The Sociology of Arts and Markets:

New Developments and Persistent

Patterns 1st ed. Edition Andrea Glauser
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-sociology-of-arts-and-markets-new-developments
-and-persistent-patterns-1st-ed-edition-andrea-glauser/
SOCIOLOGY OF THE ARTS

The Sociology
of Arts and Markets
New Developments
and Persistent Patterns
Edited by
Andrea Glauser · Patricia Holder
Thomas Mazzurana · Olivier Moeschler
Valérie Rolle · Franz Schultheis
Sociology of the Arts

Series Editors
Katherine Appleford
Kingston University
London, UK

Anna Goulding
University of Newcastle
Newcastle, UK

Dave O’Brien
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, UK

Mark Taylor
University of Sheffield
Sheffield, UK
This series brings together academic work which considers the production
and consumption of the arts, the social value of the arts, and analyses
and critiques the impact and role of cultural policy and arts manage-
ment. By exploring the ways in which the arts are produced and con-
sumed, the series offers further understandings of social inequalities,
power relationships and opportunities for social resistance and agency. It
highlights the important relationship between individual, social and
political attitudes, and offers significant insights into the ways in which
the arts are developing and changing. Moreover, in a globalised society,
the nature of arts production, consumption and policy making is increas-
ingly cosmopolitan, and arts are an important means for building social
networks, challenging political regimes, and reaffirming and subverting
social values across the globe.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15469
 Andrea Glauser
Patricia Holder
Thomas Mazzurana
Olivier Moeschler • Valérie Rolle
Franz Schultheis
Editors

The Sociology of Arts

and Markets
New Developments and Persistent
Patterns
Editors
Andrea Glauser Patricia Holder
University of Music and Performing Arts University of St. Gallen
Vienna, Austria St. Gallen, Switzerland

Thomas Mazzurana Olivier Moeschler

University of St. Gallen University of Lausanne
St. Gallen, Switzerland Lausanne, Switzerland

Valérie Rolle Franz Schultheis

University of Nantes Zeppelin University
Nantes, France Friedrichshafen, Germany

ISSN 2569-1414     ISSN 2569-1406 (electronic)

Sociology of the Arts
ISBN 978-3-030-39012-9    ISBN 978-3-030-39013-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39013-6

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover image © Anna Goulding

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Contents

1 Introduction  1
Andrea Glauser, Patricia Holder, Thomas Mazzurana,
Olivier Moeschler, Valérie Rolle, and Franz Schultheis

Part I Creators in the Market: Artists Between Aesthetics,

Critique, and Trade  17

2 Patrick Modiano, Between the Fields of Limited

Production and Large-Scale Production 19
Clara Lévy

3 A Star Down-to-Earth: On Social Critique in Popular

Culture 47
Désirée Waibel and Robert Schäfer

v
vi Contents

Part II Artistic Career Paths: Trajectories and Inequalities in

the Market  73

4 Art Workers, Inequality, and the Labour Market: Values,

Norms, and Alienation Across Three Generations
of Artists 75
Orian Brook, Dave O’Brien, and Mark Taylor

5 Visual Artists’ Professional Situations and Trajectories

Between Institutions and the Market 97
Pierre Bataille, Johannes M. Hedinger, and Olivier Moeschler

6 The Art Market: Art’s Incomplete Mirror—Artistic

Action’s Guiding Principles and Their Consequences
for the Art Market129
Linda Dürkop-Henseling

Part III The Economy of Idiosyncrasy: Art Dealers and

the Commodification of Individuality 157

7 When Market Promotes Individuality: Arts in Early

Modern Japan from the Macrosociological Perspective159
Takemitsu Morikawa

8 The Art Market Facing New Connoisseurship: The

Reception of Pieter Brueghel the Younger at Auction183
Anne-Sophie Radermecker

9 Collective-Artists: Actors on the Margins of the Global

Field of Contemporary Art213
Séverine Marguin
 Contents vii

Part IV Marketable Art: Galleries and Gallery Owners as

Central Intermediaries 237

10 Hierarchies and Divisions in the Subfield of Gallery

Owners: A Research on Art Galleries in Milan239
Anna Uboldi

11 Mapping the Professional Self-Concepts of Gallery

Owners: A Typology263
Michael Gautier

12 The Diffusion of Galleries in China (1991–2016)287

Linzhi Zhang

Part V Market Assessments: The Increasing Role of Art

Rankings 317

13 Magic Index on the Wall: Who Is the Most Valuable Artist

of Them All?319
Nathalie Moureau

14 Can Contemporary Art Galleries Be Ranked? A

Sociological Attempt from the Paris Case339
Alain Quemin

Part VI Features of the Art Market in Advanced Capitalism:

From Established to New Patterns? 363

15 The Art Fair Boom and Its Contradictions365

Erwin Single
viii Contents

16 Art Meets Capitalism: In Praise of Promising

Potentialities?387
Denis Hänzi

17 The Art, the Market, and Sociology: Concluding

Remarks411
Franz Schultheis

Index421
 Notes on Contributors

Pierre Bataille is a lecturer at the Université Grenoble Alpes. His

research interests include the sociology of education, sociology of elites,
sociology of work, cultural sociology, gender perspective, and longitudi-
nal approaches in mixed methods research design. His main works have
been published in European Educational Research Journal, European
Sociological Review, Formation-Emploi, Sociétés Contemporaines, and
Sociologie.
Orian Brook is AHRC Creative and Digital Economy Innovation
Leadership Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, researching social and
spatial inequalities in the creative economy, including precarity in cre-
ative employment, and spatial differences in the social stratification of
cultural participation. Prior to academia she worked in cultural organisa-
tions for many years, specialising in audience research.
Linda Dürkop-Henseling is a lecturer at the Christian-Albrechts
University of Kiel; she also holds a PhD from that university. Her research
interests are sociology of culture and sociology of organisations. Her pub-
lished works are as follows: Typisch Künstler? Zum Selbstverständnis in der
bildenden Kunst (Weinheim: Beltz Juventa, 2017) and Arbeiten in der
Kulturbranche: Take the Money and Run? In Typisch Soziologie!? (edited
by Obermeier, Claudia and Linda Dürkop-Henseling, 34–48; Wiesbaden:
Beltz Juventa, 2018).
ix
x Notes on Contributors

Michael Gautier is an editor at the Swiss Parliament. His research inter-

ests include the sociology of culture and the arts. His latest publication is
Passion und Kalkül. Zur beruflichen Bewährung in der Galerie (Passion and
Strategy. On the Prerequisites for Coping with the Gallerist’s Professional
Challenges) (Frankfurt/New York 2019).
Andrea Glauser is Professor of Cultural Studies at the University of
Music and Performing Arts, Vienna. Her research interests cover the soci-
ology of arts, cultural sociology, urban studies, sociological theory, and
qualitative research methods.
Denis Hänzi is a lecturer at the Bern University of Teacher Education.
His research interests include theatre, social order, and collective imagi-
naries. He is working on a book on potentialism as the upcoming societal
regime in contemporary capitalist countries.
Johannes M. Hedinger is a curator, researcher, educator, artist, and
author working in the field of contemporary art. He is the director of the
Institute for Land and Environmental Art and a lecturer at the Zurich
University of the Arts and at the University of Cologne. His focus and
research topics include art strategies, art world studies, art market studies,
sociology of art, socially engaged art, participatory art, art in public
sphere, land and environmental art, urban art, transdisciplinarity, inter-
media, cultural hacking, and artistic research.
Patricia Holder holds an MA in cultural studies from Goldsmiths
College, the University of London. As a researcher, she has mainly been
interested in the fields of artistic and creative labour in the last years.
Clara Lévy is a professor at the University of Paris 8 (Institut d’études
européennes). Her research interests include sociology of art, sociology of
literature, and sociology of identities.
Séverine Marguin is a postdoctoral researcher at the Collaborative
Research Center 1265 “Refiguration of spaces”. Her research interests are
design research, experiment, knowledge, sciences studies, and architecture.
Thomas Mazzurana studied sociology and business informatics in
Vienna and St. Gallen, where he received his PhD in 2017. His research
interests cover the sociology of art and the sociology of the family.
 Notes on Contributors xi

