Universidad del Rosario Estudios Sociales de la Cultura Alejandro Gonzlez From Smith and Jeffrey Alexanders text: Considering

what the authors have to say about the relationship between hermeneutics and structuralism in relation to what postmodern pragmatist philosophers like Richard Rorty have to say about the subject, how can we avoid, from a narrative and text-centered analysis (supposedly understood as the guarantee in terms of save the cultural autonomy variable) the eventual confession of ethnocentrism? In other words, what are exactly the implied pretensions, in terms of truth, in the analysis of cultural sociology as thick description and, simultaneously, as a social science with the aspiration of having, at least, a truth-giving legitimacy by an authorized community of knowledge (science)? How is it that this approach is not in tension between the aspiration of giving truth sentences about cultures and the conceptual confession in which the analysis must go from particular premises to particular conclusions? From Bourdieus texts: Taking in consideration the following thesis I could find in both texts: the first one is the idea that there is a strong correlation between intellectual-material conditions of accessibility to art (understood as the correct interpretation of aesthetic experience based on current and accepted aesthetic values of perception) and the social-economic conditions of consumption of art. The second thesis claims a relation between the formation of accepted aesthetic values in which it is accepted that certain kinds of things are consider art with the social conditions of production and legitimacy of those values in which some sections of society (i.e., those with more economic and educational privileges) are closer than others in understanding those aesthetic values my question is: To what extend is possible that in Bourdieus analysis is implied the philosophical thesis whereby art is just what a legitimate art community decide is art and nothing more? In other words: where is the division line between a theory of art (in which art is a conceptual issue) and the sociology of art as consumption/production in Bourdieus analysis?