Includes artistic creativity and combinatorial creativity


Film, photography, body, creativity, artist, originality, popular culture, postmodernism, process, audience, sociology

Andreas Reckwitz / 2012


The artist myth between the exclusive figure and generalization tendencies
The classic-modern artistic creativity regime, which is valid until the beginning of the 20th century, consists of five different elements, some of which are in a state of tension with one another.15 The narrative of the ›birth‹ of the modern artist has often been told - it can be reconstructed as a genealogy of a specifically modern artistic creativity regime that vacillates between the exclusive figure and generalization tendencies:

1. The artist as Creator of the unique: The artist model as it was from the Renaissance16 and then driven by romanticism, the artist lays down individuality, originality and expressiveness, and in the end also genius and authenticity.17 The demarcation here applies to a traditional aesthetic of imitation that identified artistic acts with the reproduction of a recognized canon of rules. When emphatic semantics of individuality emerge, especially at the end of the 18th century, then the artist appears as its paradigmatic figure. This classic artist figure contains a 'productivist' and an 'aesthetic' element in varying proportions: the artist trains himself - with religious connotations - as a 'creator', i. H. as a producer of unique works. This creative power is also at the center of the semantics of genius. At the same time it forms in an unusually sensitized perception, in an ›imagination‹,18 which in turn enables him to be creative.
Both in its productivist and in its aesthetic element, the artistic-creative practice is clearly assigned to a subject, there is a focus on an ›author‹ of the creative and aesthetic processes, an author with a specific psychological inner world and a singular biography. The figure of the artist as the unique creator of the unique, as it led to the widespread mythologization of the - current, but even more of the historical - artist in the 19th century in front of a bourgeois audience, thus unites the designation of exemplary properties that at the same time for the The majority - and not only for the masses, but also for the bourgeois audience - remain fundamentally inaccessible. The classical-modern artist has in some respects an auratic structure in the sense of Benjamin: he stays away, however close he may get to the audience.
Artists and creativity are thus clearly assigned to the field of art, which takes the form of a complex of highly specialized, autonomous practices that are at a distance from handicrafts, journalism or other related practices. The artist thus becomes a non-generalizable special subject, but at the same time, since the end of the 18th century at the latest, he has assumed a status far beyond a mere functional role for the symbolic and imaginary of Western culture: On the one hand, he appears as a projection surface for increased creative individualism which for the bourgeois public has both libidinal connotations and is in fact inaccessible. On the other hand, he envisions the possibilities of human ›imagination‹ beyond those areas that still seem culturally acceptable. In this respect, the artist's myth already appears ambiguous on this first level: it reflects an individualistic ideal ego, which, however, is only accessible to fascinated observation, not to imitation. At the same time, he presents himself as a supplier of culturally divergent ideas and images, who tests the limits of the previously acceptable bourgeois subject model and what can be represented in it imaginatively.
2. Creativity as the bearer of an aesthetic utopia: Since 1800, the discourse of an »aesthetic utopia« has developed in close connection with the model of the artist as an individual creator, but at the same time in a significant difference to him.19 The aesthetic and creative aspect appears here as a cultural counter-principle, a cultural revolutionary principle, which is interpreted at the same time as the appearance of a reconciled state. This utopia of a creative and at the same time aesthetically sensitized culture is hinted at in Rousseau, then in Schillers "On the Aesthetic Education of Man" brought into a theoretically worked out form,20 it is also found in the romantic philosophies of Fichte and Schelling. Other versions are formulated in Saint-Simon's earlier idea of ​​the artist as avant-garde and in Nietzsche and Bergson's philosophy of life. Aestheticism and its concept of autonomous art as well as the avant-gardes with their respective opposing ideas of a transformation of art into practical life stand in this tradition of an aesthetic utopia as a counterforce to a rationalized and thereby alienated modernity.