Olivier Moeschler is an associate researcher at the University of

Lausanne, Head of Cultural Statistics at Federal Statistical Office (FSO),
and teaches at Haute École de Gestion (HEG) in Geneva. He is inter-
ested in the various aspects raised by the sociological analysis of cinema,
culture, cultural policies, media, and the arts. He is the president of the
Research committee Sociology of Arts and Culture (RC-SAC) of the
Swiss Sociological Association (SSA).
Takemitsu Morikawa is Professor of Sociology at the Department of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Letters at Keio University,
Tokyo, Japan. His focus is on sociological theory, history of sociology,
sociology of culture, and sociology of knowledge.
Nathalie Moureau is Professor of Economics at the University of
Montpellier 3. Her research interest is cultural economics and more espe-
cially the art market, and many books and papers of hers on this topic
have been published.
Dave O’Brien is Chancellor’s Fellow in Cultural and Creative Industries
at the University of Edinburgh. Several of his works on the sociology of
culture, culture-led urban regeneration, and inequalities in cultural
labour markets have been published.
Alain Quemin is Exceptional Class Professor of Sociology of Art at
Université Paris 8 / Institut d’études européennes and an honorary mem-
ber of Institut Universitaire de France. He specialises in the sociology of
art markets and institutions. He also studies visitors’ surveys, the interna-
tionalisation of the visual arts, and the social construction of artistic repu-
tations and consecration for visual artists.
Anne-Sophie Radermecker is a BAEF Fellow at Duke Art Law and
Markets Initiative (Durham, NC). Her main research interests deal with
art market studies, the economics of the artist’s name, and anonym-
ity in art.
Valérie Rolle holds a chair for Sociology of Art and Culture at the
University of Nantes. She has conducted extensive research on creative
work such as tattoo, theatre, and graphic design. She is working on the
field of contemporary art in Nantes.
xii Notes on Contributors

Robert Schäfer is a researcher and a lecturer at the University of Fribourg

and a lecturer at the Distance University of Switzerland. His areas of
expertise are qualitative methods, cultural sociology, sociology of reli-
gion, and social theory.
Franz Schultheis is Professor of Sociology at Zeppelin University,
Friedrichshafen, Germany, and President of Bourdieu Foundation. His
research fields are sociology of arts, creative economy, work worlds, and
social exclusion.
Erwin Single is a research associate at the Institute of Sociology at the
University of St. Gallen. He is co-writer of the research publications
When Art Meets Money and Art Unlimited.
Mark Taylor is Senior Lecturer in Quantitative Methods (Sociology) at
the Sheffield Methods Institute, University of Sheffield, and is AHRC
Leadership Fellow (Creative Economy) until 2021. His research interests
are in the sociology of culture: in consumption, production, and educa-
tion, and its relationship with inequality.
Anna Uboldi is a PhD scholar in applied sociology and methodology of
social research at the University of Milano-Bicocca. Her main research
interests focus on sociology of art, education, inequalities and youth con-
dition, Bourdieu’s theory, and qualitative methods.
Désirée Waibel is a PhD candidate and a lecturer at SOCIUM—
Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy at the University of
Bremen and a lecturer at the Distance University, Switzerland. Her
research areas are sociological theory, the sociology of expertise, and the
sociology of valuation.
Linzhi Zhang is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Centre for Chinese
Visual Arts at Birmingham City University and an affiliated researcher in
the Department of Sociology at the University of Cambridge, where she
received her PhD. Her research concerns the production of fine arts in
post-socialist China.
 List of Figures

Fig. 5.1 ACM dimensions inertia 108

Fig. 5.2 Space of professional positions (Dim1 and Dim2) 109
Fig. 5.3 Clouds of individuals, cluster membership, and sex 112
Fig. 5.4 Clouds of individuals, diploma, age, and partner situation 115
Fig. 5.5 Self-presentation on official documents 118
Fig. 5.6 Motivations to become an artist 119
Fig. 6.1 The differentiated art system 138
Fig. 6.2 Leading concepts of artistic actions in the art system 143
Fig. 7.1 Hishikawa, Moronobu. “After a Tune” 「 ( 低唱の後」), ca.
1673–81, in the collection of Keio University Libraries 173
Fig. 7.2 Suzuki, Harunobu. “Tea-stall of O-Sen” 「 ( おせん茶屋」), ca.
1764–1772, in the collection of Tobacco and Salt Museum in
Tokyo174
Fig. 7.3 Kitagawa, Utamaro. “Eight Views of Famous Teahouse
Beauties: The Beauty Okita Looking into a Mirror”
( 名所腰掛八景 鏡」), ca. 1800–1806, in the collection of
「
Keio University Libraries 175
Fig. 7.4 Tôshû-sai Sharaku. “The Actor Ôtani Oniji as Edobei”
( 三代目大谷鬼次の江戸兵衛」), 1794, in the collection
「
of Tokyo National Museum 176
Fig. 8.1 Distribution by attribution qualifier (n = 733)195
Fig. 8.2 Average length of notes (or total number of words) by
attribution qualifier 195

xiii
xiv List of Figures

Fig. 8.3 Price index by attribution qualifier (By = 100) 203

Fig. 9.1 Example of an artist file in the archives of Documenta from
Kassel223
Fig. 9.2 Examples of collective-artist’s file in the archives of Documenta
from Kassel 224
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 The most frequently invited writers on Apostrophes between

1975 and 1989 32
Table 2.2 Sales figures in France of Modiano’s works before and after
the Nobel Prize 38
Table 2.3 Works in translation available in a selection of foreign
countries before and after the Nobel Prize 41
Table 3.1 Overview of Formation’s critiques, justifications, and
pre-emptions of counter-critique 68
Table 5.1 Comparison of the socio-demographic profile of visual
artists (respondents sample), Swiss visual artists, and Swiss
working population 102
Table 5.2 Active modalities 106
Table 5.3 Sample composition 112
Table 5.4 Illustrative modalities 123
Table 8.1 Descriptive statistics—Average and Median Prices by
Attribution Qualifier 202
Table 8.2 Results of the Hedonic Regression by Attribution Qualifier 203
Table 9.1 Collective membership in the various editions of
Documenta from Kassel (1955–2012) 225
Table 13.1 Ranking of artist by country on the art scene, 2017 325
Table 13.2 Marking artistic quality according to Roger de Piles 328
Table 13.3 Institutions’ rating 329
Table 13.4 Artists’ ranking 330

xv
xvi List of Tables

Table 13.5 Top 10 young contemporary artists (under 30)—

breakdown by turnover 332
Table 14.1 Star galleries and other important ones in France in terms
of integration to the contemporary art world 354
Table 14.2 Ranking in terms of medium range of the top ten artists in
the rosters 356
Table 14.3 Overall rank: Comparison of the two rankings in terms of
recognition of the gallery and access to the market and in
terms of “quality” of its roster 358
 1
Introduction
Andrea Glauser, Patricia Holder, Thomas Mazzurana,
Olivier Moeschler, Valérie Rolle, and Franz Schultheis

This book draws on the papers presented at a congress at the University

of St. Gallen in 2016 under the title “Art and Market: Alienation or
Emancipation?” Organised by the Swiss Sociological Association (SSA)’s
Sociology of Arts and Culture Research committee (RC-SAC) in collabo-
ration with the St. Gallen Institute of Sociology and supported by the
Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences (SAHS), this event

We warmly thank Joanne Walker for the quality of the proofreading of this introduction in
English, and the Centre nantais de sociologie (CENS—UMR 6025) of the University of Nantes
for sponsoring it.

