18
19

"Art historian" on Bourdieu (reddit.com)

TiakoCultural capitalist が 投稿

全 33 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]TiakoCultural capitalist[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

I would call this a terrible misunderstanding of Bourdieu, but I feel that implying this post has anything whatsoever to do with Bourdieu is giving it too much credit.

Also:

[–]queerbeesWaggle Dance Performativity 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Also:

What? What also!?!

[–]TiakoCultural capitalist[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I...I just wanted to use my cool BourDeal With It image...

[–]queerbeesWaggle Dance Performativity 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh. lol, having custom reddit themes turned off confused me :P

[–]queerbeesWaggle Dance Performativity 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

I am very confused by the assertion that Bourdieu's diagram is mathematical... Like, I've seen a lot of Bourdieu diagrams (his "fields of power" and "field of literary production" which I've used in the study of science fiction) can be kinda opaque, but just because they contain geometry does not make them mathematical. Unfortunately my copy of Les régles de l'art is just that: in french, and I've been trying to improve my french comprehension to the point that I can read it. So sadly, I can not comment on the actual meaning of the diagram, but I'm skeptical it should be read as a series of functions graphed on a Cartesian plane... Would this interpretation qualify a x/post to /r/badmathematics?

[–]motke_ganef 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I am very confused by the assertion that Bourdieu's diagram is mathematical...

It's pseudo-mathematical.

I'm skeptical it should be read as a series of functions graphed on a Cartesian plane...

Those are not functions because time in generations is not related to any quantity.

You could argue it is a suprematist painting.

[–]queerbeesWaggle Dance Performativity 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's pseudo-mathematical.

What makes it so?

[–]minimuminim 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Surely it needs to claim that it's mathematical, or invoke mathematics, in order for it to be judged as pseudo-mathematical.

[–]farquier 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ironically, one of my favorite art history books makes extensive use of Bourdieu.

[–]TiakoCultural capitalist[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

He's pretty important!

[–]farquier 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which is why an art historian complaining that he is not to be taken seriously is odd.

[–]SnapshillBot 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - 1, 2, 3

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

[–]completely-ineffable 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

All Art explained in this simple Cartesian diagram (1979, Pierre Bourdieu)

What makes a diagram Cartesian?

[–]motke_ganef 0ポイント1ポイント  (19子コメント)

Yeah. This is bourdieu trying to paint a diagram of things you can't count as explained in this thread in a piece of art suggestive of some random banalities. Thread was popular at first but then it was stormed by angry people who have invested some time in Bourdieu in the respective institutions. What was funny to me: he was doing the exact things as random folks on 4chan did to be regarded as the very paragon of bad art history on reddit.

So: yeah, even Bourdieu does pseudomathematics from time to time. Or, at the very least, stuff that got Huntington barred from taking entering the NAS by some random killjoy nerds

[–]TiakoCultural capitalist[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (18子コメント)

I am genuinely curious what series of events led to you finding and posting the chart. I mean, it's pretty clear you didn't get it from the actual source. I'm almost as curious about that as I am about what Huntington's political predictions have to do with Bourdieu.

[–]motke_ganef 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

Read the thread, dammit!

I've seen it in the actual source years ago and now I have found out that Bourdieu style pseudo-mathematics is regarded as /r/badarthistory (See the all-time top posts of that subreddit). It was pretty funny to me because Bourdieu is held in very high esteem by the bureaucrats and art school teachers. And: What's the point in laughing at 4chan? It isn't supposed to be good. That I said there as well.

to Huntington: He got barred from the NAS for using pseudomathematics, for writing equasions with things you can't quantify. And bourdieu does the same: you have a cartesian diagram with the semblance of three linear functions. But they don't relate time to anything. The ordinate is vacant. Apparently this kind of bullshit is suggestive of something so deep Galious couldn't stop to keep providing new interpretations in the thread, which was funny as well.

And Huntington did the very same thing: he painted pseudo-equasions suggestive of something deep (to people who haven't had basic analysis in high school) but actually perfectly meaningless. He was doing pseudomathematics on purpose, like Leibnitz with his "donc il existe". He was doing that to give random banal claims the semblance of science and keep the mathematically illiterate people shut up. In other words: he was using mathematics "as a witch doctor's incantation" and the National Academy of Sciences of US America didn't like it at all.

I mean, it's pretty clear you didn't get it from the actual source.

What made you think so? I love art history when it's good. When it's S.M.Volkov telling you what happened to all of the sculptors, painters and composers from the 1910s until the 1970s in Russia. His book is called "the Magical Chorus". I also loved "Back to the USSR" by Artemy Troitsky. It is about the unrecognized and banned arts (rock music; fashion costumes; random dadaism onstage) in Russia from the post-war era to the fall of the USSR. This is good art history.

Then I read a book each on rock & chanson and on the comic books in France and I didn't like either one so much, because the authors spent way too much time trying to distill some Lenin style «laws of history» (or: Shklovsky style «laws of art») and near to nothing on the stories (except some anecdotes cherrypicked to fit their "laws"). Both books were citing Bourdieu a lot so I have tried to read him as well. Disappointment. In the linked example he does not say anything at all.

But such bad art historians as Galious are, as you can see, always ready to strip it into random universal laws, like: "first comes one generation, and then another".

[–]TiakoCultural capitalist[S] 12ポイント13ポイント  (16子コメント)

Read the thread, dammit!