In contrast to the artist's paradigm as a unique creator, the aesthetic utopia subjects the figure of a creative subject to a resolute universalization. Regardless of which semantics are used here in detail - creation, imagination, perception, life, etc. - the idea is forced that creative-playful liveliness is a universally valid reality and at the same time generalizable normativity that potentially every subject as a human being can and should update. Even if exclusive figures appear again and again - for example in Nietzsche's »Übermenschen« - and even if the social foundations for a comprehensive realization of the aesthetic and creative in the 19th century are missing, there is a tendency to create a creative and aesthetic faculty of ›man‹ to be proclaimed as a universal basis - a universalization whose later extension in the 1970s was Joseph Beuys' wish that »every person should be a sculptor«.21 Until the end of the 19th century, these aesthetic utopias remained largely a culture-critical special discourse, and it was only the avant-garde movements at the beginning of the 20th century that attempted to transform "art in practical life" (P. Bürger) beyond the field of art do.22
3. The artist as an anti-bourgeois counter-figure: Since the end of the 18th century, another - complementary as well as competing - element of the classical artist myth has been the opposition between artist and citizen, artist and philistine. In the Parisian bohemian of the 19th century it finds its expression in a corresponding social microcosm.23 The artist perceives himself as a social figure facing a dominant class, and he is perceived as such. It sees itself as anti-hegemonic and can only exist in the self-chosen and self-confident position of social and cultural marginality. At the same time, it is also perceived by bourgeois culture as such an anti-hegemonic, 'subversive' element and is thus placed under suspicion. The artist subject here presupposes the antagonism between the Philistine majority culture and the aesthetic minority culture.
At this level it is not a matter of universalization, but on the contrary a social and political variant of the exclusive figure, which is now not justified in a psychological and genuinely religious way, but in a sociological and cultural revolutionary way. In the extreme, the artist can present himself here as an ›misunderstood genius‹, as an ›artist suffering from society‹, who is ahead of his time and who is only recognized posthumously.24 At the same time, the polarity between the bohemian artist and the bourgeoisie shifts the focus of what is perceived as essential for the artist and what he himself perceives as essential: It is less the work that has been created, but rather the artist's lifestyle and his self-portrayal in front of an urban audience which appear here as the genuinely artistic, not productivity, but the ›artist's existence‹ in which the artist becomes the object of his own creative design. In the context of bohemian and counterculture, art is not a functional system, but a milieu-like way of life, a subculture. The signifying practices accordingly focus on an aesthetic structuring of this everyday practice.
4. The Pathologization of the artist: In parallel to the emphatic mythologization of the artist as an original genius and bohemian, a pathologization with opposing content emerged in the course of the 19th century, which, however, formally shares the definition of the creative subject on an exclusive figure. This pathologization runs in an individual-psychological vocabulary: The creative, aesthetically sensitized person is introduced as a risky subject, in the double sense of risk for himself and for society.25 Here the still moderate topos of the »suffering« or »depressed« artist can be classified as well as the radical pathologizations of ›genia e follia‹ in Lombroso and finally the defamation of the ›degeneration‹ of the artist as a psychologically, morally and culturally degenerate figure. The pathologization - which also ties in with old, still ancient motifs of artistic and intellectual ›melancholy‹26 - provides a reaction of the bourgeois hegemony to the challenge of the combination of artistic creation myth and countercultural bohemian, which at the same time benefits from the anti-individualism of the new psychological-biological scientism. This combination can be understood as an attempt to delegitimize central cultural patterns of bourgeois majority culture (morality, work, marriage, rationality, etc.). The moderate to aggressive pathologization of the artist then works on a corresponding ›delegitimization of the delegitimizers‹ by measuring the subject against standards of alleged psychological and moral normality. The artist's character of deviation is now reinterpreted from an award into a risk, and the deviation is in turn projected into the “inside” of the subject.