A. Glauser
University of Music and Performing Arts, Vienna, Austria
e-mail: glauser@mdw.ac.at
P. Holder • T. Mazzurana
University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
e-mail: patricia.holder@unisg.ch; thomas.mazzurana@unisg.ch
O. Moeschler (*)
University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
e-mail: olivier.moeschler@unil.ch

© The Author(s) 2020 1

A. Glauser et al. (eds.), The Sociology of Arts and Markets, Sociology of the Arts,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39013-6_1
2 A. Glauser et al.

sought to discuss the complex and changing relationship between the arts
and the market.1
In analysis of art as well as in common representations of artistic
creation, the market has often been ascribed an ambivalent role. Some
authors have suggested the market brings about the commodification
or even the bondage of art. According to the Frankfurt School, the
“cultural industry”, as an integrated economic and technological sys-
tem, produces and disseminates standardised cultural products aimed
at fulfilling needs that it itself creates from scratch and at encouraging
consumers to conform to dominant norms (Adorno and Horkheimer
1947). In turn, the figure of the “accursed artist” or “artiste maudit”
who continues to create pieces of art even when she or he cannot sell
them, is often presented as the epitome of “authentic” creation. From
this point of view, genuine art only becomes possible by escaping the
market, thanks to non-market support, for instance, in the form of
private grants or state subsidies.
In his seminal analysis of “the rules of art”, which focused specifically
on literature but has a wider scope of application, Pierre Bourdieu (1993)
showed that over time, modern artistic creation has formed relatively
autonomous production fields, establishing a “reversed economy”. In the
latter, art is believed to be valued according to its aesthetic rather than its

1
The scientific committee was, at the time, composed of Andrea Glauser (University of Lucerne),
Jens Kastner (Akademie der bildenden Künste, Vienna), Olivier Moeschler (University of
Lausanne), Alain Quemin (University Paris VIII), Valérie Rolle (London School of Economics),
Ulf Wuggenig (Leuphana University, Lüneburg), and Franz Schultheis, Patricia Holder, and
Thomas Mazzurana (all University of St. Gallen).

V. Rolle
University of Nantes, Nantes, France
e-mail: valerie.rolle@univ-nantes.fr
F. Schultheis
Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany
e-mail: franz.schultheis@zu.de
 1 Introduction 3

economic properties—although, in reality, it never truly escapes eco-

nomic considerations. In the first stage of their structuration, the fields of
cultural production therefore defined their own rules against the expecta-
tions of “bourgeois” and “social art”. They were then more generally struc-
tured according to a constitutive distinction between two subfields, the
subfield of restricted, “pure” production organised around aesthetic
norms and the judgement of peers, and the subfield of a heteronomous
and broader production responding to market-based considerations.
Bourdieu showed that this duality structures the contemporary “market
of symbolic goods” with an ideal-typical opposition between the con-
sumption of the “aesthete” and the quest for entertainment.
Other sociological studies have stressed the central role of the market
in the process of the autonomisation of the arts. Historically, the market
has contributed to the casting off of subordination to religion, the court
and the nobility, an excessively demanding cultural patronage or, some-
times, the state. This was emblematically the case for Mozart. In his
“Sociology of a Genius”, Norbert Elias (1993) showed how the use of
subscriptions and concerts allowed the young composer and musician to
move beyond the dictates of noble patrons. But while Beethoven
(Bourdieu 2001; DeNora 1995), later on, succeeded in becoming an
“entrepreneurial artist”, the musical market was, in Mozart’s time, in its
early stages, which, paradoxically, both drove Mozart’s prodigious
productivity and probably explains his premature death. Svetlana Alpers
(1991) also highlighted the constitutive role market mechanisms can play
for artistic creation, by showing how the division of labour in Rembrandt’s
studio simultaneously reflected and shaped the creation of the market
while sustaining the production of art and the reputation of the master.
As a sort of response to Theodor Adorno, Edgar Morin (1961) described
how, in the “cultural industries” (specifically in cinema), standardised
cultural goods are produced by various categories of actors who thereby
contribute to the creation of a new worldwide public.
The dissemination of artworks requires, as Antoine Hennion (1993)
has argued, numerous “mediators”, including technological and commer-
cial actors: for example, it is not despite but thanks to the modern pho-
nographic industry that a stance of “pure” listening, centred on the
appreciation of music for itself, was made possible by the opportunity
4 A. Glauser et al.

given to individuals to buy, listen to and compare several versions of the

same piece of music at home (Hennion et al. 2000).2 From a sociological
perspective, the market cannot be conceived solely as a set of economic
exchanges responding to the interplay of offer and demand. Indeed, the
market constitutes a broader social structure, a vast network of human
and non-human actors mobilising numerous material devices and col-
lectively elaborated representations and practices (Callon 2017). Art
markets are no exception, and often express more vividly the characteris-
tics and contradictions of the market logic.
For some decades now, certain sociological analyses have brought to
light the consequences of that porosity between art and markets for artists’
career paths. In its way, the “art world” model of Howard Becker (1982)
is an affirmation that art, just like every other occupational sector, is
formed by collaborative chains of various actors interacting together with
shared conventions of production that do not exclude the “social drama
of work”, for example, a disagreement about how things should be done
according to one’s position in the chain of production and consumption
(Hughes 1996). Following Howard Becker’s premise, authors like Pierre-­
Michel Menger (2002) have stressed that the artist is a “worker” like any
other professional, who has to organise herself or himself as an entrepre-
neur, for example, by selling his or her artwork and/or holding multiple
jobs within or outside the field of art. From a broader perspective,
Boltanski and Chiapello (2007) have shown how the mainstream capital-
ist economy has integrated the “artist critique” to managerial injunctions
requiring professionals to be “creative” but also flexible risk-takers in the
face of the precariousness of the labour market. In the last twenty years or
so, the arts have increasingly been discussed as being part of the “cultural
industries” or, more largely, the “creative economy” and thus an impor-
tant area for economic and cultural development.3

2
The scales of appreciation and their translation into market value nevertheless remain what defines
the work of cultural intermediaries, the analysis of which has considerably developed in recent years
(Lizé et al. 2011; Jeanpierre and Roueff 2014).
3
From 2008 on, the United Nations Conference on Trade and development (UNCTAD) has regu-
larly published its “Creative Economy Reports” (see https://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/
Creative-Economy-Report-(Series).aspx). The “cultural and creative industries” are seen by
UNESCO, who published a Creative Economy Report in 2013, as a “new agenda for development”
that can be used for “widening local development pathways” (UNESCO 2013) see https://
en.unesco.org/creativity/events/cultural-creative-industries-new-agenda-development).
 1 Introduction 5

Historical and contemporary relations between the arts and markets are
highly complex and diverse. In which conditions and configurations do
various types of markets play a role in the constitution of art and what dif-
ferent kinds of role do they play? How does “originality”, “nonconformity”,
“authenticity” or “criticism” relate to market settings? What are the situ-
ations and trajectories that characterise the different categories of profes-
sionals contributing to the creation and dissemination of art? What role
do intermediaries such as galleries or art experts, and platforms such as art
fairs play? What about the more and more important place accorded to art
rankings? What specificities can we observe depending on different artis-
tic forms (visual art, music, theatre, literature), national contexts, political
contexts, real conditions of production and larger historical patterns?
The present book explores a much-studied topic in the sociology of the
arts from the standpoint of new empirical case studies in different artistic,
historical and spatial settings. It illuminates the changes that have
occurred lately in various art markets as well as in their sociological
analyses.
Opening Part I, Clara Lévy’s chapter sheds light on the artificial char-
acter of the opposition made in the field of art between artistic recogni-
tion within the subfield of restricted production, and economic success
within the subfield of large-scale production. This is especially the case
for a minor faction of artists (in this chapter the French writer Patrick
Modiano) whose highest awards, such as the Nobel Prize for Literature,
have enabled them, having already attained a certain level of consecra-
tion, to progress to the stage of canonisation. Through analysis of a docu-
mentary corpus of Modiano’s promotional materials and reviews, the
paper shows with particular acuity the strategies put in place by “cultural
intermediaries” (Lizé et al. 2011), such as publishers, to ensure the
conversion of the symbolic value attached to the author, already validated
by national and international appraisals, into a surplus of economic value.
Such a position finally appears to express a proximity neither to the liter-
ary avant-garde nor to the principle of mass consumption. Rather, it
seems to occupy a specific place between recognition (among connois-
seurs) and canonisation (for posterity, in the public sphere) within the
recognition space of the literary field (Denis 2010).
The contribution of Désirée Waibel and Robert Schäfer also deals with
issues of recognition, but this time in the cultural industries market.
6 A. Glauser et al.

