See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295075458

The Cultural Construction and Consumption of

Contemporary Art
Chapter July 2012
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4282.6005

CITATIONS

READS

19

1 author:
Pablo B. Markin
The University of the People and De Gruyter Open
22 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Online education and blended learning solutions in the non-OECD context. View project

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Pablo B. Markin

Retrieved on: 08 November 2016

Chapter II: The Cultural Construction and Consumption of Contemporary Art

Part 1: Postmodernism as a Transition from Historical Modernism to

Contemporary Art

Loosely designating an aesthetic style, an artistic movement, an historical period, and a

cultural condition, postmodernism refers to a perceived decline of modernism (Calinescu
1987, Feher 1986, Foster 1983, 1985, Hutcheon 1988, Huyssen 1986, Jameson 1983,
1984a, Kroker and Cook 1986, Lyotard 1984, Newman 1985). Exploring the rupture
growing from the reported loss by modern and avant-garde art of its contrarian role,
postmodernism threatened its authority by a new artistic sensibility and an oppositional
epistemology (Dunn 1991: 111). Becoming a part of official culture in museum
exhibitions, gallery shows, and university curricula, postmodernism prompted a departure
from modernist canons into a dispersed field of cultural practices, new styles, plural
genres, and artistic movements reacting against the decline of modernism (Dunn 1991:
111). Lacking precision on whether it is a break with, a continuation of, or a conclusion
of modern art, postmodernism is used to describe both artistic movements and intellectual
styles, and refers to cultural conditions and fields of relationships (Featherstone 1988).
Postmodern artists sought to subvert dominant cultural institutions as a new avant-garde,
while registering the stagnation of modern culture and the end of an era (Feher 1986).
Continuing the historical avant-garde that had both an elitist and a popular appeal in its
opposition to aesthetic conventions (Poggioli 1968), postmodernism called for a
redefinition of the contradictions and complexities of modernism (Dunn 1991: 111-112).
Rooted in mass media, consumer society, and cultural pluralism, postmodernism
is more ambiguous, since it attempted to subvert artistic tradition and hegemonic
structures, while deriving from the aesthetic avant-gardes of the 1960s (Dunn 1991: 112).
Arising in a fragmented and contradictory environment, where the homogeneity and
dominance of commercialism opposes the heterogeneity and pluralism of cultural politics,
postmodernism sought to assume contestatory and reconstructive functions that were to
be performed within a broader field of social and cultural relationships. Lying in the shift
from production as intentional authorship to consumption as reception concerned with

48

effect, the changing functions of avant-garde movements explain the popular character of
postmodernism (Dunn 1991: 112-113). As intellectual seriousness ceded place to playful
pleasures of mass culture in the aftermath of the aesthetic avant-garde of the 1960s,
established authority structures yielded to a politics of representation in culture and
society in a transition from modern culture to tradition-oriented social movements that
took place in the 1970s. Being defined in relation to modernism in terms of its difference
from modern epistemology and aesthetics, postmodernism departed from the universal
to the particular, from unity to disunity, from depth to surface, from originals to copies,
from works to texts (Dunn 1991: 113). As modern society became fast, global, diverse,
and complex (Featherstone 1988), the experience of juxtaposition and surface became
dominant. While artistic play and eclecticism took the form of fragmentation and
dispersion, an historical subject and unified world-view gave way to the immediate,
plural, and simultaneous aesthetics of the present (Dunn 1991: 113-114).
In reaction to the inwardness of the author-oriented work being replaced with
image-based sensations of open and contingent texts, Jameson (1979, 1984a, 1984b)
conceived of postmodernism in terms of the problematization of the aesthetic realm. As
the commodification process of modernity aestheticized society, culture invaded
everyday life, while technological reproduction determined cultural relationships beyond
the traditional opposition between artistic canons and mass culture (Dunn 1991: 114). A
postmodern mixture of styles embraced popular culture spurned by modernism to the
effect of disintegration of social and cultural boundaries in a fragmented landscape of
events and artifacts. In this perspective, the commodity form obviates modern
distinctions of taste and judgment, in order to open an expanded field (Krauss 1983) of
aesthetic play, cultural pluralism, and aesthetic populism (Jameson 1984a: 54).
Postmodernism, thus, challenged cultural elitism, advocated for social and cultural
pluralism, and empowered historically marginalized groups. Under the pressure of social
and cultural movements, such as feminism, established hierarchies of ethnicity, sexuality,
and status had their Eurocentric, gender, and class assumptions put into question (Dunn
1991: 114-115). This is manifested in the pluralism of contemporary culture striving for
cultural coexistence within differentiated, contradictory, and crisis-ridden frameworks of
modern society.

49

Challenging modern hierarchical dichotomies, postmodern social and cultural

movements took community, tradition, and autonomy as sources of their cultural
difference recognizing the heterogeneity of everyday life (Bauman 1988: 230) and
commodified culture (Baudrillard 1983). The ensuing legitimation crisis of modern
culture stems from the anti-hierarchical impact of the convergence of commodification
and pluralism that blurred the boundaries separating museum culture and academic
knowledge from everyday life, popular culture, and subcultural scenes (Dunn 1991: 115).
Thus, in the field of architecture, Venturi (Venturi et al. 1977) was at the beginning of the
transition toward an architectural sensibility rooted in popular taste, while Jencks (1977)
defined this sensibility as the double-coding of postmodern architecture that moved away
from the elitist functionalism of modernism to regionalist, traditionalist, and vernacular
styles (Dunn 1991: 115). The beginning of this popular aesthetics is in the encounter
between forms of high culture and the aesthetics of everyday life in painting in the 1950s
and 1960s, when American artists, such as Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg,
revolted against the modernist aesthetics of abstract expressionism (Dunn 1991: 115). In
a rejection of the dehumanization of abstract art (Ortega y Gasset 1956) in favor of the
experience and sensibility of everyday life of the United States, European modernism
became replaced with a celebration, rather than critique, of popular taste (Stich 1987) that
expressed itself in mass culture, industrial objects, and commercial imagery (Dunn 1991:
115-116).
Celebrating everyday objects, postwar artists, such as Robert Rauschenberg,
experimented with unique qualities of everyday objects, images, and materials to create
open works of art. This opposition to the aesthetic autonomy of modern art (Dunn 1991:
116) took its inspiration from the works of Duchamp whose readymades represented an
avant-garde sensibility. Deriving from their technical reproducibility, the readymades
proposed the aesthetics of anti-art devoid of taste, design or beauty (Tomkins 1980: 127128). The anti-art attitude of Duchamp did not dismiss artists as bearers of aesthetic
consciousness (Tomkins 1980: 129) that turned everyday objects into art solely based on
subjective perception not dependent on properties, functions, or definitions of works of
art (Dunn 1991: 116-117, Gablik 1984: 38). As an experience of the materiality of
mundane objects and everyday life, postwar art corresponded to the decline of its

50

authorial conception that transformed artist's role from pictorially representing subjective
experience to performing a set of operations in a medium- or form-independent field of
signifying practices (Burgin 1986: 39). These avant-garde artistic practices reestablished
a connection between art and life, opened artistic practice to possibilities lying beyond
the museum and gallery, and revalued the aesthetic consciousness of the recipient of art
(Dunn 1991: 117). With Roy Lichtensteins comics and Andy Warhols soup cans, Pop
art appropriated the aesthetics of mass media in an expression of the experience of
commodification and image saturation of everyday life.
Using consumer goods, urban landscapes, and media images as contemporary
iconography and experimentation objects, Pop artists explored aesthetic possibilities
beyond the modernist isolation of high art, in order to incorporate mass culture,
technological reproduction, and media images into artworks as mundane, concrete, and
popular objects (Dunn 1991: 117, Huyssen 1986: 143). Duchamps work indicates that
the assimilation of mass culture into the field of art cannot be solely seen as post-abstract
expressionist development. Alongside Rauschenberg and Pop, this assimilation of mass
culture included experimentations of Op, Kinetic, Minimal and Concept art that theorized
the appropriation of commodity aesthetics (Dunn 1991: 117) as part of a larger
transition to art as a function of cognition and experience. The critique of Minimalism
theorized this transition as a redefinition of the work of art as an object in a situation
including both the viewer and the artwork (Fried 1968: 125). Through Minimalist
distancing, this redefinition increased the awareness of the actively participatory
relationship between the viewer and the work of art that originated in theater-like
aesthetic experience produced by the temporal, spatial, and visual situation of subjects
perception (Dunn 1991: 118). Sontag (1966) also registered this shift toward the
participatory involvement of the audience in happenings stressing time and experience
that turned these events into theatrical art.
In an attempt to destroy standards of aesthetic judgment and taste, these antirepresentational movements rejected the autonomy and unity of artworks, while making
the audience constitutive of contemporary art that became more commercial (Dunn 1991:
118). The effect of the participatory theory and practice of art was the celebration of the
recipient playing a determinant role in artistic experience and pleasure, as avant-garde

