Beyond ontological, grandiloquent or indeed “neurasthenic” concepts of art, IAE espouses a systemic and pragmatic, but no less passionate, notion: art is defined as everything that arises within the “art” system, that is made, named or perceived as art, and that is produced or reviewed about art. Beyond the confines of a genius-based, static concept of the work of art, this focuses attention on a wide range of phenomena and practices, which are explored at IAE in terms of their relevance for education processes. This definition of art presupposes a discussion of the historical context of the definitions and legitimation strategies used within the system of “art”, and with the rules of the art field itself:
“In the sociology of art, this web of interrelationships is often described using the term ‘art field’, coined by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. He used the term ‘social field’ to characterize a (largely) autonomous sphere of social life, for example the ‘field’ of the economy, politics, art, etc. Each of these fields has its own rules governing the actions of the agents within it. These rules lay down which behaviours will be rewarded, and which will be punished. A social field is therefore not just a space in which the agents happily disport themselves, but a field of conflict, in which agents compete and struggle with each other to preserve or change power relations. As in any sporting contest, the player’s respective chances of winning are crucially dependent on the resources at their disposal, or in Bourdieu’s specific terminology, the ‘capital’ they can contribute. One of the peculiarities of the art field is that the possession of money (economic capital) is downplayed as compared with culture and education (cultural capital), integration in social networks (social capital) and acknowledgement by others (symbolic capital). This does not mean that economic factors are unimportant (quite the contrary), but they are nonetheless disapproved of in the competition for high positions. Hence, it is easy to see why in the art field, for example, small and financially weak institutions can gain a profile as particularly avant-garde and influential, while at the same time remaining excluded from the sales revenue generated in the art market.
While the art field operates according to its own inherent laws, it is permeable towards and in constant contact with other fields. The political and economic fields in particular exercise a strong influence on developments in the art field, by defining the institutional setting and individual survival requirements for the players.” (Wanda Wieczorek in: Learning from Kassel. Leitfaden zur Verzahnung von politischer und kultureller Bildung (Learning from Kassel. Guidelines on the integration of political and cultural education, 2009.)