854955

research-article2019
CUS0010.1177/1749975519854955Cultural SociologyShapiro

Article
Cultural Sociology
2019, Vol. 13(3) 265­–275
Artification as Process © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1749975519854955
https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975519854955
journals.sagepub.com/home/cus

Roberta Shapiro
Institut interdisciplinaire d’anthropologie du contemporain, EHESS, Paris, France

Abstract
The term ‘artification’ springs from a simple idea: art is not a given and cannot be defined once
and for all as the consecrated body of works of established institutions and disciplines. Rather, it is
a construct and the result of social processes that are located in time and place. Although this last
statement is so fundamental to the sociological outlook as to border on truism, it entails adopting
a socio-historical perspective that is less common than one would expect. This introduction
recalls some of the empirical findings on culture on which the concept is based, while placing
the theory of artification within the framework of process sociology. The apparent simplicity of
the idea of artification is deceptive; it leads to a materialistic and socio-genetic perspective the
implications of which have yet to be fully discovered.

Keywords
Art, artification, culture, process, social change

In this introduction, I review some of the fruitful empirical findings on culture that
provided the basis for the concept of artification (Shapiro, 2004a), and indicate ele-
ments of the theory they have enabled me to devise (Shapiro, 2004b) and elaborate
with Nathalie Heinich (Heinich and Shapiro, 2012; Shapiro, and Heinich, 2012)
within the framework of process sociology, thereby underscoring that artification is a
trend rather than a result. Hopefully, envisioning the artifying process as one among
many ongoing, intertwining processes of change should help to allay the perpetual
danger of reification.
I will illustrate how such a long-term social and cultural trend, in which many people’s
actions and ‘perspectives intermesh to form a process unintended, unplanned and uncon-
trolled by anyone’ (Mennell, 1989: 267), is in keeping with the outlook of Norbert Elias.

Corresponding author:
Roberta Shapiro, Institut interdisciplinaire d’anthropologie du contemporain, EHESS, 105, bd. Raspail, 75006,
Paris 75013, France.
Email: roberta.shapiro@ehess.fr
266 Cultural Sociology 13(3)

Delving into the worlds of fashion (Crane, this issue), the circus (Cordier, 2007; Sizorn,
this issue), magic (Jones, this issue), theatrical production (Proust, this issue), ceramics
(Bajard, this issue) and practices such as cinema, breakdancing, gastronomy or graffiti, as
well as into the exemplary case of painting, one starts to grasp the multi-faceted, dynamic
and contradictory nature of the artifying process. In all these cases, artification emerges not
as a linear development but as a composite process, the cumulative result of concurrent
trends that may be met by obstacles and contrary developments. Artification also pro-
gresses contemporaneously with other trends such as sportification, commercialisation and
so on, whose advocates may alternatively compete or collaborate. As Mennell (1989: 267)
so aptly writes: people’s actions and perspectives ‘intermesh’. In this issue, John Hughson
adopts a somewhat different perspective, pointing to parallels or similarities between foot-
ball and art, rather than the process of artification as it is conceptualised here.
There are many questions about how art forms come about. What are the concrete
conditions of emergence and development of what we conventionally call art? When
is there artification? that is to say, how and when do things acquire the traits of what
we call art and come to be collectively sanctioned as such, throughout society, by
and large? What are the social processes that transform productions into such ‘works
of art’? How do makers become artists? When do friends turn into audiences, and
when do observers become critics? How do art worlds emerge? How do such trans-
formations affect people, their status and everyday life? Thinking in terms of artifi-
cation is at once a research programme that challenges us to scrutinise the relationship
between synchrony and diachrony in social change and an attempt to answer these
questions in ways that are simultaneously practical, symbolic and contextual, in a
processual perspective.1 It demands that we research not only how we come to call
things art, and people artists, but what conditions triggered that change and what it
entails. To be sure, art history has addressed the historical transformation of crafts-
men into artists. But the scope of our perspective is much wider and diverse; obser-
vation reveals that the sources of artification are manifold and go well beyond the
sole example of craft.