5. The marketing of the artist as an object of an audience: The prerequisite for the emergence of the modern artist subject is the structural change in the entire artistic field from an aristocratic and sacred art of patronage to a bourgeois art market.27 This development began in the middle of the 18th century and culminated at the end of the 19th century in the differentiation of the art field into an art for the large, popular and one for the small, critical-elitist audience, as Pierre Bourdieu described in »Die Rules of Art ”(1999).28 The artist's subject is thus placed in an ambivalent constellation: On the one hand, independence from individual clients enables the 'expressive' work of art born of one's own individuality. On the other hand, however, the artist sees himself pushed into the role of an object in front of an unpredictable, impersonal audience. This applies to the visual arts as well as to literature. It is then the audience that to a certain extent certifies what a recognized creative achievement is, be it through direct market success, provocative success or long-term classicism. This formation of a constellation of artist and audience in turn has a generalizing effect on the form of creativity, with the anonymous, medialized attention market advancing to the decisive point of observation: What is creative is what counts as creative in front of the audience, what is attributed as creative. This repeatedly opens up opportunities for socially or culturally marginal figures to be recognized as subjects of “real” creativity. In the context of the modern creativity regime, however, this audience constellation is consistently thematized as problematic, as the risk of manipulating artistic expressivity through social and economic seductions. This essentially leaves two extreme options: mass compliance or refusal.29
These five elements, which have been combined in the artistic regime of creativity since the end of the 18th century, thus contain a contradictory tendency between the establishment of the artist as an exclusive figure and an inclusion movement. Establishing the artist as an exclusive figure prevents a cultural generalization of the artistic community and thus contributes to the aforementioned creativity myth as an artist myth. This happens in three ways: in a positive individual psychological, sometimes quasi-religiously exaggerated justification (artist as an exception to the original genius); in a negative psychological justification (artist as pathological phenomenon); finally in a socio-cultural justification (the anti-hegemonic subculture of the artistic bohemian). Although these three reasons contradict each other, they all contribute to the definition of the artist on an exclusive figure. At the same time, however, two gateways for universalization and generalization processes can be found inside this classical artist and creativity culture: on the one hand, the aesthetic utopia of the quasi-natural human creative power, on the other hand, the constellation of an audience that practices certification of creative acts. In both respects, the status of the artist is decentered, on the one hand in the direction of a universalized aesthetic subject as a normative ideal, on the other hand in the direction of the audience of the recipients, the attention market, on whose judgment creativity depends: Either everyone is a potential artist or else everyone decides who an artist is.

Postmodern normalizations of creativity
The cultural process of normalization of creative competencies and acts, in the course of which they transform from an exceptional phenomenon of a prominent minority to a widespread and, in the end, even socially expected phenomenon by the individual, has had several causes since the 1960s that extend far beyond the field of art . Above all, the transformation from an industrial-Fordist to a post-Fordist economy with its requirements such as the idealization of symbol-oriented work, the mass media staging of expressive individuality as an ideal self and the establishment of a ›culture of self-development - not least supported by psychological diagnosis and therapy ‹In the western middle classes have contributed largely synchronously to the establishment of a new kind of creativity dispositif since the 1970s.30
The normalization of creativity in the art field itself, its generalization of the figure of the artist in the direction of an arranger of creative acts and objects, however, provides an equally important and particularly characteristic factor that has contributed to the establishment of a post-modern culture of creativity. This normalization of the creative in art begins in some respects at the turn of the century and in the avant-garde movements, but has been given its real boost with the different versions of ›postmodern‹ art since the 1960s. Above all, four interwoven lines of transformation can be observed here, all of which cause a reclining of creativity. This reclining follows an overarching transformation pattern that leads from the artist as a personal, psychological and social subject-entity to the practices and techniques of creative ›production‹ in an environment of objects and other subjects. It can be - especially since the 1960s - a Proceduralization, one Materialization, one Conceptualization and a Performativity Orientation Observe creative processes that undermine the ability to limit creative practice to the field of art.31 In the end, creative practices are not functionally differentiated practices, but rather dispersed practices,32 scattered practices that occur in various social fields and are promoted there. Analogously, the creative subject is an affectively validated, albeit now entauratized, figure who has advanced to become a catalog of subject requirements beyond the field of art. This normalization of creative practice is linked both to the generalizability of the creative of aesthetic utopias and to the audience constellation of the art market since the 19th century.Century, but at the same time it goes beyond that by itself Methods in which creativity is produced.