51

artists accepted the influence of mass culture, rejected cultural hierarchies and consensus,
and moved closer to popular reception (Dunn 1991: 118-119). This shift from the
aesthetics of production to the aesthetics of consumption was accompanied by the
valorization of play. In a subversion of modern reason, conviction, and purpose, Pop art
appropriated from mass media images of pleasure and entertainment (Dunn 1991: 119).
Advocating a Freudian interpretation of culture as a regime of desire giving importance
not to meaning, but to drives, Lash (1985, 1988) clarifies this subversion by drawing
attention to the postmodern devaluation of the rational processes of interpretation
underlying modernism (Dunn 1991: 119). This cultural transition toward pleasure
enunciates and privileges the element of play that Sontag (1966: 288) emphasizes in her
rendering of Camps strategy of elevation of style and aesthetics over content and ethics,
while opposing modernist standards of seriousness that Camp subverted by theatricality,
artifice, and exaggeration. Postmodernism, thus, was open to the possibilities of sensuous
enjoyment inherent in the appreciation of style (Dunn 1991: 119-120, Sontag 1966: 291).
Threatening modernist seriousness, ascendant mass culture put the pleasure of the
mass media, the orientation to instantaneous consumption, and the entertainment of mass
recreation at odds with modern art that was undermined by pure and purposeless play, the
enjoyment of experience and emotions, and irreducible pleasure without reference
(Dunn 1991: 120). For postmodern art, play is epistemologically, aesthetically, and
performatively constitutive of its recognition of autonomy of style from content, of
surface from depth, and of signifiers from referents (Dunn 1991: 121). Reduced to
language games, these pairs of oppositions became involved in a playful deconstruction
of the modern world, where, as Baudrillard (1981a) notes, technological effects,
functional operations, and interplay of forces draw actions, commodities, and images into
fragmented social relations defined by openness, chance, and indeterminacy. Furthermore,
by aestheticizing everyday life, the avant-garde movements of the 1960s brought the
content and the form of art closer to the popular reception (Dunn 1991: 121). For Brger
(1984), however, the extent to which the art of the 1960s is avant-garde is debatable,
since, in Brger's (1984) definition, the historical avant-garde challenged the aesthetic
autonomy of modern art as an institution. For Dunn (1991: 121), the art movements of

52

the 1960s differ from the historical avant-garde for experiential, social, and aesthetic
reasons, as 1960s art integrated everyday life into artistic activity.
Using irony, distancing, and criticism (Barthes 1989), Pop art staged interventions
into, disclosures of, and reflections on commodification processes as part of the
countercultural condemnation of social conventions and the academic elitism of the
1960s (Dunn 1991: 121-122). Affirming consumer society, expressing media aesthetics,
and celebrating popular culture, Pop artists appropriated commodity aesthetics,
renounced cultural distinctions, and thematized technological reproduction (Dunn 1991:
122). For Brger (1984: 54), the avant-garde does not negate the autonomy of art that
museums enshrine, as opposed to the efforts of the neo-avant-garde to integrate art
practice and everyday life that bring it closer to culture industry and commercial
aesthetics. Not transcending existing social, cultural, and economic relations, the ruptures
of the 1960s art movements fragmented the work of art, de-privileged the production of
art, and displaced intellect and ethics with a politics of sensation and pleasure (Dunn
1991: 122). At the same time, these art movements protested against, reflected, and
reproduced existing social reality (Russell 1985: 239), which reduced postmodernism to
the articulation of protest and alienation, the exposure of the operation of epistemological
systems, and the perpetuation of prevailing social arrangements (Russell 1985: 245-246).
Attempting to revive the aesthetic shock of Dada and Surrealism, the 1960s movements
led to anti-institutional art experiments, the undermining of high art, and the critique of
the larger society (Dunn 1991: 122-123). In spite of their deployment of avant-garde
strategies of aesthetic shock and of the postmodern fragmentation of meaning, these
artistic practices failed to disrupt consumer society, where shock ceases to be effective by
becoming expected (Brger 1984: 80-81).
Saturated with information and images, turning novelty into calculated effect, and
full with opportunities for pleasure and escape (Brger 1984: 60), consumer society
assimilated the efforts of the 1960s artists. These efforts to provoke, to scandalize and to
raise awareness were assimilated into the expanded marketplace of culture driven by its
exchange value (Newman 1985). As commercial and corporate presence in the art scene
expanded (Tomkins 1988), large audiences and financial investment started to dominate
the art market (Gablik 1984). These trends strengthened the market-orientation of the

53

growing numbers of contemporary artists that increasingly depended on curators, dealers

and collectors, while contemporary art ceased to develop in the direction of oppositional
culture or neo-avant-garde (Dunn 1991: 123). The commodification of art, the expansion
of its markets, and the abatement of social and political struggles (Newman 1985) eroded
the bases for avant-garde art (Dunn 1991: 123-124). The temporary revival of the
historical avant-garde in the 1960s led to the loss in effectiveness of shock, in the
aftermath of which the art of the later decades grew in its distanciation. As cultural
complexity grew in the 1970s, new art forms originated outside art communities and
markets, as postmodernism reflected dispersed practices, increasing eclecticism, and the
aesthetic fragmentation of the art scene (Dunn 1991: 124, Huyssen 1986: 160-177, 197199). At the time that experimentation with styles, techniques, and innovations, such as
Minimalism and Conceptual art, took place within galleries and museums, in the art
world avant-garde art was replaced with commercial art (Crane 1989, Levin 1988,
Tomkins 1988).
While the new social movements of the 1970s criticized art and politicized
popular culture in the context of struggles over the issues of gender, ethnicity, and
ecology (Dunn 1991: 124), these movements were bringing subcultural politics into mass
culture less by aesthetic innovation, than by the autonomy and self-determination of
cultural expression. Cultural expression was a form of resistance against commercial
cooptation and consumer society, as politics of representation entered mass culture
through marginalized and powerless voices. These subcultural politics also led to the
support of group-based identities by cultural avant-gardes (Dunn 1991: 124-125), as art
based on technological reproduction (Huyssen 1986: 196) was replaced in the 1970s
with [f]eminist, racial and ethnic art; guerilla and street theatre; gay and lesbian culture;
graffiti (Dunn 1991: 125). Together with peace and ecology movements, these
alternative cultural forms challenged Enlightenment thought, dominant culture, and
authority structures. These movements were influenced by poststructuralist theories and
deconstruction, practices alternative to modern art and mass culture, and anti-hegemonic
cultural representations (Wallis 1984: xiii-xiv). Art integrated into consumer culture
through the mass media, advertising, and marketing by using technological reproduction
that brought artists into accord with capitalism (Dunn 1991: 125). In contrast, the neo-

54

avant-garde of the 1960s was limited to either commenting on the aesthetic practices of
corporate capitalism, such as Pop art, or withdrawing into the abstraction of Minimal,
Conceptual or Kinetic art, whereas cultural avant-gardes asserted plural cultural
representations of otherness and difference in the 1970s and 1980s (Dunn 1991: 125).
Focusing on the plural, cultural, and context-dependent character of social
relations and their interpretations, poststructuralist thought followed Baudrillards
semiotic approach to society, which corresponded to the rise of post-1960s cultural
pluralism (Clifford and Marcus 1986, Geertz 1983). Resulting from the linguistic turn in
science and philosophy, structuralism and poststructuralism disavow determinisms in
favor of a linguistic model of explanation of society and culture as discursively
constituted (Dunn 1991: 126). On one hand, this leads to Baudrillards structuralist
semiotics of the consumer society, where signifiers open to experience, memory, and
desire predominate. On the other hand, this leads to Derridas deconstruction of chains of
signifiers that destabilizes signification implicated in the cultural politics of the avantgarde related to both commodification and pluralization (Dunn 1991: 126, Lash 1985,
1988). Whereas Foucaults poststructuralist theory links discourse to power (Poster 1984),
Baudrillard's (1981a) critique of mass culture explores sign systems as forms of
domination. While Baudrillard redefined systems of representation, signification, and
commodification that constitute culture, contemporary art problematized culture through
its self-reflexive exploration of processes of signification as linguistic systems (Russell
1980). Thus, contemporary art shifted attention from its content to its context in a
transition from art as discourse to society as discourse that art becomes part of (Dunn
1991: 126-127, Russell 1980: 187).
Facilitating cultural self-determination, context-dependent representation, and
meaning construction as strategies for the critique of representational processes, the
cultural politics of the 1970s benefited from the poststructuralist privileging of signs,
experience, and desire (Dunn 1991: 127). As artists shifted toward self-reflexive artistic
practices, Baudrillard (1968, 1970, 1972, 1981a, 1996, 1998) theorized contemporary
culture in terms of the collapse of subjectivity, the reification of consumer society, and
manipulation through commodities and signs. In a departure from Frankfurt school and
Baudrillards critique of mass culture, Jameson (1983, 1991), however, suggests that

55

contemporary culture offers subversive possibilities in its use of pastiche, its compression
of space and time, and its fragmentation of experience and signs. At the same time, for
Hutcheon (1986: 206), parody and irony enabled contemporary artists to recuperate the
provisional nature of discourse and to problematize truth and history as historiographic
metafiction (Hutcheon 1988). Nevertheless, contemporary art and literature remained
restricted to the self-reflexive, ambiguous, and academic play of codes (Russell 1985:
248). Combining styles that subvert dominant formulas, employ eclecticism and
figuration, and are commercially implicated in their production and consumption, highbrow and mass culture continue to exist as separate spheres within a contemporary
sensibility of both contemporary art and mass media (Dunn 1991: 130).