Artification as a Long-Term Process of Change

The shift from craft to art and the appearance of artists as a distinct category in Europe
from the early Renaissance to the 19th century are both now well documented.
Painters, who in the middle ages were defined as image-makers – that is, manual
workers of lowly social status – as the result of incessant battling for greater authority
over their own production, emerged over the course of about four centuries as the
ennobled makers of artefacts of heightened value called ‘art’, whose main function
was to be contemplated, commentated, and admired (Heinich, 1997; Martindale,
1972; Warnke, 1993). Allowing for specific variations, the paradigm of this transfigu-
ration is valid for musicians (DeNora, 1997; Elias, 2010) and writers (Bénichou, 1999
[1973]; Viala, 1985).
This centuries-long process is not only continuing, but intensifying in front of our very
eyes. The trend manifests itself in many directions, as artification grows in scope, quickens
Shapiro 267

in pace and extends its geographical expansion. There is an ever-widening span of activities
and of people concerned with artification. The process is accelerating; artification no longer
takes centuries, but decades, and sometimes only a span of a few years, it seems, for certain
groups of producers to see their work transformed into art and their persons transfigured
(through training and changes in lifestyle, for instance), and then widely acknowledged as
artists. There is also an extension of art organisations to areas where they were formerly
unknown, and an increase in the number of people that help them function. The population
of educators, organisers, critics, gallery owners, heads of museums, collectors, donors and
more, as well as persons with analogous functions in the realm of music, dance and theatre
is steadily growing in parts of Africa, Asia, Oceania and South America where some years
ago these occupations were unheard of (Djebbari, 2013). The process of artification is not
characteristic of the West alone, but is now an integral part of social and political change
world-wide. Thus, the transfiguration of ‘traditions’ into ‘art’ can be part of the process of
nation-building (Andrieu, 2007; Djebbari, 2013) and may be a conduit for certain groups to
assert identity or ascendancy on the local or national level (Myers, 2002; Tarabout, 2003).

Ten Processes of Artification

Analysing scores of monographs and research presentations, I have come to identify 10
or 11 microprocesses that constitute the macroprocess of artification. As the phrasing
conveys, I do not believe the number of microprocesses should be taken literally, since it
designates categories whose boundaries are contingent, which could be constructed oth-
erwise and which are open to interpretation and variation. Perhaps there are 9 or 13
processes of artification. Furthermore, the contributions in this issue do not tick all the
boxes, nor is it necessary that they should. The contributors explore unexpected alleys
that will help us refresh and expand the model; they put the onus on what they deem
crucial for their argument. What is important to note is that the processes listed here
bridge a large span of practices dispersed in space and time, that they are rooted in obser-
vation, are congruent with reality and retain a sound explanatory quality. I believe this to
be of merit and to indicate that generalisation is possible.
The most salient constituent processes of artification that I believe are worth retaining
are: displacement, renaming, shifting categories, organisational and institutional change,
functional differentiation, redefining time, legal consolidation, patronage, aesthetic for-
malisation, and intellectualisation. What I propose here is a way to think about change in
a processual manner, not a doctrine set in stone. Let us now examine these micropro-
cesses through the lenses of the case studies published in this issue. I shall also give
examples taken from other research.

Displacement
Although I doubt there can be a single cause for any phenomenon, extracting or displacing
a production from its first observed context may be one of the main prerequisites for artifi-
cation. Separating an object from its ‘initial’ environment creates the conditions for it to
circulate, be renamed, transformed and exchanged. This happened when paintings shifted
from frescoes to the easel in 14th-century Italy, when graffiti was photographed and
268 Cultural Sociology 13(3)

published in books, when jazz was first transcribed in to musical notation, when film broke
away from its initial site at fairs, or when breakdancers stepped off the streets to go on
stage. The established/outsider theory can be of use here (Elias and Scotson, 2008 [1994]).
Displacement often means extracting the object, practice or person from their everyday
setting and placing it or them in an environment deemed appropriate for established artists,
for example a museum or a theatre. In this issue, Graham Jones describes one such move,
in which a magician speaks at a university research symposium. This is part of the magi-
cian’s calculated effort to reposition magic as a form of high culture. Another example is
given by Diana Crane with fashion collectibles, one of the three categories of fashion she
defines. These objects enter museums as a form of cultural heritage and acquire artistic
value. For some trapeze artists studied by Magali Sizorn, displacement consisted of dis-
tancing themselves from circus animals and promoting performances in theatrical venues
rather than in the circus ring. John Hughson recalls that land enclosure displaced folk foot-
ball from large-scale recreational gatherings to smaller spaces.