Based on analysis of the music video and the lyrics of Beyoncé’s song
Formation (first performed during the Super Bowl in 2016), the paper
shows how the pop artist builds her renown by combining a critical pos-
ture, on an exclusively visual level (referring to historical events revealing
racial inequalities such as slavery or hurricane Katrina), with the aesthetic
conventions of pop music through self-reflection of her star status, on a
lyrical level. These results echo Frith’s analysis (2008) highlighting that
pop music production seeks to create “a simulacrum of emotional con-
nection” between the artist and his or her audience, focusing attention on
the singer (or musicians), beyond the formal aspects of the song.
As noted by Orian Brook, Dave O’Brien, and Mark Taylor, the flip
side of recognition is exclusion. Part II points out the discriminating
power of the market. Through the portrayal of three generations of female
artists selected from a data set of 237 interviews following a large-scale
Internet survey, the three authors highlight the impact of class and gen-
der inequalities, as well as unequal integration into professional networks
in a given area, on cultural workers’ career paths (job opportunities, pay
levels, access to funding, etc.). Peripheralised artists therefore justify
remaining by a (common sense) vocational commitment to their art,
conceived as a passion or “a natural exorcism” (as one interviewee put it)
that needs to be pursued despite economic precariousness. In order to be
successful on the market—be it commercial or cultural—and to acquire
international renown or to exhibit in prominent cultural institutions,
rather than continuing with local networks and exhibitions of artistic col-
lectives, a good “sense of placement” is needed.
In a similar vein, Pierre Bataille, Johannes Hedinger and Olivier
Moeschler highlight the differences in living conditions, integration into
the art market and self-representation for Swiss visual artists. Based on a
national survey, their study confirms the need to hold multiple jobs to
make ends meet for more than two-thirds of the 457 respondents. More
interestingly, it shows the disproportionate number of mostly self-­
financed artists compared to a minority being sponsored by the state and,
above all, by galleries. The latter appear to be more often men than
women, working in a professional field structured around three poles:
market success, institutional support, and lack of professional integra-
tion. Even though they are supported by cultural institutions, women
 1 Introduction 7

under thirty and over sixty years old have more difficulties in finding
success and struggle to be represented in the market.
Linda Dürkop-Henseling emphasises the incompleteness of the mar-
ket as a mirror of the whole range of artistic production. Indeed, many of
the 24 visual artists she met during exploratory research produce artwork
in a professional way without making a living from its sale. By analysing
what she calls the “guiding principles of artistic action”, the author distin-
guishes four types of creators and, therefore, of integration into or prox-
imity/distance to the art market: the “pragmatic artist” who is just
exploiting a gift, the “pragmatic-professional artist” looking for recogni-
tion as a “real” artist, the “critical-professional artist” who offers criticism
within the profession, and the “critical artist” who ambitions to criticise
society with art.
In this regard, the inscription of social trajectories in a situated state of
the market determines the “field of possibilities” within which the artists
project themselves. This space of positions and of “prises de position”
depends, of course, on a broader historical context, as illustrated in Part
III. In Western as in Eastern countries, the market has offered a major
emancipatory light on artists’ horizons as regards the religious or aristo-
cratic powers in place. Takemitsu Morikawa exemplifies this in his study
of the sociocultural changes that occurred in ukiyo-e art (printed paint-
ings) in an emergent publishing market. The Japanese case appears strik-
ingly similar to the “revolutions” induced by the invention of the printing
press as regards the processes of secularisation and individualisation in
modern societies (Goody 1977; Eisenstein 1991). Copying workshops
run by the clergy gave way to the mechanised reproduction of (illus-
trated) books, at first confined to scholars or members of the aristocracy,
until aesthetic changes (notably in the customisation of contents and the
diversification of genres) encouraged their democratisation. At the same
time, the signature of the painter grew in importance.
Anne-Sophie Radermecker places the question of authentication (e.g.
the attribution of an artwork to a single name) at the heart of a paper
looking into the sales of Brueghel the Younger’s paintings in auction
houses. Her study is based on a qualitative discourse analysis of 235 lot
notes produced by the two leading market competitors, Christie’s and
Sotheby’s. Assuming that searching for the artist’s hand is anachronistic
8 A. Glauser et al.

for Renaissance paintings, Radermecker assesses the effects of academic

advances on the selling strategies of salesrooms. However, this “new con-
noisseurship” arising from the use of scientific tools (such as X-ray, infra-
red photography or pigment analysis) has only had a slight impact on the
way the “market of classified art” (Moulin 1992) works. Although today
based on sophisticated levels of identification, it is the belief in the
authenticity of signed work that continues to set the price level estab-
lished by auction houses and agreed upon by collectors.
In her chapter, Séverine Marguin uses the phenomenon of “collective-­
artists” to show the permanency of the contemporary art market econo-
my’s idiosyncrasies. Associations of two or more artists who produce
works of art together and sign them collectively have increased since the
1960s, typically in critical opposition to prevailing notions of authorship
and the idea of the artist as a creative individual genius. Marguin’s central
thesis is that collective authorship—despite different diagnoses and the
recognition of some groups of artists such as Fischli / Weiss and Gilbert
& George—is strongly marginalised in the global field of contemporary
art in general, and in the art market in particular. She supports her thesis
empirically by analysing art market reports and artist rankings such as
Artprice, Kunstkompass and ArtFacts and by investigating the represen-
tation of artist collectives at Art Basel and Documenta in Kassel (two
major institutions in the international art field). The marginalisation of
“collective-artists” is attributed to the fact that individuality still repre-
sents the predominant pattern of creative subjectivity in the field of con-
temporary art—unlike, for example, in the field of music—and that in
the context of the art market, the individual artist functions as a “lever for
economic speculation”.
The world of art galleries and the profession of the gallery owner, cru-
cial to the understanding of the art field, are the subject of three chapters
in Part IV. While all three contributions propose a typology of gallery
owners or galleries, their socio-spatial or world-regional focus and their
research questions differ.
In her contribution, Anna Uboldi analyses galleries in Milan. Based on
interviews and participatory observation and on a theoretical perspective
that combines elements of the “field” concept of Pierre Bourdieu and the
concept of “art worlds” of Howard Becker, she explores the professional
 1 Introduction 9