56

Part 2: Theorizations of Artworks as Social, Communicative, and Formal

Constructs

Works of art are cultural objects determined by history, society, and economy that exceed
the conditions of their reception and production to create a surplus of formal organization,
material presentation, and temporal persistence (Lyotard 1971, 1979, 1984, 2011). Open
to commentary, theory, and research, artworks are inseparably positioned in the networks,
structures, and struggles of the field of art (Bourdieu 1992a, 1996). Emphasizing social
networks, fetishization of artworks, and struggles for domination in the field of art,
Bourdieu (1992a: 247, 1992b: 110) follows an immanent approach to art, whereas
Luhmanns (1995, 2000) sociology of art describes it as an autopoietic system observing
itself. In society as communication, an autopoietic system of art produces the work of art
as a communicative artifact within a heterogeneous network of actors that constitutes the
art world as an actor-network mediated by commentary. For Bourdieu (1992a: 261),
Marcel Duchamps ready-mades demonstrate in the field of art what Mausss theory of
magic attributes to the social universe in which collective belief produces the effect of the
magician (Bourdieu 1992a: 400). This is not unlike the creativity of the artist giving to a
work of art its price with ones signature that is recognized and authorized by the social
universe of artists, art historians, gallery-owners, and museums (Albertsen and Diken
2004: 36, Bourdieu 1980: 221, 1992a: 318, 1993). This social universe of art creates a
cycle of consecration becoming invisible, complex, and misrecognized (Bourdieu 1980:
206).
Artistic consecration fetishizes the work of art whose value is produced by the
belief in the power of the artist (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 36-37, Bourdieu 1992a: 318).
The rules of the game in the field of art provide a foundation for the belief of its players
that recognize its value as both an internal and an external form of the collective belief in
the field founded on the tacit belief in art and creativity (Bourdieu 1992a: 238). As
corporal and intellectual attitudes, art and creativity demand investment in the game
reproduced by the further involvement of its players (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 37,

57

Bourdieu 1992a: 237, 319). Bourdieu (1994: 159, 1997: 116, 1998) conceives of the
tautological constitution of art as a purpose of itself, since the field of art regulates access
to itself within its self-referential constitution and reproduction supported by players
having competent perception and behavior (Bourdieu 1992a: 310, 1994). The embodied
disposition of players to deploy cognitive, evaluative, and practical categories and to act
accordingly mutually implicates both the field of art and its players that compete with
each other for power within this field (Bourdieu 1992a: 316, 1994: 22, 151). Based on
objective relations of unequal distribution of economic, cultural, social, and symbolic
capital (Bourdieu 1983: 183, 185, 191, 1992a: 321), the field of art is based on negating
economy within a restricted field of the production of art for its own sake (Bourdieu 1991:
160), where cultural and symbolic capital predominate. Separated from this restricted
field, there is an expanded field of artistic production, where external demand and
commercial success dominate in the form of economic capital (Bourdieu 1992a: 202, 211,
302).
Making both production and consumption of art autonomous (Bourdieu 1992a:
411), the differentiation of modern society separated the field of art from political and
religious functions (Bourdieu 1992a: 402-404). The struggles between artistic tradition
and avant-garde successively reduced art to its form freed from close connection to either
content or referent (Bourdieu 1992a: 412). Thus, art holds a self-referential, cumulative,
and historical relation to previous struggles of the field of art, while demanding the
knowledge of its development for both artistic production and appreciation. The informed
perception of Andy Warhols or Anton Weberns works is rooted in the structure and
history of the field of art standing behind the existence, value, and properties of artworks
(Albertsen and Diken 2004: 38, Bourdieu 1992a: 335, 413). At the same time, art denies
its dependency on the art world in stressing formal criteria of the creation of works of art
that are intended for interpretation and commentary in terms proper to the field of art
(Bourdieu 1992a: 421). Autonomous interpretations of works of art misrecognize their
social conditions that enable the universalization of art within its institutional limits that
transcendental approaches to artworks essentialize as the field of art (Albertsen and
Diken 2004: 38-39, Bourdieu 1992a: 397, 418-424, 1994: 221-234). Bourdieu (1992a:
241) follows Mallarms demonstration that literature is based on collective belief that

58

need not be objectified, lest literary enjoyment be threatened by the widespread

recognition of the illusory and fictional character of the literary field.
Uncovering the illusion behind the fetishism of the literary game that conflates
faith and belief in the value of art (Bourdieu 1992a: 384), Bourdieu (1982: 3) strives to
achieve an insight into the social conditions of the art world via a reflexive faith as a
conscious decision to play the artistic game (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 39-40, Bourdieu
1982: 54). The field of art constitutes its universality through the cumulative history of
art imbuing artworks with universality and accomplishment that increase over time
(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 87). According to Bourdieu (1992b: 467), the field of art
needs to both preserve its autonomy from commercialization and increase its social
inclusiveness with regard to access to art (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 40, Bourdieu 1994:
233, 235). Bourdieus (1991, 1992a: 14) intellectual appreciation of art demonstrates the
determination that the position of artworks and artists in the art world exerts on their
singularity. This analysis reconstructs the reciprocal assimilation of the object and the
subject in an artwork (Bourdieu et al. 1993: 14). For Bourdieu (1992a: 320, 1994: 241),
the sociology of art must explicate the field of art without either taking an internal
perspective or pursuing its external critique. This is achievable through a distanced
exploration of the collective belief of the field through a necessary transcendence of the
divide between internal and external perspectives on works of art as products of both the
field of art and social networks (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 41, Bourdieu 1992a: 288, 291,
1992b: 110). Bourdieus (1992b: 109) intention behind the concept of the field of art is to
regroup different artistic and social viewpoints on art that inseparably remain connected
to each other.
By contrast, Luhmann (1995: 36) grounds society in communication that operates
through information, utterance, and understanding in the context of art as a social system
(Luhmann 1992: 24, 38). Based on its own elements as the autopoiesis of communication
(Luhmann 1992: 38), works of art communicate the unity of the difference between
information, utterance, and understanding by their artificiality (Albertsen and Diken 2004:
42). Also deriving from their differences in form observed in contradistinction to each
other (Brown 1969), this artificiality of works of art is that of artifacts further deriving the
structure of distinctions between their forms as information (Luhmann 1995: 70). As a

59

basic act of establishing a difference between sides, forms, and concepts (Luhmann 1990:
10), the creation of art triggers a self-reflexive chain of distinctions between nondeterminative, non-arbitrary, and fitting sides of the work of art (Albertsen and Diken
2004: 42, Luhmann 1995: 189). The forms of an artwork reduce the space of possibilities,
comment upon each other, and confirm a creative intent as an accident reworked into the
necessity and individuality of its own production that artist participates in (Albertsen and
Diken 2004: 42-43, Luhmann 1990: 11, 1995: 62-63). The perception of an artwork is
based on the observation of connections of forms as a structure of internal and external
distinctions that compose the artificiality of the work as information communicated by
sensation (Luhmann 1995: 70, 89). Remaining open-ended, sensation prevents from
being random the network of distinctions of the work of art that relate to communication
in the autopoietic system of art (Luhmann 1995: 63, 70).
Since the artwork recursively connects to the network of other works and to
communication on art (Luhmann 1995: 90), the autopoietic system of art produces and
reproduces the elements of its communicative network as a non-substitutable social
system within differentiated and interdependent modern society (Albertsen and Diken
2004: 43). This makes art function as a system of observation of other systems and
environments united in their differentiation from each other (Luhmann 1990: 15). For
Luhmann (1990: 11, 14, 20), the work of art is a preservation of the invisible and making
it visible in the two-fold world of possibilities of forms and of distinctions of distinctions.
Furthermore, the artwork makes the also possible appear as an indication of the
possibility of other possibilities that unite other distinctions in art to create a fictional
reality in addition to the real world and a position for the determination of what can be
real (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 44, Luhmann 1995: 236, 229-230). In making the
invisible visible, art strives neither for a scientific observation, nor for a religious
transcendence (Luhmann 1990: 14, 40). Instead, art strives for an immanent observation
of the world in a reciprocal closure of the forms (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 44) not
being in need of concepts for the explanation of the necessary ordering of forms into the
artwork that exists in a network of formal distinctions of art (Luhmann 1990: 45,
Luhmann et al. 1990: 66). For art as an autopoietic network of distinctions, the