Renaming
Terminological change is another important step in the artifying process that often goes
hand in hand with physical displacement. In contemporary France, the emergence of the
expression danse hip-hop was contemporaneous with the displacement of young people
doing smurf from the streets to the stage (Shapiro, 2012). Names may be at the centre of
conflicts of interest, and are tools for cultural recognition. Serge Proust indicates how met-
teur en scène (theatre director) won over the word régisseur (manager). It was crucial for
this profession to win the fight and be labelled artiste, auteur and créateur. Those three
nouns (artist, author, creator) are decisive descriptors for all persons with a stake in the
artifying process in France. Flora Bajard mentions the importance of those terms for
ceramicists in southern France, as does Diana Crane in her discussion of fashion design-
ers. Furthermore, the French expression haute couture2 is many distinctive notches above
dressmaking; using it in English lends an extra-special lustre to the activity.

Reshuffling Rankings, Making Breaks

Changing names goes hand in hand with changes in rankings. Shifting their affiliation from
the mechanical to the liberal arts was a major victory for painters at the onset of the
Renaissance. It put them on a par with scholars and lent a high intellectual status to their
practice (Heinich, 1993). Over time breakdancing went from first being seen as disorderly
conduct (Banes, 1994), then as play for children, after that as a fad for teens, and now a
professional endeavour (Shapiro, 2012): this is at once a categorical shift and a rise in social
ranking. Graham Jones writes that the New Magic company can be seen in prestigious the-
atrical venues as they seek to break from previous connections with the nightclub scene and
work to frame their performances as dramatic composition rather than ‘acts’. In his article,
Serge Proust shows how theatre directors replaced what was once the foundation of their
authority (an exclusive link to the French literary tradition) with a claim to innovation
through an idiosyncratic variety of sources (physical elements, spatial structuring, Asian
theatre, etc.). Magali Sizorn describes how contemporary trapeze artists now ascribe greater
value to expressing interiority over displaying virtuosity.
Shapiro 269

Organisational and Institutional Change

Changes to names and categories are in turn intertwined with organisational and institu-
tional change. A classic example is painters’ and sculptors’ shift from the craft guilds to
the Royal Academy during the Renaissance. The artification of hip-hop dancing in
France was enhanced by the institionalising effect of troupes and festivals (Shapiro,
2004a). While modern magicians work as singular individuals, the New Magic move-
ment studied by Graham Jones organises its activities as a collective, following in the
steps of theatre or dance troupes that are artified or engaged in the artifying process. The
counter example of fashion is an interesting case. As Diana Crane indicates, artification
in the occupation of haute couture was halted in the postwar period by the decline of
couture as a business and the curtailment of designers’ creative autonomy. This was
linked to major financial and organisational change: the formation of international con-
glomerates. The artifying process among trapeze artists studied by Magali Sizorn and the
ceramicists studied by Flora Bajard seems to be enhanced at this time by the blossoming
of small collectives. For John Hughson, the trend toward the rationalisation of rules and
constraints in football tends to promote artistry in players’ style.

