation to their various "publics," such as buyers, collectors, viewers and critics (Rosenberg and Fliegel 1965). One study (Simpson 1981) scrutinized how SoHo artists adapted to such conflicts. For instance, the process of jockeying for gallery recognition — required for success in New York City — involves intense competition with other artists, including friends, and is beset by such dangers as confusing "sales" with "reputation" (some galleries are best avoided). Once a dealer connection has been made, new strains arise, for the artist must place considerable "situational trust" in the dealer. This can be tricky, for the dealer is likely to make decisions affecting the artist as much out of consideration for gallery status or the gallery's other artists as for the artist in question.

There is also the challenge of balancing galleries' conflicting expectations for innovativeness with maintenance of a consistently recognizable style. Rosenberg's "tradition of the new" (1961) and Poggioli's "error of traditionalism" (1971) must be balanced against the gallery's need, as a marketing strategy, for long-term stylistic recognizability and consistency. Another possible ball in the artist's juggling act is somehow to remain true to one's deeper aesthetic concerns and original idealism, while still responding to gallery pressures and the art world's changing media or styles. Success also forces changes in the artist's relationship to less successful friends and status-group associates. Two patterns are common — sponsorship and avoidance, both based on the fact that the successful artist has less need of status-group supports. Other concerns increasingly take precedence, such as developing disciplined work habits (Simpson 1981).

Short-term success, of course, does not guarantee enduring "insider" reputation. To what extent do various "social" factors, such as the tactics of art-world recognition, contribute to long-term as well as more immediate success? To answer that question, what Becker (1982: Chapter 11) calls the "conventional theory of reputation" must be contrasted against the more mundane "institutional" or sociological explanation. The "conventional" theory, with its emphasis on artistic talent and universal aesthetics, argues that long-term artistic reputation stems essentially from the exceptional talents of great creators. Such artists create works that are exceptional because they articulate universal aesthetic qualities and universal human and cultural values. Their reputation is ensured, according to the conventional theory, when other qualified observers, such as art historians, great collectors or art connoisseurs, recognize these artists' exceptional gifts. According to this view, any great art will eventually be recognized.

The weakness of the conventional view is not that it is all wrong, necessarily. Even Becker, who strongly opposes it, grants that it can be neither proved nor disproved (1982: Chapter 11); and Zolberg (1990) urges consideration of both the conventional and the sociological perspectives. What is wrong with the traditional view is that it seriously exaggerates its case and severely underestimates the role of social processes. It ignores the relevance of all of the promotional activities described earlier; and it ignores the vagaries of the history of taste, with the consequent very loose fit between quality and reputation, as illustrated by the esteemed artists of times past who are now forgotten. A more balanced approach must take both social and aesthetic factors into account.

Recent research by the Langs does just that (1988; 1990) by formulating and actually testing a sociological theory of reputation. It focuses on the artist-etching movement in France, Britain and the United States from the mid-nineteenth century until 1930. Although all of their sample of 336 artist-etchers were well known in their day, the reputations of a large proportion of them did not survive. Thus, we have a study of the historical failure of insider status among some artists who were all successful contemporaries.

The sociological question is: why did some reputations "fail"? In a painstaking effort, the Langs looked for various strictly social (as opposed to aesthetic) factors that were actually correlated with the survival of reputation among the etchers. Various social factors that emerged included the following: the sheer volume of work produced by the artist; good catalog records by the artist of his oeuvre; self-conscious efforts by artist and friends to arrange for "custodianship" of works by museums and galleries; having friends or relatives who survived the artist who would promote their work posthumously; having created some news or sensation regarding one's work that was picked up by journals of the day; "ideological congruence" of the work with dominant cultural and political themes of the time; and association with some other famous artist or artist's group. Talent may be necessary for enduring reputation; but alone it is often not enough.