The thread in which you call somebody a troll for providing the text in which Bourdieu explains the chart you posted, and you call that text, which I again must stress is the text directly related to the chart, "utterly unrelated quotes of Bourdieu". I am actually astounded that you honestly think somebody could read that thread and think you know what you are talking about.

Is this also the thread in which you claim that Bourdieu does not define what he means by "field" and that his aim is to provide objective quantitative valuations of art? Because both of those are the complete opposite of the truth. I will grant that it is possible to be more wrong than you are, but not without considerable effort and years of study. But to stumble on this level of wrongness is an achievement worthy of recognition and whatever the opposite of a tenured position is.

What made you think so?

If nothing else, because you attributed it to Distinction even though it is not from Distinction as you yourself admitted.

Also, who exactly are these bureaucrats who love Bourdieu?

[–]queerbeesWaggle Dance Performativity 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Also, who exactly are these bureaucrats who love Bourdieu?

It would seem that the iron cage of rationality is particularly warm for Bourdieu. #WeberBDSM

[–]TiakoCultural capitalist[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Weber/Bourdieu slash fic?

[–]queerbeesWaggle Dance Performativity 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So which one is going to the time traveller?

I vote for Weber because 1) we can put him in a steam-punk style H. G. Wellsian time machine, and 2) whenever he encounters an unexpected contemporary thing, he can exclaim gadzooks in a comically thick German accent.

[–]TiakoCultural capitalist[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

And it just wouldn't do for the time traveler to be the one without the beard.

[–]motke_ganef -3ポイント-2ポイント  (11子コメント)

The thread in which you call somebody a troll for providing the text in which Bourdieu explains the chart you posted, and you call that text, which I again must stress is the text directly related to the chart, "utterly unrelated quotes of Bourdieu"

He didn't source the quotes. The first one was not from this text but from distinctions so it got tiresome quickly. And it's getting tiresome with you as well. Yes, I get it. You love Bourdieu and are getting emotional but could you keep it to the point?

Is this also the thread in which you claim that Bourdieu does not define what he means by "field"

Yes. But he drops that term a lot. He defined it once by an analogy to a magnetic field. His Habitus is another such nonsense term: used a lot in the most devious grammatical constructions but never really defined. And when he explains a picture with, say, "the field of modern literary habitus" it doesn't serve to clarify anything

and that his aim is to provide objective quantitative valuations of art

what? Now you are trolling. In the given passages his only aim was to confuse.

I will grant that it is possible to be more wrong than you are, but not without considerable effort and years of study. But to stumble on this level of wrongness is an achievement worthy of recognition and whatever the opposite of a tenured position is.

First that badarthistory dude, and now you. Why do you guys rely on arrogance and on insults so much? Is it because of the considerable efoort and of years of study that you've spent on Bourdieu and the only thing you got out of it is the ability to quote him?

Again: I'm not saying his bad. But, like it or not, he could have as well sold his book with a tin of his shit and it wouldn't have been any less meaningful than a diagram with a vacant ordinate. (and only half as silly.)

Also, who exactly are these bureaucrats who love Bourdieu?

folks with art history degrees presiding in the ministries for culture and other such triffles.

[–]minimuminim 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

Habitus: a classificatory scheme that's built up from the way we get classified. Example: our ideas of how big a house should be can be heavily, heavily influenced by the size of the house we grew up in, such that a room might be considered "big" by someone who grew up living in a cramped apartment, and "small" by someone who grew up in a larger, more spacious home. Each of those people have a different habitus owing to their positions in society.

One sentence. Three if you're including my example.

[–]TiakoCultural capitalist[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

You could also argue that the first hundred odd pages of Distinction is basically an extended explanation of habitus.

[–]motke_ganef -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you could then you would. ;)

[–]TiakoCultural capitalist[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I hope Nicolas Cage finds you because you are a national treasure.

[–]motke_ganef 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

And are you citing the man himself?

[–]minimuminim 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm explaining what you called a "nonsense term".

Look, I am in full agreement that Bourdieu's own explanation of habitus could use some work in the comprehensibility department. But being a bad writer doesn't invalidate his ideas.

[–]motke_ganef 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm explaining what you called a "nonsense term".

You, not Bourdieu. You could as well try explain the Karawane poem or the Codex Seraphinus. But could you say it isn't nonsense?

[–]minimuminim 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

But could you say it isn't nonsense?

Yes.

[–]TiakoCultural capitalist[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wow, this train is just going to keep on chugging, isn't it? First the chart is some sort of mathematical computation, then /u/Galious and I are arrogant for not immediately dismissing Bourdieu, and now Bourdieu did not define habitus. My ability to even, literally, is gone. I am lost in the most beautiful way.

I mean, I know I am being kind of a dick but what else is there? I mean, it is fine if you don't know about Bourdieu's concepts, and to a point it is fine to disagree with them, but to not know about his concepts and still disagree with them? At least read the Wikipedia page!

[–]motke_ganef -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

First the chart is some sort of mathematical computation

Come on! You should know better.

At least read the Wikipedia page!

There some worthwhile pages on the wikipedia as well. For instance this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_reptilian_kitten-eater_from_another_planet

[–]Galious 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

He didn't source the quotes. The first one was not from this text but from distinctions so it got tiresome quickly.

I don't even...

I told you this was taken directly from the text about the diagram! and guess what? it is! as you can see in this lovely screenshot where I have highlighted the two quotes

I mean... come on!

I'm glad /u/tiako mentionned my name so I can witness this blatent delusional/dishonest post you made. This made my day :-)