Differentiation of Functions
Collectives change over time, and a gradual differentiation of functions, in particular the
individualisation of labour, enhances artification. Over time, an authoritative figure may
emerge, as power shifts from the recipient to the producer (Elias, 2009). As it moved
from the master’s workshop to the painter’s studio, painting in western Europe under-
went a continual process of individualisation: by the 19th century, activity that was once
collective gradually became solitary (Heinich, 1993). Graham Jones describes how the
division of labour in New Magic more closely resembles theatrical productions than
typical magic acts; the authors are not the performers. Serge Proust charts the emergence
of the theatre director at the end of the 19th century, to the disadvantage of actors and
spectators. Conductors had gained prominence over musicians in symphony orchestras
during the 19th century and the figure of the choreographer asserted himself over dancers
about a century later (Sintès, 2015). Diana Crane describes how in the mid-1800s the
couturier imposed his authority as the source of ideas for clothes that were made by oth-
ers, in contrast to the seamstress and tailor who were subservient to their clients. In all
these cases, producers assert artistic legitimacy by gaining ascendancy over both their
collaborators and the recipients of their work. This introduces them into a mode of pro-
duction, a mode of valuation and a balance of power that are the hallmarks of the modern
art world: the regime of singularity (Heinich, 1997).3

Normative and Legal Consolidation

Legal consolidation is another important step on the path of artification. The famous
court case ‘Brancusi vs the United States’ attests to this. In 1928 an American court
famously ruled that Bird, made by Constantin Brancusi was indeed a sculpture and
not a utilitarian object, as first stated by American customs officials, and would thus
not be subject to high import tariffs (Heinich, 1996). A remarkable example a
270 Cultural Sociology 13(3)

contrario is cooking. The fact that in spite of strong artifiying trends, chefs have not
been able to sustain legal authorship for their work – for example by exercising copy-
right over recipes (Leschziner, 2007) – is one indication of factors limiting artifica-
tion in that field. The French courts granted theatre directors recognition as auteurs in
1971, according to Serge Proust. In the USA, legal decisions that culminated with the
end of censorship restrictions in the 1960s encouraged the development of art cinema
(Bauman, 2007). In her article, Flora Bajard describes how militant ceramists criticise
the norms that disqualify craftsmen as artists and seek to establish a new cultural clas-
sification through legal action. They have filed court cases on conflicting definitions
of originality vs utility. They lobby for legislation that would create a status of artist-
artisan in order to abolish the distinction between fine and applied arts and the fiscal
disparities it implies. Magali Sizorn indicates how important it is in France for the
circus to be overseen by the Ministry of Culture rather than another department: this
entails a host of administrative and regulatory effects that tend to favour artification.
John Hughson argues that following 1961 legislation that triggered considerable wage
increases, some footballers felt more independent and thus became more inventive in
their style of play.

Redefining Time
Embracing existing artistic conventions leads to doing or making things in completely
new time frames. I can only suggest here a few of the vast changes in timing that derive
from the fact that artification is a process of institutionalisation, internal and external,
that is, concerning content and organisation.
While each round of breaking in the street lasts a few seconds, a spectacle can last an
hour or more. Giving a staged production thus modifies the span and structure of time,
and demands that dancers develop new technical, aesthetic and organisational skills
(Shapiro, 2004a, 2012). Graham Jones shows how the application of theatrical conven-
tions and new technology characterises an emergent kind of magic that its advocates call
New Magic. Magali Sizorn describes similar transformations by trapezists. What in the
traditional circus environment was a series of short ‘acts’, is now conceptualised as a
structured, organic narrative. Sizorn also notes that the contemporary trapezists Flying
Cranes (a Russian company) and Arts Sauts (a French group) who seek to artify their
practice by introducing intricate aerial choreography extend the duration of their acts and
the duration of the total show as the moves become more complex and cooperation
among participants is ever more imbricated. As for art ceramicists, they turn away from
the repetitive, industrial-type labour of the previous generation; Flora Bajard describes
how the organisation of their working day changes as they ‘take their time’ to do indi-
vidualised, signature work.
Another result of artification as a process of institutionalisation is changing people’s
relation both to past generations and to the future. Flora Bajard suggests how contempo-
rary ceramicists regard their practice as a career inscribed in art history, and their produc-
tion as an oeuvre, a body of work. Nevertheless, an aspiration of this sort can be quite
problematic. Serge Proust’s article provides an illustration by concluding with the por-
trait of a disenchanted stage director musing about the impermanence of his work, since
Shapiro 271

contrary to the western ideal of art, theatre direction leaves no material trace that will
withstand the passage of time. This is an interesting instance that poses many questions,
including how distinctive processes of artification can contribute to a person’s artistic
legitimacy in different ways.

