
What counts as art is not simply a matter of individual taste or artistic intent but the result of a complex web of social, cultural, and economic systems. Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital—the resources of knowledge, skills, and cultural awareness that confer status and power—provides a useful framework for understanding how certain creative expressions gain legitimacy while others are marginalized. In art, cultural capital operates through institutional gatekeeping, economic structures, and deeply entrenched histories of power, perpetuating hierarchies that shape what is seen, valued, and remembered as “art.”
This article examines the historical and sociological underpinnings of cultural capital in the arts, the mechanisms that define what “counts” as art, and how artists and audiences navigate these dynamics in creative fields.
The Concept of Cultural Capital
French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu developed the concept of cultural capital in Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. He argued that taste is not inherent but socially constructed, functioning as a tool of distinction to reinforce class hierarchies. In other words, what is considered “good art” often reflects the preferences and values of those in power, rather than any objective measure of quality.
Bourdieu identified three forms of cultural capital:
1. Embodied Capital: The internalized knowledge, appreciation, and taste for art and culture, often acquired through education and upbringing.
2. Objectified Capital: Cultural goods, such as artworks, books, or instruments, that carry social value and signify cultural competence.
3. Institutionalized Capital: Formal qualifications, credentials, or recognition that confer legitimacy, such as art degrees, awards, or inclusion in major collections.
In the arts, cultural capital determines who is considered an artist, what art is considered valuable, and how that value is communicated and sustained across generations.
What Counts as Art? The Role of Gatekeepers
The question of what counts as art is mediated by cultural gatekeepers: critics, curators, educators, institutions, and collectors who wield disproportionate influence in shaping the artistic canon. These gatekeepers, often rooted in elite institutions, have historically defined and upheld narrow standards of artistic legitimacy.
The Academy and the Artistic Canon
Art academies, universities, and museums have long played a central role in defining the canon—the collection of works deemed exemplary and worth preserving. This process is not neutral. Historically, the canon has been shaped by Eurocentric and patriarchal biases that marginalize non-Western, non-male, and nontraditional art forms.
Linda Nochlin’s seminal essay, Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?, argues that the exclusion of women from art history is not due to an inherent lack of ability but systemic barriers to education, mentorship, and professional opportunities. Nochlin observes, “The very idea of greatness is premised on structures that exclude women, people of color, and the working class from accessing the tools and networks needed to achieve such status.”
Similarly, non-Western art traditions have often been excluded from the canon or relegated to the category of “ethnographic” or “folk” art. For example, Indigenous Australian art was dismissed for decades as craft or decoration until it was recognized by Western institutions in the late 20th century. Even then, the recognition was often conditional on aligning the work with Western artistic frameworks, erasing its cultural and spiritual significance.
Critics and Curators as Gatekeepers
Art critics and curators serve as intermediaries between artists and audiences, shaping public perceptions of what is valuable. Their preferences and choices often reflect their own cultural capital, perpetuating cycles of exclusion. In Ways of Curating, Hans Ulrich Obrist notes, “Curators have the power to frame the conversation around art, deciding what gets shown, how it is contextualized, and who has access to it.”
For example, the predominance of white, male curators in major art institutions has historically resulted in exhibitions that reflect their worldviews, sidelining the perspectives and practices of marginalized artists. Efforts to diversify curatorial leadership have been slow, with a 2019 Mellon Foundation survey revealing that 84% of curators in U.S. museums were white.
The Market and the Construction of Value
While cultural capital determines what is seen as legitimate art, economic capital often determines its visibility and reach. The art market—a network of galleries, auction houses, and collectors—plays a significant role in shaping public perceptions of value.
The Feedback Loop of Price and Prestige
The art market often creates a feedback loop in which financial value reinforces cultural value. High auction prices signal prestige, drawing attention from critics, curators, and institutions, which in turn further inflate market demand. This cycle disproportionately benefits a small number of artists while leaving many others invisible.
Art historian Sarah Thornton, in Seven Days in the Art World, critiques this dynamic: “The market confers legitimacy by assigning a monetary value to art, but it does so in a way that often excludes innovation and diversity in favor of established names and trends.”
The Role of Patronage
Private collectors and patrons have historically exerted significant influence over the art world, using their financial capital to shape cultural institutions. For example, the Guggenheim and Rockefeller families played pivotal roles in promoting abstract expressionism in the mid-20th century, aligning the movement with American cultural and political interests during the Cold War.
This intersection of economic and cultural capital raises questions about who gets to define artistic value and whose interests are served in the process.
Power and Exclusion: Who Gets to Count as an Artist?
The question of what counts as art is inseparable from the question of who gets to count as an artist. Systemic inequities in access to education, resources, and networks mean that many artists—particularly women, artists of color, and those from working-class backgrounds—struggle to gain recognition.
Colonial Frameworks and Cultural Appropriation
Colonial histories have profoundly shaped the ways in which non-Western art is valued and consumed. Artifacts and cultural expressions from colonized regions were often removed from their contexts, reclassified as “primitive” or “exotic,” and displayed in Western museums.
Linda Tuhiwai Smith, in Decolonizing Methodologies, critiques this process as “the extraction of cultural knowledge for the benefit of imperial powers, erasing the agency and voices of those who created it.” Even today, non-Western art often gains visibility only when mediated by Western institutions or aligned with Western aesthetics.
The Role of Representation
Efforts to diversify representation in the art world have gained momentum in recent years, but challenges remain. Tokenism—where artists from marginalized groups are included superficially to meet diversity goals—can undermine genuine inclusion. As artist and activist Edgar Heap of Birds argues, “Representation without agency perpetuates the same power structures it claims to challenge.”
Cultural Capital and the Future of Art
The systems that determine what counts as art are deeply entrenched, but they are not immutable. Artists, audiences, and institutions have the power to challenge these structures and expand the boundaries of cultural legitimacy.
Decentering the Canon
Efforts to decolonize the art world involve rethinking the canon and amplifying voices that have been historically excluded. This includes:
• Recognizing and valuing non-Western art traditions on their own terms, rather than through Western frameworks.
• Expanding educational curricula to include diverse perspectives and practices.
• Supporting initiatives that prioritize underrepresented artists and communities.
Redistributing Power
Addressing inequities in the art world requires redistributing power at all levels, from funding and curation to education and policy. This includes:
• Funding grassroots and community-led art initiatives.
• Diversifying leadership in cultural institutions.
• Challenging market-driven models of value that prioritize profit over equity.
Conclusion: Rethinking What Counts as Art
What counts as art is not a fixed truth but a construct shaped by cultural, economic, and institutional forces. Understanding the role of cultural capital in this process reveals how power operates in the art world and how it can be challenged. By critically examining the systems that define artistic value, we can create a more inclusive and equitable future for creative fields—one that celebrates diversity, fosters innovation, and values all forms of artistic expression.
Works Cited
• Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard University Press, 1984.
• Nochlin, Linda. “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” Art News, 1971.
• Obrist, Hans Ulrich. Ways of Curating. Penguin Books, 2014.
• Thornton, Sarah. Seven Days in the Art World. W.W. Norton & Company, 2008.
• Tuhiwai Smith, Linda. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books, 1999.
• Zukin, Sharon. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Opmerkingen