activities and practical knowledge of gallery owners; furthermore, she is

particularly interested in the self-definitions of the central actors and the
positions and oppositions in the Milanese gallery scene. She identifies the
“integrated gallery owner”, who forms the elite of Milanese art galleries
both symbolically and economically, as having a dominant position in
the field and distinguishes this type from the profile of the “historical”
and the “radical gallery owners”, both of whom occupy a position that
Uboldi characterises as corresponding to a “marginalization in the cen-
ter”. In contrast, “quasi gallery owners” and “aspiring gallery owners”,
who largely lack symbolic recognition in the field, occupy dominated
positions.
Michael Gautier’s chapter studies the professional self-conception of
gallery owners and the question of how affinity to art on the one hand
and business acumen on the other are intertwined. The sample consists of
galleries in Europe and the USA that have been able to establish them-
selves on the international art market over a long period of time and
occupy a dominant position both symbolically and economically. They
function, in the words of Bourdieu (1993, 121), as the main “instances
of consecration”. On the basis of qualitative research (interviews, bio-
graphical analyses), Gautier has reconstructed four different types of gal-
lerists, the “operator”, the “companion”, the “curator-gallerist” and the
“adviser”, and sheds light not only on their self-conceptions, but also on
the social background and educational biographies that are characteristic
of each type.
Linzhi Zhang’s chapter, in turn, draws attention to the emergence of a
gallery scene in China between 1991 and 2016, in an important contri-
bution to research into the globalisation of the art market (Velthuis and
Curioni 2015; Moulin 2003). Zhang argues that the emergence of galler-
ies in China is the result of a process of diffusion in which Western prac-
tices were received and reconfigured by Chinese gallerists. The author
understands diffusion as not simply implying the formation of
homogeneous patterns, but also encompassing processes of adaptation,
modification and rejection, in addition to the dimension of adoption. It
is precisely the reconstruction of such processes that the author is inter-
ested in, bringing to light the differences between two predominant types
of galleries: on the one hand, a variation that she refers to as the
10 A. Glauser et al.

“price-centered model”, which flourished above all in the years of the

market boom but became much less present after 2010; and on the other
hand, the model of “for-profit exhibition spaces”, which since 2010 has
become the formative paradigm. The reconstruction of the genesis and
transformation of these types is based on fieldwork by the author.
Rankings have met with great interest in sociology in recent years.
They now exist in practically all domains of society—in science, regard-
ing cities, in art—and raise questions not only as to their effects, but also
about what is documented within them, especially in connection with
the field of art: what ideas of artistic work and art do they emanate from,
how are these elements operationalised, and how do they then find their
way into rankings (Buckermann 2020)? An important thesis here is that
rankings generate what they claim to represent and measure in the first
place—namely, competition, be it between universities or cities
(Brankovic et al. 2018; Kornberger and Carter 2010)—and that they
represent powerful ordering procedures (Espeland and Sauder 2016,
2007; Heintz 2019).
The two chapters dedicated to this subject in Part V adopt very differ-
ent approaches to the phenomenon. The chapter by Natalie Moureau
critically analyses the phenomenon of rankings in the field of art, focus-
ing on current rankings or indexes such as ArtFacts, Artprice, ARTnews,
ArtReview or Kunstkompass, which are published on the Internet or in
the media. She examines the question of how the proliferation of such
indexes is to be understood in the field of art (as well as in many other
fields of practice). Furthermore, she draws attention, on the one hand, to
the production mechanisms of such rankings, which, as she argues, are
based on simplifications and typically do not make the methodological
approach on which they are based transparent. On the other hand, she is
interested in the effects these rankings produce; she speaks of “perverse
effects”, which she associates, among other things, with the fact that the
evaluated and ranked actors adopt strategies to perform better in the
ranking—strategies “which may be inefficient from a welfare point of view
within the art world”. In addition, she points out that rankings (can) have
problematic consequences insofar as they tend to have “self-fulfilling
effects”, like those Robert K. Merton described in his well-known analysis,
“The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy” (1948), in which he examined the social
 1 Introduction 11

mechanisms that lead to lies becoming true or an originally inadequate

description of a situation becoming reality.
At the centre of Alain Quemin’s chapter is the question of how a rank-
ing can be elaborated consistently on the basis of sociological instruments
and what can be learnt from this in regard to the contours of the art
market—in other words, what possible gains in knowledge for sociologi-
cal studies result from the construction of a ranking. He examines this
through the example of a ranking of galleries in the field of contemporary
art in France, based on the observation that there have been numerous
rankings of artists since the 1970s, but hardly any of galleries. A central
thesis is that the phenomenon of rankings, which is often associated with
journalism and non-scientific procedures, can function as a fruitful
instrument of knowledge in the context of sociological research under
certain conditions.
In Part VI, the last chapters of the volume explore the prevailing
mechanisms and discourses in the field of art in advanced capitalism on
the basis of empirical examples and thus also describe the constraints and
limits of the art market, which sometimes appear, at first glance, to be
spaces of possibility.
Using a collective research carried out on the Basel art fair, Erwin
Single discusses recent changes in the contemporary art market, where art
fairs play a role similar to auction houses in the market of classified art:
they set the value of artists and of their production.4 Salesrooms have
competed with the gallery system of fairs (particularly on the primary
market) since they added contemporary art to their catalogue from the
1980s onwards. However, Single notes that the multiplication of art fairs
(from 3 in 1970 to some 300 at an international level in 2018) contributes
to the weakening of the market, since the success of these events depends
on participation as well as the commercial health of the galleries.
Consequently, art dealers have reoriented their commercial strategies,
reinforcing the globalisation of a henceforward internationalised trade.
While some (the average galleries struggling for recognition) are driven to
4
As shown in the book, cultural intermediaries usually contribute, alongside merchants, to setting
the value of art. Their collaborative relationship nonetheless does not exclude competition favour-
ing the market, observable in the decline of art criticism as well as in the gradual substitution of
salaried museum curators with freelance contractors (Poulard 2007).
12 A. Glauser et al.

close their showrooms if they cannot tie into local networks, others (the
prominent galleries defining the rules of the game) tend to multiply their
group’s subsidiaries abroad (Velthuis 2013).
But such growth in the number of art fairs could not have been
achieved without the arrival all over the world of billionaires whose pur-
chasing behaviour encouraged the financialisation of contemporary art.
These results confirm the observation made elsewhere of the emergence
of a “transnational elite” with a “cosmopolitan cultural capital” (Prieur
and Savage 2013)—that is to say a fraction of wealthy and well-educated
social actors inclined to move out of a national cultural reference frame-
work and contributing, in this way, to a “globalisation of high culture”.5
Even if they are key players in a supply market that cannot exist if it does
not meet their demand, collectors are not addressed in this book. While
they are usually analysed as one of the actors in a wider chain of economic
cooperation (Moulin 1989; Schultheis et al. 2015), recent studies have
focused on the variety of collectors’ profiles, showing they cannot be
reduced to the figure of the “mega-collector” (Moureau et al. 2016).
In his contribution, Denis Hänzi shines the spotlight on the maxim,
prevalent in both artistic and economic worlds, that individuals should
“realize their potential”. Based on examples from the field of theatre, the
educational system and the labour market in general, he discusses the
central role played today by the principle of potential actualisation. He
emphasises that the idea of “promising potentiality” is a new valuation
criterion in late capitalist society and that the figure of the artist is repre-
sented in current discourses as an almost ideal-typical embodiment of
potential to be realised. The central thesis of this contribution is that the
predominance of this maxim sheds light on a paradoxical situation: while
at first glance the maxim stands for the possibility of authentic self-­
realisation, on closer examination it turns out to be a “tricky vehicle for
capitalist commodification”, which actually limits the individual and the
social horizon of possibilities.
In his concluding remarks, Franz Schultheis reflects on the paradoxes
of a market of symbolic goods reaching astronomical figures but refusing