Aesthetic Formalisation
For newcomers who are moving in the direction of artification, innovating aesthetically
can mean adopting the aesthetic norms of an established (or antecedent) art. In the realm
of the allographic arts this usually means following theatrical conventions, as we have
seen in the section on time; in the realm of autographic arts (Goodman, 1976), it means
going with the conventions of visual art. Diana Crane reminds us that in the 1930s,
Schiaparelli designed clothes that illustrated the aesthetic principles of surrealism, and
that contemporary couturiers use strategies that are analogous to those of the avant-
garde in painting and sculpture. Art ceramicists described by Flora Bajard are influ-
enced by an Asian aesthetic introduced through American journals. Breakdancing,
circus, and magic are all affected by contemporary innovations in theatre that focus on
semantics. Graham Jones describes a production of the New Magic movement that
draws upon academic anthropological research, incorporates computer technology, and
is performed in established venues.

Patronage
Under the academic system the king bestowed pensions on a very small elite of painters;
the modern institutionalisation of government grants gives subsidies and endowments.
These support systems enhance the perception of an ontological difference between art
and other activities deemed unworthy of such official monies, and contribute to what
Shyon Bauman calls the purification of genres (Bauman, 2007: 166). In France today,
public policy has played an important part in the artification of many cultural practices
since the 1980s, irrespective of changes in government. It is also based on an ideology
that cuts through social class: art fosters social cohesion and strengthens the body politic
(Looseley, 1997 [1995]). As Graham Jones writes, in France state patronage is an oppor-
tunity for cultural producers to avail themselves of the ‘twin promises of symbolic dis-
tinction and delivery from the market-driven demands of show business’ (p. 322, this
issue). The magicians, ceramicists, trapezists and theatre directors described in these
pages who aspire to art all depend to a degree on government subsidies. John Hughson
describes various aspects of royal and political patronage of football in England.

Intellectualisation
Finally, the intellectualisation of practice, that is, ‘the production of analysis and com-
mentary’ (Serge Proust) is an efficacious component of artification. Biographies of paint-
ers were first published in the Renaissance (Pommier, 2007), art critique was first
published in the 18th century, and academic art history developed dramatically during
the 19th century (Shiner, 2001). These occurrences intensified the growing trend toward
272 Cultural Sociology 13(3)

the intellectualisation of both the onlookers’ and the painters’ relationship to painting. In
France, media discourse on breakdancing took an ‘aesthetic turn’ in the 1990s, when
bona fide reviewers began writing about ‘dancers’ rather than ‘kids from the banlieues’;
in turn, the content of hip-hop ballets became increasingly reflexive (Shapiro, 2003).
Similarly, Magali Sizorn identified a shift toward reflexive discourse in trapeze and the
development of a circus d’auteur. A further step toward artification is taken when appren-
ticeship gives way to formal training, as evidenced by the foundation of circus schools.
Flora Bajard indicates that the first French art ceramicists were trained in fine art schools,
and mentions the importance of the dissemination of books and the expansion of a spe-
cialised press in advancing the artification of ceramics by providing a forum for debate
and controversy in the aftermath of the Second World War.
Graham Jones’ contribution gives an unexpected twist to this discussion by concen-
trating on symbolic distinction. He focuses squarely on the matter by describing how a
magician succeeds in presenting himself as an intellectual and scholar in a scholarly set-
ting (the university). In describing a discursive conflict between the magician as an
‘insurrectionary agent of artification’, and a musician as ‘cultural gatekeeper’, Jones
reveals the embodied, situated nature of talk: argument operates in the artifying process.
Furthermore, the magician’s theatrical performance is presented not as a series of tricks,
but as ‘a sequence of signs, commenting on the nature of being and time’. Many of the
contributors to this issue underline how semantics and ‘the authoritative constitution of
meaning’ (Serge Proust) partake in the process of artification.