60

materiality of the work of art is exterior to the reciprocal specification and restrictive
distinctions of forms that compose artworks (Luhmann 1995: 62).
For Luhmann (1995: 80-81), objects stabilize social relations by communicative
coordination oriented to things that as artworks constitute the environment of the art
system (Luhmann 1995: 124-125). As an autopoietic communicative system, the art
system consists of communication and differentiation, which contrasts with Hennion and
Latours (1993) conception of sociality as consisting of things and humans as a
collectivity that links communicatively incommensurate elements (Latour 1991, 1993:
107). For Latour (1996: 233-235), sociality shared with things constitutes human
interaction, since things localize human interaction, make it sequential and complex, and
mediate links among actors across time and space (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 46).
Latour (1996: 235) argues that the relation of things to sociality was traditionally
understood as that of tools transmitting social intentions. This relation was also
understood as an infrastructure establishing a material base for social representations
(Albertsen and Diken 2004: 46). For Latour (1996: 236), sociality needs to be presented
as action shared between humans and things as mediators of one another in the process of
which things do not lose their visibility, since their mediation is an active and productive
relationship. In Luhmanns (1995: 37, 55) view, a communication is a temporal event
recursively linked to another communication observed within communicative systems
making a distinction in time. By contrast, Hennion and Latour condition the temporal
difference upon material heterogeneity of the mediating and mediated actants that change,
become associated with, and mediate other mediators (Latour 1996: 237).
In contrast to Luhmanns (1995: 131) differentiation of modern society into
communicative systems, artworks mediate and are mediated by a multiplicity of
mediators. In their production, reception, and action, works of art differ from other types
of mediators (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 48). Bourdieus concept of the field of art
theorizes the mediation of artworks as a relational network mediating subjects and objects
(Hennion 1993: 123) in which non-human mediators are artworks, rather than means for
their production (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 48). Representative of the mediation in art,
music is mediated by the score, the instruments, the musicians, the concert halls, and the
recordings among other mediators through which music achieves durability (Hennion

61

1993: 297, 380). The conflicts over the use of modern technology and media, such as
controversies between neo-traditionalist and symphonic modernists, depend on mediation.
Thus, cultural producers, production processes, and consumption domains are
interconnected by their mediators across their conflicting interests (Hennion 1993: 301,
303, 314). For Latour (1998: 423), the work of art acts as a mediator without specifying
the non-hierarchical network of mediators that intensify the aesthetic experience. Not
needing a stable hierarchy of mediators, art history deploys mediations of the work of art
to analyze artists as social actors (Latour 1998: 422). Alongside paintings, artists produce
the criteria of their evaluation, since as social actors they also produce the networks
assuring the use and transmission of artworks, such as Rembrandts (Alpers 1988).
Artists produce themselves as mediators of their art in interaction with other
mediators across artistic and social determinations of distinction (Albertsen and Diken
2004: 50, Hennion 1993: 210, 214). For Latour (1998: 428, 434-435), artworks act as
mediators by representing the event of presence as its continuous renewal across time
mediated by knowledge, setting, and perception (Latour 1998: 431). The work of art
directs attention toward presence through cracks and discrepancies in its visual
organization as a gesture of making presence prevail over the content of the picture
(Latour 1998: 432, 430, 436). The vocabulary for the presence of art comes close to the
invisibility of its object by recognizing its active and productive mediation not as an
external object but as an internal transformation by which artworks act upon their viewers.
Thus, viewers and listeners willingly subject themselves to both active and passive
relation (Gomart and Hennion 1999: 224, 227, 243) of deliberate fetishism of Boudieus
or Mallarms love of art (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 51). Bourdieus opposition to
fetishism that he finds in institutional rituals and networks of consecration restricts his
analyses to unraveling mechanisms of domination that do not exhaust the internal and
external relation of artworks to the necessary impact of the field of art on the social
networks and experience of artworks (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 51-52). For Bourdieu
and Latour, artworks and networks are inextricably connected in the necessity for
knowledge for artistic appreciation. However, artworks exceed Bourdieu's reduction of
art to fetishist belief that is exclusively overcome by select artists and scholars.

62

Bourdieus approach to artworks is problematic, since it seeks to regroup

sociologically art scholarship without paying sufficient attention to its conceptual
privileging of the social effects of art. Bourdieus (1992a: 291) purely sociological
viewpoint leaves artistic mediation out of view in its separation of the internal and
external perspectives on art that Luhmann avoids. For Bourdieu and Luhmann, the
differentiation of an autonomous field or an autopoietic system of art leads to the
autonomization of the artistic form (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 52). Bourdieu (1992a: 59,
455) does not offer a sociological treatment of the autonomization of the form beyond
focusing on science and literature as rhetorical forms. At the same time, Bourdieu
borrows the concept of form directly from the artistic discourse to be embedded into his
sociological analyses of the field of art, where fetishistic belief in art and artists precludes
sociological theorization of form. In contrast, Luhmann connects form to observation and
communication that account for the formal development of the work of art and the
structure of formal distinctions of the work (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 52-53). Bridging
internal and external approaches to art in his systems theory, Luhmann turns Boudieus
field of art into the environment of the system of art, where the necessary fitting of
accidental forms allows its observation as communication through art. This constitutes
the modern understanding of art as the autonomy of the form that excludes a sociological
theory of art by being a stake in the artistic field (Groys 1996: 161). For Luhmann, the
field of art has its societal function more for theoretical reasons than for being derived
from relations of forces and power struggles (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 53, Bourdieu
and Wacquant 1992: 103).
Luhmann excludes the materiality of the work of art from the system of art to
separate the artistic struggles of its environment from artworks. However, the materiality
of artworks brings art theoretically close to non-art (Groys 1996: 163). Concurrently,
Bourdieu fails to deal with non-human actors in his focus on fetishism, since Bourdieus
and Luhmans theories of modern society avoid material objects that complexify and
destructuralize the networks of the field of art as a mixture of reason, immanence, and
religion (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 53-54). Thus, Bourdieu, Luhmann, and Latour
approach reason as the prevalence of sociality over transcendence, while treating
immanence as the immanence of the environment of the art world. Furthermore, they

63

approach religion as the irrelevance of the distinction between transcendence and

immanence as a product of mediations (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 53-54). Consequently,
the universality of the work of art meets with rejection by Bourdieu, Luhmann, and
Latour. Bourdieus (1992a: 421, 471) argues that commentary on the work of art is
internal to the field of art, since in his representation commentary on the work of art is a
practice of creating artworks by commentary and for it in the historically transcendent
field of art that necessitates the work of art (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 54). Luhmann
(1995: 37, 71) considers commentary to be part of the autopoietic system of art
constituted by communication on and through art that as an historical construction of
artworks is always open to further observation. Latour approaches commentary and
universality as a function of the multiplicity of mediators of art (Hennion 1997: 420-427).
Thus, the separation of the work of art from art networks fails to approach it as a
network within networks, a mediator among mediators (Albertsen and Diken 2004: 54).
As an actant, the work of art allows post-sociological relations between elements in art
networks (Gomart and Hennion 1999: 226).

64

Part 3: Media, Urban, and Aesthetic Effects of Cultural Consumption on the Field
of Art

Mass industrial production transformed cultural consumption as the art market replaced
artistic patronage, which raised the status of artists, while making their success insecure
(Graa 1967, Rykwert 1997). As the tastes of the Western impersonal audience became
opposed to aesthetic avant-gardes, artists confronted market demands with supporting
belief into their creativity, genius, and calling (Wilson 1999: 12). As the division between
high art and mass culture widened (Rykwert 1997), art market validated artistic claims
for talent and vocation depending on distinctions that distinguished artistic recognition
from failure (Kreuzer 1968). Representing the relations between capitalism, modernity,
and art (Wilson 1999: 12), artists, writers, and intellectuals congregated in bohemian
cafs and salons, while seeking acceptance for their works and conforming to social
expectations (Wilson 2000). At the same time, they redefined artistic calling in terms of
artistic shock, aesthetic revolution, and conventions-defying experimentation (Wilson
1999: 12-13). Since these criteria corresponded to a limited number of works, rejection of
artistic work confirmed that avant-garde art could not be recognized by a wide audience,
for the reason of the perceived mismatch between the popular taste of mass culture and
the demanding superiority of high art (Wilson 1999: 13). In the nineteenth century, avantgarde artists and intellectuals added to an expanded range of urban identities that
metropolises offered a stage for, where they shocked the social mores by their romantic
poverty, life as performance, and anti-bourgeois nonconformism (Wilson 1999: 13).
Rejecting safety, respectability, and comfort for the sake of risk, poverty, and
transgression, bohemian rebels sought extreme experiences of substance abuse, deviant
sexuality, transgressive language, and unusual dress (Wilson 1998) in urban colonies
situated in artistic districts, such as Paris Montmartre, Londons Soho, and New Yorks
Greenwich Village (Wilson 1998, 1999: 13). Closely associated with modernism and
avant-garde art between 1890 and 1918, bohemian artists formed communities that
sacralized their suffering, excesses, and elitism. No longer exclusively concerned with