We have seen, then, that the determinants of "insider" status among artists are complex. There is a deconstructionist tendency today to oversimplify the process of "admission" to the inside by reducing it to an outcome of a power struggle between the powerful and the powerless (e.g. Bourdieu 1984). And as we noted especially when commenting on the role of gender and race, power and prejudice certainly play a role. But the process is more complex than simple exclusion by the powerful. It is also a process involving marketplace, local communities, art worlds, status groups, stylistic or cultural trends, promotional strategies, stylistic game playing and invention, and biographical career development. And it is a process that is highly unstable and relativistic: what may seem "inside" to some (such as unrecognized fine arts graduates in their period of "protracted incubation") is "outside" to others (such as established artists and institutional gate-keepers); what is "inside" now may not be in years hence, as shown by the Langs; and what was rejected once by the art "establishment," such as naive art, later becomes all the rage, as grass roots art is now. Indeed, so long as what is "in" today can be redefined almost arbitrarily through art-world trends and collective behavior as "out" tomorrow, the structural basis of the insider/outsider distinction will remain unstable. As Andy Warhol noted, we each get only fifteen minutes of fame.

Anheier, Helmut K. and Gerhards, Jurgen 1991, "Literary Myths and Social Structure," Social Forces 69: 811-30.

Blau, Judith R., Blau, Peter M. and Golden, Reid M. 1985, "Social Inequality and the Arts," American Journal of Sociology

Bradshaw, Tom 1989, "Forecasting Artist Employment to the Year 2000," The Modern Muse: The Support and Condition of Artists, ed. C. R. Swaim, New York: American Council for the Arts, 47-54.

Brown, Richard Harvey 1989, `Art as a Commodity," in C.R. Swaim (ed.), The Modern Muse: The Support and Condition of Artists, New York: American Council for the Arts, 13 26.

Chapman, Laura H. 1982, Instant Art, Instant Culture, New York: Teachers College Press of Columbia University.

Cox, Meg 1989, "Feeling Victimized? Then Strike Back: Become an Artist," Wall Street Journal Feb. 13: Al, A8.

Crane, Diana 1987, The Transformation of the Avant-garde, University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi, Getzels, Jacob W, and Kahn, Stephen 1984, "Talent and Achievement: A Longitudinal Study of Artists," Report to the Spencer and MacArthur Foundations, University of Chicago Press.

DiMaggio, Paul and Ostrower, Francie 1990, "Participation in the Arts by Black and White Americans," Social Forces 68: 753-78.

Failing, Patricia 1989, "Black Artists Today: A Case of Exclusion," Art News: March: 124-31.

Finney, Henry C. 1993, "Mediating Claims to Artistry: Social Stratification in a Local Visual Arts Community," Sociological Forum 8: 403-31.

Frey, Bruno S., and Pommerehne, Werner W. 1989, Muses and Markets, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers.

Gardner, Paul 1990, "How to Succeed (By Really Trying)," Art News: February: 134-37.

Getzels, Jacob W, and Csikszentmihalyi, Mihali 1976, The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art, New York: Wiley Publishers.

Greenfeld, Liah 1989, Different Worlds: A Sociological Study of Taste, Choice and Success in Art, Cambridge University Press.

Griff, Mason 1964, "The Recruitment of the Artist," The Arts in Society, ed. Wilson, R. N., Prentice Hall Publishers, 63-91.

Kadushin, Charles 1976, "Networks and Circles in the Production of Culture," The Production of Culture, ed. Peterson, R. A., Sage Press, 107-22.

Lang, Gladys Engel, and Lang, Kurt 1988, "Recognition and Renown: The Survival of Artistic Reputation," American Journal of Sociology 94: 79-109.

1990, Etched in Memory: The Building and Survival of Artistic Reputation, University of North Carolina Press.

Levine, Edward M. 1972, "Chicago's Art World: The Influence of Status Interests on its Social and Distribution Systems," Urban Life and Culture 1: 293-322.

Lippard, Lucy R. 1976, "Sexual Politics: Art Style," From the Center, Dutton Publishers, 28-37.

Lyons, Beauvais 1990, "Public Support for Artists," New Art Examiner January: 13-14.

McCall, Michal 1978, "The Sociology of Female Artists," Studies in Symbolic Interaction: An Annual Compilation of Research, ed. Denzin, Norman K., Vol. 1, JAI Press, 289-318.

Manfredi, John 1982, The Social Limits of Art, University of Massachusetts Press.

Moorman, Margaret 1989, "The Great Art Education Debate," Art News Summer; 124-30.

Moulin, Raymonde 1987, The French Art Market, Rutgers University Press [originally 1967].

Poggioli, Renato 1971, The Theory of the Avant-Garde, Harper & Row [Icon Editions].

Ridgeway, Sally 1989, "Artist Groups: Patrons and Gate-Keepers," Art and Society, eds. Foster, A. W. and Blau, J. R., Albany: State University of New York Press, 205-20.