Conclusion: Theorising Artification

As I have suggested, I believe an Eliasian perspective is in order here. Artification is
integral to the civilising process and recalls trends such as those revealed by Norbert
Elias’ analyses of classical theatre in 17th-century France (Elias, 1994 [1939]),
stages of African art (Elias, 2009), poetry in Germany and France, and Mozart’s
trajectory (Elias, 2010), as well as Norbert Elias’ and Eric Dunning’s inquiry into the
socio-history of football (Elias and Dunning, 2008 [1986]). In these examples, as
well as in the cases examined in this special issue, adopting a developmental per-
spective helps us understand change as at once the intertwined transformation of
individuals’ behaviour, institutional structure and workings, and creative practice.
The artifying process is sustained by advances in participants’ foresight, planning
and organisational skills, as they gradually interiorise and exercise greater self-
restraint. Ever more persons are involved, chains of interdependence become longer
and more enmeshed, thus contributing to transforming producers into artists and
mundane actions into artistic events appreciated for their aesthetic, emotional and
cognitive value. Nevertheless, hindrances to artification are observed. Artification
may be met with resistance by persons for practical or ideological reasons, for exam-
ple when breakdancers state their desire to remain underground and refuse opportu-
nities to perform on stage in the name of authenticity and as a protest against
commercialism (Shapiro, 2004a). Obstacles may be linked to changes in the division
of labour, to industrial reorganisation and changes in the structure of capital, as in the
fashion industry (Diana Crane) and at restaurants (Shapiro, 2019). An artifying
Shapiro 273

process can meander, as we see in the case of the circus (Magali Sizorn). And it may
leave its participants filled with doubt, as Serge Proust’s article so aptly illustrates.
Because artification is ongoing in all of these domains, we have yet to observe the
full extent of its variation and complexity.

Acknowledgements
My warmest thanks to David Inglis for stimulating scientific companionship on the subject of artifica-
tion over the years, for reminding me to return to Elias, and for first proposing the idea of this volume.
I am infinitely grateful to Lisa McCormick for her professionalism and support in editing this issue.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Notes
1. This is a quotation from anthropologist Graham Jones (personal communication), to whom I
am indebted.
2. Literally: high (class) fashion.
3. At least two constituent processes of artification – professionalisation and commodification
– could have been singled out at this juncture. They are not examined here because I assume
they participate in the broader processes of organisational change and differentiation of func-
tions, which allows me to leave them for discussion in a future publication.

References
Andrieu S (2007) La mise en spectacle de l’identité nationale. Une analyse des politiques cul-
turelles au Burkina Faso. Journal des anthropologues. Hors-série 5: 89–103.
Banes S (1994) Writing Dancing in the Age of Postmodernism. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan
University Press.
Bauman S (2007) Hollywood Highbrow: From Entertainment to Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Bénichou P (1999 [1973]) The Consecration of the Writer, 1750–1830 (trans. Mark Jensen).
Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
Cordier M (2007) Le cirque contemporain entre rationalisation et quête d’autonomie. Sociétés
contemporaines 66(2): 37–59.
DeNora T (1997) Beethoven and the Construction of Genius: Musical Politics in Vienna, 1792–
1803. Oakland: University of California Press.
Djebbari E (2013) La biennale artistique et culturelle du Mali: La mise en scène d’une culture
nationale, de l’indépendance à aujourd’hui. In: Fléchet A, et al. (eds) Une histoire des festi-
vals, XXème-XXIème siècles. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, pp. 291–301.
Elias N (1994 [1939]) The Court Society. The Collected Works of Norbert Elias, Volume 2.
Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
Elias N (2009) Stages of African art, social and visual. In: Elias N Essays III. On Sociology and the
Humanities. The Collected Works of Norbert Elias, Volume 16. Dublin: University College
Dublin Press, 209–233.
Elias N (2010) Mozart and Other Essays on Courtly Art. The Collected Works of Norbert Elias,
Volume 12. Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
274 Cultural Sociology 13(3)