65

producing works of art, avant-garde artists explored identity limits, marginal states and
social boundaries (Seigel 1986: 389-390, Wilson 1999: 13). Through happenings and
aesthetic shock avant-garde artists attempted to obliterate the distinction between art and
everyday life as separate spheres (Brger 1984, Marcuse 1968: 89-90). In the early
twentieth century, modern and avant-garde art had an ambivalent relation to popular
culture commodifying bohemian lifestyles for mass consumption (Wilson 1999: 14). The
growing consumer society transformed the relationship between high and commercial art,
since modern painting and design were easily adapted for the mass market, such as for
fabrics or matchboxes in the early 1900s (Shklovsky 1972: 85). Outraging their audiences
by their avant-garde costumes, decorations, and choreography at first, Sergei Diaghilevs
Ballets russes rapidly became popular with Londons fashion magazines, large stores,
and general public (Wilson 1999: 14) that adopted Persian clothing styles, stark color
combinations, oriental interior design, and exotic perfume combinations (Green and
Swan 1986: 65, Nava 1998).
Consumer culture borrowed stylistic inventions of avant-garde art and followed
the sophisticated taste of bohemian artists, as illustrated magazines, popular press, bestselling novels, and, later, films made lives of artists part of mass culture as early as 1845,
when bohemians and outcast artists were first popularized (Wilson 1999: 15). In 1896,
George du Mauriers novel Trilby and Giacomo Puccinis opera La Bohme popularly
represented bohemian life as sentimentally romantic, transiently irresponsible, and
innocently tragic in its confrontation with marginality, poverty, and disease (Wilson 1999:
15). Du Mauriers cartoons in Punch in the 1880s associated bohemians with pretentious
conduct, flowery attire, and aesthetic sensibility, as they satirized eccentric and dandy
figures, such as Oscar Wilde, for their transgressions (Wilson 1999: 15). From 1918,
musicians, painters, and composers became subjects of an increasing number of popular
works, such as Margaret Kennedys 1924 The Constant Nymph selling a million copies
and Michael Arlens 1925 The Green Hat becoming a bestseller (Wilson 1999: 15-16).
With movie stars in their cast, films further popularized bohemian figures, such as A
Woman of Affairs starring Greta Garbo, The Everlasting Song with Dirk Bogarde, and
Funny Face with Audrey Hepburn. Famous artists became the subjects of The Lust for
Life on Van Gogh, Performance on Nicholas Roeg, The Bad Lord Byron and Derek

66

Jarmans Caravaggio. Furthermore, there was a wave of biopic depictions of artist lives
of the 1980s and 1990s, such as David Cronenbergs The Naked Lunch, Marry Harrons I
Shot Andy Warhol, and Julian Schnabels Basquiat (Wilson 1999: 16).
The popular press promoted stereotypical representations of bohemian artists,
since sensational reportage over allegations of anti-religious behavior, deviant sexuality,
and murder attempts, such as of Aleister Crowley in 1920s Britain, attracted middle-class
readership (Hamnett 1932, Hooker 1986). Moving to Chelsea studios to smoke, to drink
and to experiment with drugs, young artists caused an outcry in the press for gentrifying
the area and raising the rents (Graves and Hodge 1963: 120). Escapades of composers,
writers, and painters became documented in gossip columns, novels, television series,
and films, such as Evelyn Waughs Brideshead Revisited (Wilson 1999: 16-17). After the
Second World War, counter-cultural movements replaced bohemian culture with youth
movements, while bohemian lifestyle became a fringe phenomenon (Fisher 1995: 277,
Ross 1950). In France, the young generation followed Sartres philosophy of
existentialism that standing for the absurdity of existence, individual choice, and
authentic life became both glamorous and scandalous (Wilson 1999: 17). Existentialism
seemingly promoted indulgence, threatened established society, and linked the avantgarde and entertainment, as the club on Pariss Left Bank associated with the
existentialist movement received wide domestic and international publicity by the
newspaper Samedi Soir and Life magazine in 1947 (Webster and Powell 1984, Wilson
1999: 17-18). Existentialism was associated with the arrival of American jazz, cinema,
and literature to Europe, since the popular culture of the United States evoked affluence,
progress, and mobility (de Beauvoir 1978: 25). At the same time, American novelists and
intellectuals from ethnic, sexual, and political minorities were migrating to Pariss Latin
Quarter during the oppressive McCarthy period (Wilson 1999: 18).
Globalized by the international media, the bohemian lifestyle marked the
generation gap between bohemian youth and consumer society (Wilson 1999: 20). In the
early 1960s, the contestation of authority, drugs consumption, experimental lifestyle, and
Eastern philosophy started to spread to mass culture that reflected the transition from
marijuana to LSD, from literature to music, and from bohemian artists to hippies as a
mass youth, ecological, and anti-war movement (Morgan 1988: 365, Wilson 1999: 20).

67

From the 1950s to the 1980s, this generalization of artistic glamour aided the
gentrification of formerly rundown urban districts into desirable and stylish real estate
(Wilson 1999: 21). Historical artists and writers colonies lent a bohemian and intellectual
image to Pariss Montmartre and Montparnasse, Londons Chelsea, and New Yorks
SoHo and Lower East Side (Smith 1992, Zukin 1982). The 1980s urban chic of New
Yorks artistic scene war represented by novels, films, and artworks that contrasted the
cultural edge of the Lower East Side with suburban boredom, such as Nan Goldins
photographs of cross gender and bisexual everyday life. Further gentrification, such as
taking place in Berlins Prenzlauerberg, Pariss Mnilmontant, and Londons Hoxton,
coincided with the expansion of trendy cafs, night clubs, and shopping malls (Wilson
1999: 21). The commodification of the bohemian lifestyle made the recreational use of
drugs, magazine articles on erotic experimentation, and tattoos and piercing fashion part
of mass culture (Wilson 1999: 21-22). Bohemian emotional spontaneity and sexual selfdefinition became widely accepted, while same-sex relationships were increasingly
perceived as a lifestyle choice, rather than a transgression (Wilson 1998).
Internationally, the New Age combination of hippie, punk and Rasta styles were
brought into the social mainstream by fashion labels and tabloid newspapers, as
advertisers adopted bohemian aesthetics in response to market research. The younger
generation finding appeal in sexually transgressive images of urban fashion and lifestyle
searched for difference, rejected fixed gender roles, and renounced conformity (Wilson
1999: 22). In the 1990s, the distinction between high art and mass culture blurred, as
trendy night clubs, such as the Plunge Club in London, served as venues for experimental
art, social gatherings, fashion shows, and dance music (Wilson 1999: 22-23). Art events,
poetry readings, artistic performances, and art exhibitions at salons, galleries, and clubs
increasingly became preferred leisure destinations of the young people (Bennett 1996: 4).
Mass culture contributed to the popularization of high art by disseminating artistic
transgression, excess, and tragedy through film, fashion, and popular music, such as
Hollywoods film noir reproducing the aesthetics of the 1920s Berlin caf culture,
German studio films, and Weimar Expressionism (Wilson 1999: 23). The postmodern
nostalgia of the early 1990s for previous generations of artists keeping art separate from
entertainment belongs, however, to the tradition of artistic nostalgia for the historical

68

avant-garde (Wilson 1999: 23-24). In the 1990s the bohemian culture was replaced with
fashion inspired by films on Paris bohemians (Wilson 1999: 24), as illustrated magazines
quoted from 1970s hippy styles for their season collections.
As consumer capitalism integrated sexual liberation, bohemian hedonism, and
aesthetic shock, contemporary culture both simulated and commodified avant-garde art
on the background of the urban landscape of dilapidation, luxury, fashion, music, drugs,
and consumption (Csicsery-Ronay 1991: 184, Stallabrass 1996: 43). Making artistic
styles, forms, and fashions available for imitation, marketing, and consumption,
contemporary culture also mixed high and popular culture, aesthetic shock and
mainstream entertainment, contemporary art and everyday life (Martin 1981: 236). Since
the 1970s, cultural theory emphasized the creative subversion of mass culture by resisting
to it, its reworking, and its appropriation (Wilson 1999: 25). De Certeau (1984), thus,
argues that marginal elements of popular culture, struggles and conflicts over social
meanings, and mediation between aesthetic representation and everyday life need to be
explored through practice, performance, and creativity (Fiske 1989: 2, 6-7, 183, Wilson
1999: 25-26). For the cultural theory of the 1980s, popular culture provided the basis for
resistant practices, social inclusion, and cultural liberation by its rejection of depth,
complexity, and taste (Fiske 1989: 6, Wilson 1999: 26). However, Wilson (1999: 26)
argues that subversion, resistance, and pleasure equally inhere in the cultural
consumption of both high art and popular culture. Avant-garde cinema, modernist novels
and classical music belong within a broader context of the fragmentation of contemporary
society (Maffesoli 1988, 1996) no less than crime fiction, suspense thrillers and fashion
magazines.
The aestheticization of everyday life ranges from television series, tabloid
broadsheets, pop music, and sports broadcasts to the popularization of the historical
forms of modern culture, such as Impressionist paintings on postcards (Wilson 1999: 2627). Thus, high culture is part of the global landscape of the cultural consumption of
narratives, experiences, and spectacles that cuts across the conventional divide between
high art and mass culture. In contrast to the bohemian opposition to social conventions in
the early twentieth century, the personal hedonism, anti-hierarchical discourse, and
cultural populism of contemporary society (Martin 1981: 23) assimilate avant-garde,