Robinson, John E 1989, "Assessing the Artist's Condition," The Modern Muse: The Support and Condition of Artists, ed. Swaim, C. R., American Council for the Arts, 29-34.

Rogers, Maria 1970, "The Batignolles Group: Creators of Impressionism," The Sociology of Art and Literature, eds. Albrecht, M. C., Barnett, J. H., and Griff, M., New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970, 194-220 [originally 1959].

Rosenberg, Bernard and Fliegel, Norris 1965, "The Artist and His Publics: The Ambiguity of Success," The Vanguard Artist: Portrait and Self-Portrait, Quadrangle Books, 191-214.

Rosenblum, Barbara 1985, "The Artist as Economic Actor in the Art Market," Art, Ideology, and Politics, eds. Balfe, J. H., and Wyszomirski, M. J., New York: Praeger Publishers, 63-79.

Simpson, Charles R. 1981, SoHo: The Artist in the City, University of Chicago Press.

Strauss, Anselm 1970, "The Art School and its Students," The Sociology of Art and Literature: A Reader, eds. Albrecht, M. C., Barnett, J. H. and Griff, M., New York: Praeger Publishers, 159-75.

US Bureau of the Census 1988, 1990, Statistical Abstracts of the US, US Government Printing Office.

Zolberg, Vera L. 1990, Constructing a Sociology of the Arts, Cambridge University Press.

[1] Sociologically, Rosenberg (1965) did not get this far; but he did recognize something of the complexity or elusiveness of his concept by noting at one point that the "art stablishment" consists mostly of "talk."

[2] That study, and a more recent one (Finney 1995), were based on the author's dual status and experience as a professional painter (MFA) and sociologist. He now maintains studios in New York City and Los Alamos, New Mexico.

[3] Many outsiders, of course, have no professional aspirations. We shall return to their circumstances, especially in local art worlds.

[4] Exhibitions, galleries and public spaces devoted to art by Asian Americans, Eastern Europeans, Hispanic Americans, artists from Latin America and grassroots artists were also much in evidence in New York during the early 1990s.

[5] School budget retrenchments during the early 1990s have undoubtedly reduced or even reversed this trend, however.

[6] This strategy of "traditional reproduction" encompasses a wide range of different stylistic games, such as "impressionism," "classic figure" and "cowboy" (Finney 1995).

[7] This is the norm of what Harold Rosenberg called "The Tradition of the New" (1961), and Poggioli called the "... irremediable and absolute esthetic error ... [of] ... a traditional artistic creation, an art that imitates and repeats itself" (1971: 82).

[8] For those in the insider/outsider debate who see the glass as half empty, this means an increase in "credentialization" at the expense of outsider artists; for those who see the glass half full, it means a great increase in mobility from outside to inside.

[9] Namely, Anheier and Gerhards (1991), Frey and Pommerehne (1989), Greenfeld (1989), McCall (1978) and Levine (1972).

[10] Lower, that is, than other types of artists and the workforce generally (Frey and Pommerehne 1989: 153). While the workforce earned an average salary of $12,200 in the year of the study, painters and sculptors earned an average of only $10,300 — substantially less than all other artists, including art teachers, with the exception of dancers and choreographers.

Chapter 4: Art production and artists' careers: the transition from "outside" to "inside" 73

Chapter 7: Outside art and insider artists: gauging public reactions to contemporary public art 118

Chapter 9: Multiculturalism in process: Italo-Australian bilingual theatre and its audiences 146

Chapter 12: How many did it take to tango? Voyages of urban culture in the early 1900s 194

The modernist era was marked by a continual breaching of distinctions regarding what is or is not art, and the breakdown of the hierarchies which had traditionally demarcated them. Today, the arts are characterized by an unprecedented openness to new possibilities, a shifting of established genres, a melding of unlikely forms, and far greater inclusiveness. How then, without an art world establishment with formal authority over outcomes, do we determine what constitutes art and judge different artistic works? Outsider art explores the historical roots of this post-modern condition and analyzes how artistic recognition is attained. Sociologists, art historians, policy-makers, and artists themselves analyze cases from the visual and performing arts, taking as their starting point the "classic" outsiders — asylum inmates, "naive artists," and African "primitives" — and turning to other "outsider" group members, from prison inmates to tango artists, to reveal aspects, stages, and strategies of artistic transformation.