Elias N and Dunning E (2008 [1986]) Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilising
Process. The Collected Works of Norbert Elias, Volume 7. Dublin: University College
Dublin Press.
Elias N and Scotson JL (2008) [1994] The Established and the Outsiders. The Collected Works of
Norbert Elias, Volume 4. Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
Goodman N (1976) Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis, IN:
Hackett.
Heinich N (1993) Du peintre à l’artiste. Paris: Minuit.
Heinich N (1996) ‘C’est un oiseau!’ Brancusi vs États-Unis, ou quand la loi définit l’art. Droit et
Société 34: 649–672.
Heinich N (1997) Etre artiste. Paris: Klinseick.
Heinich N and Shapiro R (2012) Qu’est-ce que l’artification? In: Heinich N and Shapiro R (eds)
De l’artification. Enquêtes sur le passage à l’art. Paris: Ehess.
Leschziner V (2007) Kitchen stories: Patterns of recognition in contemporary high cuisine.
Sociological Forum 22(1): 77–101.
Looseley D (1997 [1995]) The Politics of Fun: Cultural Policy and Debate in Contemporary
France. Oxford and New York: Berg.
Martindale A (1972) The Rise of the Artist in the Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Mennell S (1989) Norbert Elias. Civilization and the Human Self-Image. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Myers FR (2002) Painting Culture: The Making of an Aboriginal High Art. Durham, NC and
London: Duke University Press.
Pommier É (2007) Comment l’art devient l’Art dans l’Italie de la Renaissance. Paris: Gallimard.
Shapiro R (2003) L’émergence d’une critique artistique: la danse hip-hop. Sociologie de l’art
OPuS 3: 15–48.
Shapiro R (2004a) The Aesthetics of Institutionalization: Breakdancing in France. The Journal of
Arts Management, Law and Society 33(4): 316–335.
Shapiro R (2004b) Qu’est-ce que l’artification? XVII Congrès de l’Association française de soci-
ologie, HalSHS.Cnrs. Available at: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00010486v2
/file/Artific.pdf (accessed 19 July 2019).
Shapiro R (2012) Du smurf au ballet. L’invention de la danse hip-hop. In: Heinich N and Shapiro
R (eds) De l’artification. Enquêtes sur le passage à l’art. Paris: école des hautes études en
sciences sociales.
Shapiro R (2019) Y a-t-il artification de la gastronomie? In: Goffaux G (ed.) Droit(s) et gastrono-
mie. Paris: Mare & Martin, coll. Libres droits, 91–110.
Shapiro R and Heinich N (2012) When is artification? Contemporary Aesthetics Special Volume
4. Available at: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/ca/7523862.spec.409/–when-is-artification?rgn
=main;view=fulltext (accessed 19 July 2019).
Shiner L (2001) The Invention of Art: A Cultural History. Chicago, IL and London: The University
of Chicago Press.
Sintès G (2015) Préfiguration, structuration et enjeux esthétiques du métier de chorégraphe
(France, 1957–1984). Une histoire administrative et réglementaire. Thèse de doctorat en
danse. Paris: Université de Paris 8.
Tarabout G (2003) Passages à l’art. L’adaptation d’un culte sud-indien au patronage artistique. In:
Escande Y and Schaeffer J-M (eds) L’Esthétique: Europe, Chine et ailleurs. Paris: You-Feng.
Viala A (1985) Naissance de l’écrivain. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
Warnke M (1993) The Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist (trans. David McLintock).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro 275

Author biography
Roberta Shapiro is a sociologist at the Institut interdisciplinaire d’anthropologie du contemporain,
Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales in Paris, and at the Centre d’études de l’emploi et du
travail, Conservatoire national des arts et métiers in Noisy-le-Grand. She works on processes of
change in art and culture, in particular professional trajectories and the emergence of entities such
as hip-hop dance or gastronomy, as examples of the trend toward artification, i.e. the transforma-
tion of non-art into art. She has written and edited numerous publications including De l’artification
(EHESS, 2012), with Nathalie Heinich, and L’artiste pluriel (Septentrion, 2009), with Marie-
Christine Bureau and Marc Perrenoud.