Shyon Baumann, “Introduction: Drawing the Boundaries of Art”

In Baumann, Shyon. Hollywood highbrow : from entertainment to art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Where exactly are films situated in American pop culture?
Active debate throughout their history about their merits
Changes in production, reception and in the films themselves
“the creation of an understanding of the medium of film as a legitimate and serious artistic medium, and a body of film works as being legitimate and serious works of art.”
Change in perception of Hollywood films for a certain segment of the population – art, not light entertainment
Intellectually engage, experience Hollywood films as art
Historically, aesthetically, sociologically interesting
Film as unintelligent, moral deterioration – drastic turn from this perception
“the legitimation of Hollywood films occurred mainly during the 1960s and was a process driven by three main factors”
Opportunity space for an art world of film opened up – changes outside the field of film
“social climate in which the cultural contradictions of film's claims to art were reduced”
Changes within Hollywood brought it closer to established art worlds
Festivals, academia, etc.
Director-centred production, arthouses, relaxed censorship
Creation of a discourse of film as art
Reviews, criticism based on film as “a sophisticated and powerful form of artistic communication”
Social, collective nature of artistic production and consumption
Howard Becker, Art Worlds (1982)
Development of art worlds “is connected to the opportunities afforded by the wider social context”
Not only organizational, institutional achievements, but also intellectual achievements
Sets of ideas that explain and justify film as art (criticism is key)
Absence of clear principles for what is art or not
Authority of “cultural experts” (but they don't all agree)
No guarantee the general public will accept these ideas (abstract art)
“the question of how we decide what is art, and why their judgements are accepted or resisted by the wider public” (and vice versa?)
Tolstoy – art as the communication of emotion
Stephen Davies:
Functionalist definitions (what art does – Michelangelo)
Procedural definitions (process by which art is crafted, rules – Duchamp)
Not seeking definition or an airtight case for Hollywood film as art
Certain films are widely recognized as legitimate art (for diverse reasons)
Beauty (visual usually); innovation/perfection of conventions; communication of messages; personal expression (usually directors)
Art possesses high status and bestows high status on creators and audiences (cultural capital)
Hollywood films can now aspire to this
“How did a body of Hollywood films (though not all) gain this recognition as art?”
Could be a philosophical or a sociological question (quality VS context of art)
“the coalescence of a novel perspective among a large group of people is a social process that lends itself more readily to sociological analysis than aesthetic analysis”
For games, not yet a coalescence – more of a multiplicity of perspectives
“the story of film's valorization as art”
The whole history of commercial American cinema is part of this story
Nickelodeons – working class entertainment
Censorship (MPPDA)
DW Griffith – film grammar
Acceptance of film as art in Europe by intellectuals – conditions of film production and consumption were similar to other arts (not true of Hollywood films)
Mass entertainment (fun, not challenging)
Increasing popularity after sound – middle-brow: picture palaces, prestige, epic scale
For games a this point, the question may be as much about becoming middlebrow art as highbrow, “fine” art;
Breakdown of vertical integration, First Amendment protection – end of censorship
French intellectual attention to Hollywood as an art form (auteur theory), imported via Sarris
1960s: economic uncertainty, social upheaval, different kinds of films being made
Idea of Hollywood film as art gains wide currency
Hollywood films could be approached with an open mind (rather than prejudged as entertainment)
Status of “film literature”
Explain this shift, change in attitude
European scene paved the way for intellectualization of Hollywood films
“Status vacuum” created by TV, drop in film-going – links to working/middle class weakened
Possibility for a cultural redefinition – art world for film developed
Feedback – filmmakers encouraged to create artier films (market)
Blockbuster strategy, conglomeration
The social construction of art
“the categories and definitions we use to perceive and to understand the world are molded by cultural forces” and social processes
Not a denial of objective reality
Art exists even if it happens to be socially constructed
Question the “taken-for-granted” nature of art/not-art
Judgement of quality is normative, not logical (set of arbitrary standards)
Hierarchies are also constructed
Look beyond context to conditions of creation, distribution, production, consumption
“the production perspective”
Peterson: the “aesthetic mobility” of films
“three main factors that sociologists of culture rely on to explain the public acceptance of a cultural product as art”
The Legitimation Framework: opportunity, institutions, ideology
1) an opportunity space
2) institutionalized resources and activities
3) intellectualization through discourse
[Does this preclude un- or anti-intellectual popular aesthetic discourse? Or is this a palpable difference between film-as-art and games-as-art?]
1) “the creation of an opportunity space through social change outside the art world in question”
DiMaggio: “preexisting discursive and organizational resources available for imitation” or adaptation
Film pushed theatre out of the popular middlebrow towards higher status
An already established space by opera, museums, symphonies
Outside factors, new contexts
Likewise, TV pushed film higher
Young people in college – the “film generation” in the 1960s
“Because society had evolved in certain ways, film-going had become a significant cultural activity.”
2) “the institutional arrangements underlying the production, exhibition, and appreciation art, as well as the various activities and practices carried out in those institutional settings”
Becker: creation of art (and thus art worlds) as a collective action
Independent/arthouse theatres
Distribution networks
Academic programs
Changing economics of production
3) “the grounding of value and legitimacy in critical discourse” [and in popular discourse?]
Development of a “cultural field”
Without this third aspect, the other two could apply to any number of other fields/practices
When a field becomes distinct, offers a distinct form of cultural capital
“The development of a field-specific aesthetic both provides a rationale for accepting the definition of a cultural product as art and offers analyses for particular products.”
“academics and aesthetes [and critics] developed a sacralizing ideology to legitimate various forms of high culture” (not usually empirically investigated)
“Intellectualization by cultural specialists helps to legitimate cultural products that entertain as art.”
Content analysis of ideas and linguistic and critical devices that these experts employ
“Masters,” interpreting messages, genres/oeuvres, etc.
Legitmation framework can apply to other media as well
“organize the historical forces at play so that we can understand their respective contributions to the art world for Hollywood film.”
A “researchable phenomenon”
Complex, diverse, wide-ranging – no one single shift
Upward status of all film; canonization of Old Hollywood; differentiation of different kinds of productions; critical communities for “cult” genres; etc.
Historical accidents as well as deliberate efforts play a role
Analysis, not history