5
This internationalisation is not new, as shown by the historian Christophe Charle (2015); how-
ever, it differs from nineteenth-century trends by its financialisation (Thompson 2008).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 cirrus, 265;
gill, 268;
jaws, 270;
habitat, 286;
as bait, 297
Nereidae, 258, 315;
palps, 260;
colour, 292
Nereidiformia, 258, 303;
vascular system, 252;
anal cirri, 259;
prostomium, 259, 260;
tentacles, 262;
peristomial cirri, 263;
parapodium, 264 f.;
cirri, 265;
chaetae, 266;
jaws, 269;
eyes, 272;
ciliated organ, 273;
regeneration in, 283;
food, 296;
fossil, 301 f.
Nereilepas, 317
Nereis, 246, 299, 301, 316 f.;
anatomy, 245 f., 247 f.;
transverse section, 247;
parapodium, 246, 247, 265, 317;
chaetae, 246;
head, 246, 248, 316;
alimentary canal, 249 f., 251;
jaws, 248, 250, 270, 316;
nervous system, 254, 255;
eye, 255;
vascular system, 247, 251;
dorsal ciliated organ, 247, 254, 256;
nephridium, 253;
 reproduction, 256;
sexually mature, 276, 276 f.;
sexual dimorphism and Heteroneid phase, 276 f.;
epitokous (= epigamous) and atokous phase, 277 n.;
from fresh water, 284;
burrow, 286;
pigment, 292;
as bait, 297;
commensalism, 298;
as host, 299;
British species, 316 f.
Nereites, 302
Nerine, 299, 322;
habitat, 286;
N. vulgaris, head, 322
Nerve plexus of Nemertinea, 103, 105
Nervous system, of Leptoplana, 13, 14;
of Polyclads, 26, 30;
of Planaria lactea, 39;
reduced in parasitic Rhabdocoels, 45;
of Temnocephala, 54;
of Polystomatidae, 56;
of Cestodes, 75, 86;
of Nemertinea, 105, 106;
of Nematoda, 127;
of Gordiidae, 166;
of Acanthocephala, 177;
of Chaetognatha, 187;
of Rotifera, etc., 215, 234, 237;
of Archiannelida, 243, 244;
of Polychaeta, 254;
visceral, of Polychaeta, 255;
of Oligochaeta, 353, 374;
of Gephyrea, 416, 431, 437, 440, 445;
of Phoronis, 456;
of Polyzoa, 471
Neumann, on parasites, 164
Neuropodium, 246, 247, 264, 266, 268
Newton, on zoo-geographical regions, 372
Nicolea, 328;
gill, 329
Nicomache, 332;
tail, 332;
tube, 287;
N. lumbricalis, colour, 292;
distribution, 299
Nitsche, on Polyzoa, 475 n., 478, 500
Nitzschia, 56, 73
Norman, on Polyzoa, 475
Norodonia, 492
Notamia, 518, 526
Noteus, 225
Notholca, 225, 226
Notocotyle, 73
Notomastus, 331;
chaetae, 268
Notommata, 217, 224, 226
Notommatidae, 200, 205, 207, 215, 223, 224
Notophyllum, colour, 293
Notopodium, 246, 247, 264, 265, 268
Notops, 200, 224
Notopygos, 259
Nuchal cirri of Eunicidae, 318;
Nuchal organ—see Ciliated pits

Ocnerodrilus, 383
Octobothrium, 56, 73
Octochaetus, 358, 384
Octocotylinae, 73
Octotrocha, 221
Odontosyllis, reproduction of, 278;
as host, 297.
Oecistes, 205, 206, 221
Oenonites, 302
Oesophageal glands, 271, 358
Ogmogaster, 73
Oka, on Hirudinea, 399 f.;
on Polyzoa, 500
Olfactory pits, in Polyclads, 26;
in Triclads, 36
Oligocelis, 42
Oligochaeta, 241, 347 f.;
external characters, 348;
body-wall, 349;
chaetae, 350, 351;
branchiae, 352;
nervous system, 353;
sense-organs, 354;
coelom and vascular system, 355;
excretory organs, 356;
alimentary canal, 358;
reproductive organs, 360;
habitat, 365;
phosphorescence, 368;
distribution, 369;
classification, 373;
Rotifers parasitic on, 227
Oligocladus, 19, 22
Oligognathus, 297
Ollulanus, 142;
O. tricuspis, 144, 161
Omalostoma, 49
Onchnesoma, 422, 423, 426, 430, 447
Onchocotyle, 73
Oncholaimus, 157
Onchosphaera-larva of Cestodes, 87, 88
Onuphin, 290
Onuphis, 290, 318, 319;
O. conchylega, tube, 287
Onychochaeta, 388;
chaeta, 351
Onyx, 131
Ootype, in Polystomum, 59.
Operculum, of Serpulidae, 261, 276, 339;
of Spirorbis, as brood-pouch, 261, 276;
of Cheilostomata, 466, 477, 481, 482, 522, 524
Opesia, 524
Ophelia, 299, 332;
eggs, 275;
coelomic corpuscles, 252
Opheliidae, 258, 331;
gill, 265;
ciliated pits, 272
Ophiodromus, 308;
O. flexuosus, parasitic, 297
Ophryotrocha, 310, 320;
pelagic, 291;
genital organs, 274
Opisthotrema, 73
Opistoma, 50
Orbigny, D', on Polyzoa, 519, 520
Orifice, of zooecium, 466, 469, 470, 524;
secondary, 522, 524
Örley, on classification of Nematodes, 137
Orthonectidae, 13, 92, 94 f.
Otocyst (and Otolith), of Turbellaria, 26;
of Nemertinea, 106, 110;
of Polychaeta, 273
Otomesostoma, 46, 49
Otoplana, 50
Oudemans, on Nemertinea, 108
Ovary (and Oviduct), of Leptoplana, 11, 14, 16;
of Polyclads, 27;
of Planaria, 38, 39;
of Rhabdocoelida, 47;
of Temnocephala, 54;
of Polystomatidae, 57;
of Diplozoon, 60;
 of Gyrodactylus, 61;
of Distomum macrostomum, 65;
of Calliobothrium, 75;
of Archigetes, 76;
of Schistocephalus, 86;
of Rhopalura, 95;
of Myzostoma, 343—see also Reproductive organs
Ovicell, in Cheilostomata, 466, 466, 468, 481, 482, 484, 522 f.,
525;
in Cyclostomata, 479, 480, 521, 525
Oviduct—see Ovary
Owenia, 325
Ox, parasites of, 79, 83, 125, 139, 140, 143
Oxysoma, 139, 142
Oxyuris, 129, 131, 135, 139, 141, 160;
O. ambigua, 141;
O. curvula, 141, 163;
O. diesingi, 141, 142;
O. vermicularis, 141, 163;
O. blattae, O. blatticola, O. hydrophili, O. megatyphlon,
O. spirotheca, 142