69

bohemian, and shock aesthetics into the consumer society. During the last two decades,
urban space underwent increased commercialization, privatization, and aestheticization,
as supermarkets become converted into entertainment centers, pedestrian zones into
festival fairgrounds, and housing areas into gated communities (Frantz and Collins 1999,
Healey et al. 2002, Huxtable 1997, Light 1999, Pierre 2001, Sorkin 1992, Young 2002,
Zukin 1991). This leisure orientation is driven by high investment and growth in tourism
as a cornerstone of an economy of fascination (Schmid 2006: 347). Being part of
everyday life, this economy of fascination is built around theme parks, resort hotels, and
shopping malls, such as those in Las Vegas (Firat and Dholakia 1998, Schmid 2006: 346347). For Baudrillard (1978, 1981b, 1983, 1988), self-reproducing hyper-reality blurs the
difference between signs, representations and images, and everyday reality (Lash and
Urry 1994: 272, Soja 1996).
Being mediated by perception, authentic and simulated reality become less
differentiated as a consequence of these changes (Glasersfeld 1996, 1998, Schmid 2006:
347, von Foerster 1998). Whereas authentic architecture always included historical
references, such as adaptations of Egyptian and Greek models in ancient Rome or ancient
Greek and Roman borrowings in the Renaissance and Classicist styles (Eco 1972, 1976),
contemporary reconstructions translated historical adaptation into spatial and visual
experience (Breuer 1998: 232). Proliferating as commercial simulations (Baudrillard
1977, 1982, 1993), emotional symbols (Meyer 1992), and experience environments
(Franck 1998), architectural theme parks and replicas rely on familiar historical
associations to offer entertainment as an intensive experience of simulated reality (Bolz
1995: 159, Eco 1987). Increasingly reality-driven media, artificial environments, and
visual effects stage and control individual experiences of shopping, sports, and leisure
(Breuer 1998, Gebhardt 2000, Giddens 1991, Schmid 2006: 347). Becoming linked
(Franck 1998, Steinecke 2000), shopping, sports, and leisure opportunities are in constant
need of renewal to continue to attract visitors (Welsch 1993), as even demolitions of
existing attractions are also staged as spectacular events (Davis 1998, Klein 2000,
Schmid 2006: 347-348). In conjunction with the retreat of the public sector, commercial
entertainment districts filled urban space with reality simulations as a privatized blend of

70

themed consumption and everyday life (Featherstone 1991, Franck 1998, Goss 1996,
Huxtable 1997, Lash and Urry 1994, Light 1999, Sorkin 1992, Zukin 1991).
In Las Vegas, artificial and themed environments triggering urban growth
received support from tourist and leisure industry, financial and business sector, and
liberal urban administration (Boje 2001, Davis 1998). Las Vegas realized commercial
and entertainment projects that changed its urban landscape, created artificial
environments, and became entertainment locations (Schmid 2006: 348). In Las Vegas,
theme parks, resort hotels, and shopping malls replicating city landscapes, representing
historical locations, and recreating film sets are developed on a large scale. Since the
1980s, Las Vegas became an entertainment destination diversified from gambling to
leisure attractions, shopping opportunities, and sports events, which made it into one of
the most popular tourist destinations in the world (Schmid 2006: 348). Similarly,
metropolitan centers seeking to become visitor destinations (Bremkes 2004) diversify
into large-scale tourism, real estate, and infrastructure projects, such as residential
skyscrapers, luxury hotels, entertainment parks, and shopping malls (Schmid 2006: 348,
350). However, theme parks construction, services privatization, and development
pressures threaten to fragment, overwhelm, and isolate everyday life, as part of the
consequences this theming of cities can have on urban landscape. Commercial theme
parks and entertainment facilities bring economic intentions of investors, planners, and
operators into contact with emotions and perceptions of inhabitants, consumers, and
visitors (Schmid 2006: 352). Having economic uses for audience ratings and media
circulation, attention as a selective information processing (Franck 1998: 30) is a scarce
resource in the fascination-driven information economy (Franck 1998: 61, Schmid 2006:
352).
As a consequence of overstimulation, commodification, and manipulation of
attention, the information overflow leads to targeted stimulation for gaining mass
audience (Franck 1998), as emotional and symbolic connotations overshadow the content
of information (Baudrillard 1978, 1983, 1988, Lash and Urry 1994). Consumers develop
dependency on visual effects, exaggeration, and stage-management as a fascinating
substitute to everyday reality (Schmid 2006: 354). This dependence on fascination refers
to consumer powerlessness vis--vis the compulsion of attention toward themed

71

information and products. As strategies of symbolic consumption become expressed in

visual exterior and interior symbolism of urban landmarks (Schmid 2006: 355), perfect,
secure, and hygienic reproductions excluding negative experiences, smells and
associations are being increasingly built. In Las Vegas, the Hotel Venetian as a theme
hotel makes symbolic connections with its Italian prototype city through scale
reproductions of the Doges Palace, the St. Marks Square, and the Rialto Bridge,
theatrical performances of the carnival in Venice, and gondola rides in canal replicas
(Schmid 2006: 356). Such geographies of everyday life combine emotionally significant
information and underlying social geographies in the process of the constitution of
meaning and the production and reproduction of information for symbolic appropriation
(Schmid 2006: 356-357, Werlen 1997, Werlen 2000). As symbols, representations, and
references are re-interpreted, transformed, and mystified for entertainment purposes
(Charaudeau 1986, Nth 1990), designers, scriptwriters and decorators create new signs,
symbols, and brands that are media disseminated, pre-programmed and fantasy-driven.
Thus, sign production and sign reception are part of the transformation of urban spaces
into entertainment landscapes (Schmid 2006: 355).

72

Bibliography

Albertsen, Niels, and Diken, Blent. 2004. Artworks' networks: Field, system or
mediators? Theory, Culture & Society 21:35-58.
Alpers, Svetlana. 1988. Rembrandt's enterprise: The studio and the market. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Barthes, Roland. 1989. That old thing, art. In Post-pop art, ed. Paul Taylor, 21-31.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1968. Le Systme des objets. Les Essais, 137. Paris: Gallimard.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1970. La Socit de consommation : Ses mythes et ses cultures. Folio.
Essais. Paris: Gallimard.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1972. Pour une critique de l'conomie politique du signe. Les Essais,
168. Paris: Gallimard.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1977. L'change symbolique et la mort. Paris: Gallimard.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1978. Agonie des Realen. Internationale marxistische Diskussion, 81;
Internationaler Merve Diskurs, 81. Tr. by Lothar Kurzawa and Volker Schaefer.
Berlin: Merve Verlag.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1981a. For a critique of the political economy of the sign. Tr. by
Charles Levin. St. Louis, MO.: Telos Press.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1981b. Simulacres et simulation. Dbats. Paris: Galile.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1982. Der symbolische Tausch und der Tod. Batterien, 14. Tr. by Gerd.
Bergfleth, Gabriele. Ricke and Ronald. Voulli. Mnchen: Matthes & Seitz.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1983. Simulations. Semiotext(e) foreign agents series. Tr. by Paul Foss,
Paul Patton and Philip Beitchman. New York City, N.Y., U.S.A.: Semiotext(e),
Inc.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1988. Die Simulation. In Wege aus der Moderne: Schlsseltexte der
Postmoderne-Diskussion, ed. Wolfgang. Welsch, 153-162. Weinheim: VCH, Acta
Humaniora.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1993. Symbolic exchange and death. Theory, culture & society. Tr. by
Iain Hamilton Grant. London and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1996. The system of objects. Latin American and Iberian studies series.
Tr. by James Benedict. London; New York: Verso.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1998. The consumer society: Myths and structures. Theory, culture &
society. Tr. by Chris Turner. London and Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1988. Is there a postmodern sociology? Theory, culture & society
5:217-237.
Bennett, Oliver. 1996. Welcome to the culture club. Independent on Sunday 7
July:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/welcome-to-the-culture-club1327599.html.
Boje, David M. 2001. Introduction to deconstructing Las Vegas. M@n@gement 4:79-82.

73

Bolz, Norbert. 1995. Inszenierte Welt. In Platons Hhle: Das Museum und die
elektronischen Medien, eds. Michael Fehr, Clemens. Krmmel and Markus.
Mller, 159-166. Kln: Wienand.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1980. Questions de sociologie. Documents. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1982. Leon sur la leon. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1983. konomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In
Soziale Ungleichheiten, ed. Reinhard. Kreckel, 183-198. Gttingen: Schwartz.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. The political ontology of Martin Heidegger. Tr. by Peter Collier.
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1992a. Les rgles de l'art : Gense et structure du champ littraire.
Libre examen. Politique. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1992b. Tout est social. Propos recueillis par Pierre-Marc de Biasi.
Magazine littraire 303:104-111.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Wacquant, Loc J. D. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. Sociology in question. Theory, culture & society. Tr. by Richard
Nice. London and Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Accardo, Alain, and Pialoux, Michel eds. 1993. La Misre du monde.
Libre examen. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1994. Raisons pratiques : Sur la thorie de l'action. Paris: Editions du
Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field.
Meridian: Crossing aesthetics. Tr. by Susan. Emanuel. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1997. Mditations pascaliennes. Collection Liber (Paris, France). Paris:
Editions du Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Practical reason: On the theory of action. Tr. by Gisele Sapiro,
Randal Johnson, Loic Wacquant and Samar Farage. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
Breuer, Gerda. 1998. Dj-vu "Knstliche Paradiese" und postmoderne ThemenArchitektur. In Kunstwelten: Knstliche Erlebniswelten und Planung, eds. Gerd.
Hennings and Sebastian Mller, 213-234. Dortmund: IRPUD and
Informationskreis fr Raumplanung (IfR).
Brown, G. Spencer. 1969. Laws of form. London: Allen & Unwin.
Brger, Peter. 1984. Theory of the avant-garde. Theory and history of literature, vol. 4,
ed. Jochen Schulte-Sasse. Tr. by Michael Shaw. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Burgin, Victor. 1986. The end of art theory: Criticism and postmodernity.
Communications and culture. London: Macmillan.
Calinescu, Matei. 1987. Five faces of modernity: Modernism, avant-garde, decadence,
kitsch, postmodernism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Charaudeau, Patrick. 1986. Langage et discours : lments de smiolinguistique (thorie
et pratique). Langue, linguistique, communication. Paris: Hachette.
Clifford, James, and Marcus, George E. eds. 1986. Writing culture: The poetics and
politics of ethnography. A School of American Research advanced seminar.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

74

Crane, Diana. 1989. The transformation of the avant-garde: The New York art world,
1940-1985. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Csicsery-Ronay, Istvan, Jr. 1991. Cyberpunk and neuromanticism. In Storming the reality
studio: A casebook of cyberpunk and postmodern science fiction, ed. Larry
McCaffery, 182-193. Durham: Duke University Press.
Davis, Mike. 1998. Las Vegas versus nature. In Reopening the American West, ed. Hal
Rothman, 53-73. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
de Beauvoir, Simone. 1978. Force of circumstance. Tr. by Richard. Howard.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
de Certeau, Michel. 1984. Walking in the city. Tr. by Steven Rendall. In The practice of
everyday life, ed. Michel. de Certeau, 91-110. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Dunn, Robert. 1991. Postmodernism: Populism, mass culture, and avant-garde. Theory,
Culture & Society 8:111-135.
Eco, Umberto. 1972. Einfhrung in die Semiotik. Theorie und Geschichte der Literatur
und der schnen Knste, Bd. 32. Tr. by Jrgen Trabant. Mnchen: W. Fink.
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Advances in semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Eco, Umberto. 1987. Travels in hyperreality: Essays. Tr. by William Weaver. London:
Picador.
Featherstone, Mike. 1988. In pursuit of the postmodern: An introduction. Theory, Culture
& Society 5:195-215.
Featherstone, Mike. 1991. Consumer culture and postmodernism. Theory, culture &
society. London and Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Feher, Ferenc. 1986. The Pyrrhic victory of art in its war of liberation: Remarks on the
postmodern intermezzo. Theory, Culture & Society 3:37-46.
Firat, A. Fuat, and Dholakia, Nikhilesh. 1998. Consuming people: From political
economy to theaters of consumption. Consumer research and policy series.
London and New York: Routledge.
Fisher, Clive. 1995. Cyril Connolly: A nostalgic life. London: Macmillan.
Fiske, John. 1989. Reading the popular. London and New York: Routledge.
Foster, Hal. ed. 1983. The Anti-aesthetic: Essays on postmodern culture. Port Townsend,
Wash.: Bay Press.
Foster, Hal. 1985. Recodings: Art, spectacle, cultural politics. Port Townsend, Wash.:
Bay Press.
Franck, Georg. 1998. konomie der Aufmerksamkeit: Ein Entwurf. Edition Akzente.
Mnchen: Hanser.
Frantz, Douglas, and Collins, Catherine. 1999. Celebration, U.S.A.: Living in Disney's
brave new town. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Fried, Michael. 1968. Art and objecthood. In Minimal art: A critical anthology., ed.
Gregory Battcock, 116-147. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Gablik, Suzi. 1984. Has modernism failed? New York, N.Y.: Thames and Hudson.
Gebhardt, Winfried. 2000. Feste, Feiern und Events. Zur Soziologie des
Auergewhnlichen. In Events: Soziologie des Aussergewhnlichen, eds.
Winfried Gebhardt, Ronald. Hitzler and Michaela Pfadenhauer, 17-31. Opladen:
Leske + Budrich.

75

Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretative anthropology.

New York: Basic books.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern
age. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Glasersfeld, Ernst von. 1996. Radikaler Konstruktivismus: Ideen, Ergebnisse, Probleme.
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Glasersfeld, Ernst von. 1998. Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit und des Begriffs der
Objektivitt. In Einfhrung in den Konstruktivismus, ed. Heinz. Von Foerster, 939. Mnchen: Piper.
Gomart, Emilie, and Hennion, Antoine. 1999. A sociology of attachment: Music
amateurs, drug users. In Actor network theory and after, eds. John Law and John
Hassard, 220-247. Oxford, England, and Malden, MA: Blackwell/Sociological
Review.
Goss, Jon. 1996. Disquiet on the waterfront: Reflections on nostalgia and utopia in the
urban archetypes of festival marketplaces. Urban Geography 17:221-247.
Graa, Csar. 1967. Modernity and its discontents: French society and the French man of
letters in the nineteenth century. New York: Harper & Row.
Graves, Robert, and Hodge, Alan. 1963. The long week-end: a social history of Great
Britain, 1918-1939. New York: W.W. Norton.
Green, Martin Burgess, and Swan, John C. 1986. The triumph of Pierrot: The commedia
dell'arte and the modern imagination. New York: Macmillan.
Groys, Boris. 1996. Die dunkle Seite der Kunst. Soziale Systeme 2:160-165.
Hamnett, Nina. 1932. Laughing torso: Reminiscences. New York: Ray Long & R.R.
Smith.
Healey, Patsy, Cars, Gran, Madanipour, Ali, and Magalhaes, Claudio De. 2002.
Transforming governance, institutionalist analysis and institutional capacity. In
Urban governance, institutional capacity and social milieux, eds. Gran Cars,
Patsy Healey, Ali Madanipour and Claudio De Magalhaes, 6-28. Aldershot,
Hampshire, England, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Hennion, Antoine. 1993. La passion musicale : Une sociologie de la mdiation. Leons
de choses. Paris: Ed. Mtaili.
Hennion, Antoine, and Latour, Bruno. 1993. Objet d'art, objet de science. Note sur les
limites de l'anti-ftichisme. Sociologie de l'art 6:7-24.
Hennion, Antoine. 1997. Baroque and rock: Music, mediators and musical taste. Poetics
24:415-435.
Hooker, Denise. 1986. Nina Hamnett: Queen of Bohemia. London: Constable.
Hutcheon, Linda. 1986. The Politics of Postmodernism: Parody and History. Cultural
Critique:179-207.
Hutcheon, Linda. 1988. A poetics of postmodernism: History, theory, fiction. New York:
Routledge.
Huxtable, Ada Louise. 1997. The unreal America: Architecture and illusion. New York:
New Press and W.W. Norton.
Huyssen, Andreas. 1986. After the great divide: Modernism, mass culture,
postmodernism. Theories of representation and difference. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Jameson, Fredric. 1979. Reification and utopia in mass culture. Social Text:130-148.