Paddle worm, 313

Paedogenesis, 151
Pagenstecher, on Nemertinea, 99
Palaemonetes, host of Nectonema, 174
Palaeonemertea, 109, 112;
characters, 111;
development, 113
Palaeozoic, Serpulidae, 301;
Eunicidae, 302;
Polyzoa, 520
Paleae, of Sabellaria, 267
Palmicellaria, 527, 528
Palolo viridis, as food, 297
Palps, of Nereis, 248, 255;
nerves to, 254;
 of Polychaeta, 260 f.;
development of, in Sabelliformia, 275;
of Hermelliformia, 306;
of Syllidae, 307
Paludicella, 492, 494, 501, 502, 505, 518
Paludicola, 30, 42
Panthalis, 313
Paragnaths, 248, 250, 316
Parapodium, of Nereis, 246, 247;
of Polychaeta, 264 f.;
of Heteronereid, 276, 277;
muscles of, 247;
glands of, 249, 314;
of Myzostoma, 342
Paraseison, 212, 225, 226
Parasitic, Turbellaria, 51;
Polyclads, 22;
Triclads, 32;
Rhabdocoela, 45, 51;
Nemertinea, 101, 119;
Rotifers, 204, 227;
Polychaeta, 297;
Leeches, 406
Parasitism, effect on the parasite, 161, 177;
effects on the host, 162
Parenchyma, in Leptoplana, 11, 12;
of Müller's larva, 29;
in Triclads, 41;
in Acoela, 42;
in Cestodes, 85, 86
Parovaria, of Phagocata, 38 n.
Parthenogenesis, amongst Rotifers, 200
Pectinaria, 330;
body, 259;
tube, 285, 287;
P. auricoma, tube, 288;
P. belgica, 330
Pectinatella, 496, 497, 505, 512, 518;
statoblast, 502
Pedalion, 200, 201, 206, 211, 216, 223, 224, 225, 228, 230
Pedalionidae, 223
Pedetes, 224
Pedicellina, 487, 488, 490, 506, 507, 518;
larva, 510, 513;
budding, 514;
on Polychaeta, 299
Pelagic, Nemertinea, 101, 114;
Chaetognatha, 189; Rotifera, 226;
Polychaeta, 291, 294, 314;
larvae of Polychaeta, 300, of Polyzoa, 520
Pelagobia, 314
Pelagonemertes, 101, 114
Pelodera, 129, 131, 133
Pelodrilus, 369, 377
Pelodytes, 134
Penis, of Leptoplana, 14, 15;
of Polyclads, 27;
of Planaria, 38, 39;
of Rhabdocoelida, 47;
of Temnocephala, 54;
of Calliobothrium, 75;
of Schistocephalus (cirrus-sac), 86
Pennant, on Hirudinea, 406 n.
Pereyaslawzewa, on Acoela, 44 n.
Pergens, on Polyzoa, 500
Perichaeta, 351, 357, 358, 372, 381, 381 f., 388, 394, 403
Perichaetidae, 357, 362, 380
Perienteric, blood-sinus, 252
Perionyx, 381
Perissogaster, 383
Peristome, 481, 482, 522, 524
Peristomial (tentacular) cirri, of Nereis, 248;
of Polychaeta, 263;
nerves to, 254
Peristomium, of Nereis, 248;
of Polychaeta, 263;
of Sabellidae, 336
Perrier, on Oligochaeta, 367, 385
Petalostoma, 422, 426, 430, 447
Petromyzon, host of Gordius, 173
Petta, intestine of, 271
Phagocata, 31, 32
Phalacrophorus, 314
Phanerocephala, 258, 303
Pharynx, 4;
of Leptoplana, 8, 9, 12, 14;
of Polyclads, 17, 24;
of Discocelis, 23;
development of, in Polyclads, 29, 30;
of Triclads, 31, 37, 39;
of Temnocephala, 53, 54;
of Polystomatidae, 56;
of Digenea, 62, 64;
of Nereis, 249, 250, 251;
of Polychaeta, 269
Phascolion, 423, 425, 428
Phascolosoma, 416, 420, 423, 425, 428, 447;
as host of Loxosoma, 489
Philippi, on Hirudinea, 406
Philodina, 208, 222, 227
Philodinidae, 222
Phoronis, 450 f., 451, 452, 453, 455;
habits, 451;
anatomy, 453 f., 457;
development, 458, 458;
species, 460;
affinities, 461, 512
Phosphorescence (and light-producing organs), in Rotifers, 226;
in Polychaeta, 272, 295, 296;
in Oligochaeta, 368;
in Polyzoa, 478
Photodrilus, 368, 383
Photogen (light-producing organ), of Polyophthalmus, 272;
of Tomopteris, 296, 315
Phreodrilus, 369, 379
Phreoryctes, 367, 377
Phreoryctidae, 376
Phylactella, 528, 530
Phylactolaemata, 476, 493 f., 518;
lophophore, 476, 495;
occurrence, 493;
movements, 494, 496 f.;
reproduction, 501, 506, 507;
larva, 511, 512;
distribution, 493, 504;
affinities, 512
Phyllacanthinae, 91
Phyllobothrinae, 91
Phyllobothrium, 76 n., 91
Phyllocotyle, 73
Phyllodoce, 313, 314;
head, 262, 263:
eggs, 275, 314 n.;
colours, 291, 292;
parapodium, 264;
chaeta, 267
Phyllodocidae, 258, 313;
parapodial cirri, 266;
as food, 297;
eggs, 314;
colours, 292, 293
Phyllodocites, 302
Phyllonella, 73
Phymosoma, 413, 420, 421, 423 f., 425, 426
Physaloptera, 163
Pig, parasites of, 68, 79, 139, 147, 184
Pigments, of Polychaeta, 291 f.;
of Gephyrea, 435
Pike, Trematode of, 62;
Cestode of, 81, 84
Pilidium larva, 113, 113, 229, 230
Pionosyllis, 308
Piscicola, 393, 406
Pista, 328;
gill of, 329
Pits, ciliated, of Polychaeta, 272, 273
Placostegus, colour, 292;
from deep sea, 300
Placunella, 73
Plagiochaeta, 358, 381, 384
Plagiostoma, 46;
British species, 50
Plagiostomatidae, 50
Planaria, 30, 31 f., 39;
British species, 42
Planarians, 3, 7;
Dinophilus, compared with, 242, 243
Planariidae, 42
Planctoplana, 19
Plankton, Rotifers in, 225
Planocera, 18, 19, 20
Planoceridae, 19, 23
Planorbis, host of Gordius, 173
Plants, parasites on, 154, 155, 157, 160
Plasmodium, nature of, in Orthonectids, 94
Plate, on Rotifers, 198, 225 n.
Platyaspis, 73
Platycotyle, 73
Platyhelminthes, 3 f.;
Nemertinea classed with, 119
Plectanocotyle, 73
Plectus, 160
Pleionogaster, 381
Plerocercoid larva, 84
Plessis, du, on Tetrastemma lacustre, 101 n., 118
Pleurocotyle, 73
Pleurotrocha, 224, 226
Ploesoma, 212, 225
Ploima, 202, 203, 212, 213, 216, 220, 223, 226, 227
Plumatella, 493, 494, 499, 503-505, 518, 519;
protrusion of polypides, 499;
statoblasts, 499, 502, 503;
larva, 512
Podal membrane, of Spionidae, 322
Podaxonia, 461
Polyarthra, 201, 224, 226
Polybostrichus, 280
Polycelis, 30, 31, 40, 42
Polychaeta, 241, 245 f.;
classification, 257, 258, 303 f,;
head, 248, 259 f.;
parapodium, 246, 264 f.;
chaetae, 246, 266 f.;
coelomic fluid, 252;
nervous system, 254;
sense-organs, 255, 272;
ciliated pits, 272;
alimentary canal, with pharynx, 249, 250, 251, 269, 270, 271;
oesophageal glands, 271 f.;
nephridium, 253, 254, 269, 274;
genital duct, 254, 269;
genital cells, 256, 273 f.;
hermaphrodite, 273;
regeneration, 278, 282;
habits, 285;
carnivorous, 304;
distribution, 299;
from fresh water, 284;
from deep sea, 300;
pelagic, 291, 314;
boring, 287;
tubes, 287;
pigments, 291;
colours, 291 f.;
warning colours, 294;
protective devices and mimicry, 293;
phosphorescent, 295;
food of, 296, 299;
as bait, 296, 297;
as food for man, 297;
commensalism, 297 f.;
 parasitic, 297 f.;
as hosts, 299;
extinct, 301, 302;
larva, 274, 276, 300;
provisional chaetae, 274
Polychoerus, 49;
development of, 44 n.
Polycirrus, 330;
habits of, 285;
P. aurantiacus, warning colours, 294;
phosphorescence, 295;
P. haematodes, coelomic corpuscles, 253
Polycladida (Polyclads), 4 f., 7;
classification, 16 f.;
development, 28 f.;
British species, 19, 20, 22
Polycladus, 42
Polycotyle, 73
Polydora (= Leucodore), 323;
frontal ridge, 260;
head, 261;
special chaetae, 267;
with Heliopora, 298;
P. ciliata, borings, 287
Polydoridae, 258, 323
Polygordius, 242, 244;
development, 245
Polymnia, 328
Polymorphism, of Nereis, 277
Polymyarii, 137, 142
Polynoe 310;
segments 258;
parapodium, 265;
jaws, 270;
anus, 259;
nephridium, 254;
habits, 286;
 as ectoparasites or commensals, 294, 298, 325;
distribution, 299, 300;
British species, 299, 310 f.;
P. squamata, 309;
elytron, 310;
P. clava, elytron, 310;
P. imbricata, elytron, 311
Polynoina (= Polynoids), 309;
head, 262;
chaetae, 266, 267;
jaw, 270;
intestine, 271; eggs, 275;
sexual dimorphism, 276 n.;
tubes, 285;
colours, 291, 292;
protective resemblance, 294;
phosphorescence, 295, 296;
food, 296;
parasitic and commensal, 297, 325;
elytra, 275, 294, 295, 299, 309 f.
Polyodontes, 313 n.
Polyophthalmus, 332;
segmental eyes, 272, 296;
otocyst, 273
Polype à pannache, 496
Polypide, 468, 469, 474, 488, 523;
retraction and protrusion, 498 f.
Polypide-bud, 468, 472, 487, 496, 499, 501, 510;
connected with reproduction, 507
Polypostia, 19;
penes, 27
Polystomatidae, 53, 55, 73
Polystomatinae, 73
Polystomum, 55, 57;
life-history, 58, 59
Polyzoa, 465 f., 475;
external characters, 465 f., 479 f.;
 anatomy, 468 f., 469;
brown bodies, 471 f., 472;
history, 474 f.;
classification, 475 f., 515, 517 f.;
occurrence, 477 f.;
avicularia and vibracula, 482;
enemies, 486;
Entoprocta, 487;
fresh water, 492 f.;
reproduction, 501, 506;
development, 509;
affinities, 461, 509, 510;
metamorphosis, 512;
budding, 514;
distribution, 493, 504, 519;
palaeontology, 520;
terminology, 523;
determination of British genera, 505, 521, 525
Pomatoceros, habitat, 300, 340
Pompholyx, 201, 203, 225
Pontobdella, 393, 401, 404, 406
Pontodora, 314
Pontodrilus, 366, 370, 383
Pontoscolex, 350, 366, 387 f.;
chaeta, 351
Pore, in Polyzoa, 471, 482, 522, 524;
median, 484, 524;
dorsal, 348
Porella, 516, 518, 522, 527, 529
Porina, 518, 527, 529
Potamilla, 338
Praeoral lobe (= Prostomium), 245, 439
Predaceous worms, 304
Priapuloidea, 412, 446;
anatomy, 430;
classification, 432;
habits, 433
Priapulus, 430, 431, 432;
anatomy, 430 f.
Pristina, 377
Proales, 204, 224, 226, 227
Proboscidae, 49;
occurrence, 44
Proboscis, of Nemertinea, 100, 101 f., 103 f.;
of Hoplonemertea, 104, 110;
opening by mouth, 117, 119;
severance of, 116;
of Acanthocephala, 174 f.;
of Rotifers, 203;
of Kinorhyncha, 237;
of Echiuroidea, 434
Proboscis-pore of Nemertinea, 102, 103
Proboscis-sheath of Nemertinea, 103, 103 f.
Procerodes, 42
Procerodidae, 42
Procerus, host of Gordius, 172
Procotylea, 36, 42
Proglottis, 5, 74, 75, 79, 85
Promesostoma, occurrence, 44;
British species, 49
Proporidae, 49
Proporus venenosus, 49
Prorhynchidae, 49
Prorhynchus sphyrocephalus, terrestrial habit, 44;
P. stagnalis, 49
Prosorhochmus claparedii, 110, 114, 117
Prostate-gland, of Leptoplana, 16;
of Polyclads, 30;
of Planaria, 39;
of Rhabdocoela, 47;
of Oligochaeta, 361
Prostheceraeus, 19, 22;
spermatophores, 27
Prosthiostomatidae, 19
Prosthiostomum, 17, 18, 19, 24
Prostomial tentacles, 248, 262
Prostomium, 241;
of Dinophilus, 243;
of Polygordius, 244;
of Trochosphere, 245;
of Nereis, 248;
of Polychaeta, 259;
of Glyceridae, 320;
of Terebellidae, 327;
of Oligochaeta, 348
Protodrilus, 242, 244
Protonemertini, 112
Protula, 341;
genital organs, 273, 274;
eggs, 275
Prouho, on Polyzoa, 489, 507 f.
Provisional chaetae, 274
Provortex, British species, 50
Proxenetes, 44;
British species, 49
Pruvot, on Polychaeta, 261
Psamathe, 300, 308
Psammolyce, 313;
elytra, 294, 313
Pseudalius, 135, 142, 163
Pseudaxine, 73
Pseudoceridae, 19, 20
Pseudoceros, 19, 20
Pseudocotyle, 73
Pseudorhynchus bifidus, 49
Psygmobranchus, 341
Pterobranchia, 461
Pterodina, 200, 201, 203, 206, 211, 215, 216, 225, 226, 230
Pterodinidae, 201, 225
Pteroessa, 224
Pteronella, 73
Pterostichus niger, infested by Gordius, 170, 170, 172
Pterosyllis, ciliated lappets, 273 n.
Pyriform organ, 509, 511

Quatrefages, on Gephyrea, 411, 445

Rabbit, parasites of, 141, 145

Ragworm, 322
Railliet, on Cestodes, 91
Rami, in Rotifers, 210
Rasping plate, of Eunicidae, 270
Rattulidae, 210, 225
Rattulus, 212, 225, 226
Ratzel, on Earthworms, 350
Red Cat, 316
Regeneration of lost parts, in Polyclads, 26;
in Triclads, 40;
in Cestodes, 77;
in Nemertinea, 115;
in Polychaeta, 278, 282;
in Oligochaeta, 348, 379;
in Polyzoa, 471, 488
Repetition of parts, 249
Replacement of species, 300
Reproduction (and Reproductive organs), of Leptoplana, 14 f.;
of Polyclads, 26, 30;
of Triclads, 31, 38, 39;
of Rhabdocoelida, 45, 47 f.;
of Temnocephala, 54;
of Polystomatidae, 57 f.;
of Diplozoon, 60;
of Digenea, 65;
of Calliobothrium, 75;
of Schistocephalus, 86;
of Mesozoa, 93 f.;
of Nemertinea, 102, 103, 104, 109;
of Nematoda, 134;
 of Nematomorpha, 166, 169;
of Acanthocephala, 178;
of Chaetognatha, 188;
of Rotifera, etc., 216, 234, 238;
of Archiannelida, 243 f.;
of Polychaeta, 253, 254, 256, 269, 273;
of Myzostoma, 343;
of Oligochaeta, 360;
of Leeches, 401;
of Gephyrea, 418, 431, 437;
of Phoronis, 457;
of Polyzoa, 471, 490, 501, 506—see also Ovary and Asexual
reproduction
Reptiles, parasites of, 163
Respiration, in Nereis, 252;
in Chaetopoda, 272;
in Gephyrea, 416
Retepora, 479, 515, 518, 527
Rhabdites (rods), of Leptoplana, 11, 12;
in Polyclads, 29;
in Triclads, 37;
absent in parasitic Rhabdocoela, 45;
in Temnocephala, 53, 54
Rhabditiformae, 137
Rhabditis, 154, 160;
R. nigrovenosa, 140, 155
Rhabdocoelida, 4, 7, 36, 42 f.;
occurrence and habits, 43;
parasitic forms, 44;
reproduction, 47;
classification, 49;
British species, 43, 44, 49
Rhabdogaster, 158
Rhabdonema nigrovenosum, 134, 136, 140, 151, 160, 161
Rhabdopleura, 461 f.
Rhinodrilus, 348
Rhinopidae, 220 n., 224