76

Jameson, Fredric. 1983. Postmodernism and consumer society. In The Anti-aesthetic:

Essays on postmodern culture, ed. Hal. Foster, 111-125. Port Townsend, Wash.:
Bay Press.
Jameson, Fredric. 1984a. Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. New
Left Review 146:53-93.
Jameson, Fredric. 1984b. Periodizing the 60s. In The 60s without apology, ed. Sohnya
Sayres, et al, 178-209. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press in cooperation
with Social Text.
Jameson, Fredric. 1991. Postmodernism, or, The cultural logic of late capitalism.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Jencks, Charles. 1977. The language of post-modern architecture. New York: Rizzoli.
Klein, Naomi. 2000. No logo: No space, no choice, no jobs. New York: Picador.
Krauss, Rosalind. 1983. Sculpture in the expanded field. In The Anti-aesthetic: Essays on
postmodern culture, ed. Hal. Foster, 31-42. Port Townsend, Wash.: Bay Press.
Kreuzer, Helmut. 1968. Die Boheme: Beitrge zu ihrer Beschreibung. Metzler
Studienausgabe. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Kroker, Arthur, and Cook, David. 1986. The postmodern scene: Excremental culture and
hyper-aesthetics. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Lash, Scott. 1985. Postmodernity and desire. In Theory and Society, 1-33: Springer
Netherlands.
Lash, Scott. 1988. Discourse or figure? Postmodernism as a 'regime of signification'.
Theory, Culture & Society 5:311-336.
Lash, Scott, and Urry, John. 1994. Economies of signs and space. Theory, culture &
society. London and Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Latour, Bruno. 1991. Nous n'avons jamais t modernes : Essai d'anthropologie
symtrique. Armillaire. Paris: La Dcouverte.
Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern. Tr. by Catherine Porter. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 1996. On interobjectivity. Mind, culture, and activity 3:228-245.
Latour, Bruno. 1998. How to be iconophilic in art, science and religion? In Picturing
science, producing art, eds. Caroline A. Jones and Peter Galison, 418-440. New
York: Routledge.
Levin, Kim. 1988. Beyond modernism: Essays on art from the '70s and '80s. Icon
editions. New York: Harper & Row.
Light, Jennifer S. 1999. From city space to cyberspace. In Virtual geographies: Bodies,
space, and relations, eds. Mike. Crang, Phil Crang and Jon. May, 109-130.
London and New York: Routledge.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1990. Weltkunst. In Unbeobachtbare Welt: ber Kunst und
Architektur, eds. Niklas Luhmann, Frederick D. Bunsen and Dirk. Baecker, 7-45.
Bielefeld: C. Haux.
Luhmann, Niklas, Bunsen, Frederick D., and Baecker, Dirk. 1990. Das Kabelkalb. Ein
Gesprch ber Kunst. In Unbeobachtbare Welt: ber Kunst und Architektur, eds.
Niklas Luhmann, Frederick D. Bunsen and Dirk Baecker, 53-66. Bielefeld: C.
Haux.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1992. Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch
Wissenschaft; 1001. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

77

Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Die Kunst der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, Niklas. 2000. Art as a social system. Meridian. Crossing aesthetics. Tr. by Eva
M. Knodt. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lyotard, Jean-Franois. 1971. Discours, figure: Un essai d'esthtique. Collection
d'esthtique (Paris). Paris: Klincksieck.
Lyotard, Jean-Franois. 1979. La condition postmoderne : Rapport sur le savoir.
Collection "Critique". Paris: ditions de Minuit.
Lyotard, Jean-Franois. 1984. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Theory
and history of literature, vol. 10. Tr. by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lyotard, Jean-Franois. 2011. Discourse, figure. Cultural Critique Books. Tr. by Antony
Hudek and Mary Lydon. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Maffesoli, Michel. 1988. Le temps des tribus : Le dclin de l'individualisme dans les
socits de masse. Sociologies au quotidien. Paris: Mridiens Klincksieck.
Maffesoli, Michel. 1996. The time of the tribes: The decline of individualism in mass
society. Theory, culture & society. Tr. by Don Smith. London and Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1968. The affirmative character of culture. Tr. by Jeremy J. Shapiro. In
Negations: Essays in critical theory., 88-133. Boston: Beacon Press.
Martin, Bernice. 1981. A sociology of contemporary cultural change. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
Meyer, Thomas. 1992. Die Inszenierung des Scheins: Voraussetzungen und Folgen
symbolischer Politik: Essay-Montage. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Morgan, Ted. 1988. Literary outlaw: The life and times of William S. Burroughs. New
York: H. Holt.
Nava, Mica. 1998. The cosmopolitanism of commerce and the allure of difference:
Selfridges, the Russian Ballet and the tango 1911-1914. International Journal of
Cultural Studies 1:163-196.
Newman, Charles. 1985. The post-modern aura: The act of fiction in an age of inflation.
Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Nth, Winfried. 1990. Handbook of semiotics. In Advances in semiotics. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Ortega y Gasset, Jos. 1956. The dehumanization of art, and other writings on art and
culture. Doubleday anchor book, A72. Tr. by Willard R. Trask. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday.
Pierre, Jon. 2001. Public-private partnerships and urban governance: Introduction. In
Partnerships in urban governance: European and American experiences, ed. Jon
Pierre, 1-10. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Poggioli, Renato. 1968. The theory of the avant-garde. Tr. by Gerald Fitzgerald.
Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Poster, Mark. 1984. Foucault, Marxism, and history: Mode of production versus mode of
information. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA: Polity Press and B.
Blackwell.
Ross, Alan. 1950. The forties: A period piece. London: G. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

78

Russell, Charles. 1980. The context of the concept. In Romanticism, modernism,

postmodernism, ed. Harry Raphael Garvin, 180-193. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell
University Press.
Russell, Charles. 1985. Poets, prophets, and revolutionaries: The literary avant-garde
from Rimbaud through postmodernism. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rykwert, Joseph. 1997. The constitution of bohemia. RES: Anthropology and
Aesthetics:109-127.
Schmid, Heiko. 2006. Economy of fascination: Dubai and Las Vegas as examples of
themed urban landscapes. Erdkunde 60:346-361.
Seigel, Jerrold E. 1986. Bohemian Paris: Culture, politics, and the boundaries of
bourgeois life, 1830-1930. New York, N.Y.: Viking.
Shklovsky, Victor. 1972. Mayakovsky and his circle. Tr. by Lily. Feiler. New York:
Dodd, Mead & Co.
Smith, Neil. 1992. New city, new frontier: The Lower East Side as wild, wild West. In
Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public space,
ed. Michael Sorkin, 61-93. New York: Hill and Wang.
Soja, Edward W. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-andimagined places. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
Sontag, Susan. 1966. Against interpretation, and other essays. New York: Farrar, Straus,
and Giroux.
Sorkin, Michael. 1992. Introduction: Variations on a theme park. In Variations on a
theme park: The new American city and the end of public space, ed. Michael
Sorkin, xi-xv. New York: Hill and Wang.
Stallabrass, Julian. 1996. Gargantua: Manufactured mass culture. London and New York:
Verso.
Steinecke, Albrecht. 2000. Tourismus und neue Konsumkultur: Orientierungen Schaupltze - Werthaltungen. In Erlebnis- und Konsumwelten, ed. Albrecht.
Steinecke, 11-27. Mnchen: Oldenbourg.
Stich, Sidra. 1987. Made in U.S.A.: An Americanization in modern art, the '50s & '60s.
Berkeley: University Art Museum, University of California, Berkeley, and
University of California Press.
Tomkins, Calvin. 1980. Off the wall: Robert Rauschenberg and the art world of our time.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Tomkins, Calvin. 1988. Post- to neo-: The art world of the 1980s. New York: H. Holt.
Venturi, Robert., Scott Brown, Denise, and Izenour, Steven. 1977. Learning from Las
Vegas: The forgotten symbolism of architectural form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
von Foerster, Heinz. 1998. Entdecken oder Erfinden: Wie lafit sich Verstehen verstehen?
In Einfhrung in den Konstruktivismus, ed. Heinz von Foerster, 41-88. Mnchen:
Piper.
Wallis, Brian ed. 1984. Art after modernism: Rethinking representation. Documentary
sources in contemporary art, v. 1. New York and Boston: New Museum of
Contemporary Art and D.R. Godine.
Webster, Paul, and Powell, Nicholas. 1984. Saint-Germain-des-Prs. London: Constable.

79

Welsch, Wolfgang. 1993. Das sthetische - eine Schlsselkategorie unserer Zeit? In Die
Aktualitt des sthetischen, ed. Wolfgang. Welsch, 13-47. Mnchen: Fink.
Werlen, Benno. 1997. Sozialgeographie alltglicher Regionalisierungen. Band 2:
Globalisierung, Region und Regionalisierung. Erdkundliches Wissen, 119.
Stuttgart: Steiner.
Werlen, Benno. 2000. Sozialgeographie: Eine Einfhrung. Bern, Stuttgart and Wien:
Haupt.
Wilson, Elizabeth. 1998. Bohemian love. Theory, Culture & Society 15:111-127.
Wilson, Elizabeth. 1999. The bohemianization of mass culture. International Journal of
Cultural Studies 2:11-32.
Wilson, Elizabeth. 2000. Bohemians: The glamorous outcasts. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Young, Terence. 2002. Grounding the myth theme park landscapes in an era of
commerce and nationalism. In Theme park landscapes: Antecedents and
variations, eds. Terence Young and Robert B. Riley, 1-10. Washington, D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Zukin, Sharon. 1982. Loft living: Culture and capital in urban change. Johns Hopkins
studies in urban affairs. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zukin, Sharon. 1991. Landscapes of power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

80