1. The proceduralization of creativity: Since the avant-garde movements, especially surrealism, there has been a special artistic interest in the techniques and procedures of the creative process. These now appear essentially as those of 'chance management'. This is expressly accompanied by a devaluation of the artistic creator myth, as Max Ernst attacked him by name. It is not the subject that appears as the original instance of a production process, but it is this process itself that creates new things in its own dynamic. This production of the new can be promoted in certain techniques that are forced in the surrealist context.33 This applies, for example, to Max Ernst's method of ›frottage‹, a method of rubbing objects under a layer of paper with charcoal pencil, whereby different layers of paper are layered on top of each other (Ernst is based on a child's play here), or for André Massons to the ›écriture automatique ‹a style of painting in which paint is distributed on the canvas at maximum speed in order to switch off any aesthetic planning process, or finally for the so-called› Recherches experimentales ‹that the Surrealist groups have been carrying out since the early 1930s: creativity-promoting group games in which it is about the joint development of chains of associations. The promotion of chance is central to these creativity techniques - whether in dealing with the material or in the mental sequence of association. The point is to allow processes of their own to produce something new, processes that the subject itself then only needs to watch, so to speak. Time and again - for example in the ›Recherches experimentales‹ - the collective plays a role as an intersubjective source of irritation. Creativity can then no longer be identified with a subjective creative power, but amounts to promoting unpredictability in dealing with things and ideas. It is not surprising that, in the context of Surrealism, seemingly inferior subject types such as children, mentally ill or 'primitives' appear to be exemplary (paradigmatic here is the 'Prinzhorn Collection')34). With them, the self-control attempts of the consciousness seem to be relaxed from the start in a way that promotes creativity. It is noticeable that the artistic creativity techniques that are developed in a surrealist context, for example, resemble those randomized generalized creativity techniques that creativity psychology has been developing since the 1950s.35 Overall, this proceduralization of creativity in the sense of chance-inducing creative techniques contributes decisively to its normalization.
2. The materialization of creativity: A second tendency, which can be observed particularly in the visual arts, concerns a restructuring of the artistic process in which the production of a new object (classically a painting) is replaced by an arrangement of given Materials. The starting point here is the real world of objects - be it everyday objects, media artifacts such as photos or newspaper clippings, industrially manufactured objects or, ultimately, like in the Country Art nature, partly also the human body, especially the artist's body. This transition from the “art of production” to the “art of arrangement” can be found in very different contexts: as early as 1910, but not more widely perceived until the 1940s, Duchamp's ready-mades should be mentioned here - ready-made everyday items such as bicycles or bottle washers - , Warhol has been using mass media photographs since the 1960s, then resorting to industrial products in the minimal art,36 finally the minimal modification of photographs in the appropriation art.37 A good example is provided by Cindy Sherman's photographs - often thematized in connection with the aesthetics of postmodernism - in which the artist herself poses in front of the camera disguised in the posture of certain film stars and thus provides citations from originals without actually being involved are identical copies.38 The aforementioned art movements may differ significantly from one another in many respects and have sometimes seen themselves in opposition to one another. Their creativity regime follows a consistent pattern, however: the production of 'originals' and the production of new artefacts are consistently replaced by an arrangement and modification of 'given' objects.
This arrangement places different demands on the artistic subject: those of selection and combinatorics. It is always a question of choosing those objects from the abundance of given objects to selectthat appear suitable for an aesthetic statement or effect. Creativity is then a selection skill. The second step consists of a combination of different elements or a resignification through a slight deviation, a modification or an exchange of individual elements: for example, by using Warhol to color the Monroe pictures using the screen printing process or by Sherman taking the place of a film Noir actress sets. In place of classic craftsmanship, the central prerequisite for this material orientation is knowledge of the cultural archive, including the popular culture, from which one can sensibly select and combine. The artist subject is thus transformed into an ›organizer‹ of aesthetic effects. At the same time, this is linked to a delimitation not only of the potential objects, but also the form of their presentation. This structural change in the creative process of arranging materials has been thematized accordingly in artistic self-portrayals: Victor Burgin speaks of a 'coordinator of existing forms' and Hal Foster of the postmodern artist as a 'sign manipulator'.39
3. The conceptualization of creativity: A third normalization mechanism is apparently the opposite of materialization - with ›conceptualization‹ here we mean that tendency that is extremely influential in Duchamp and in ›Conceptual Art‹.40 The point here is not to take the material as a starting point, rather a certain idea, a concept, a disturbing thought provides the starting point for which an experimental set-up can be found and a corresponding effect can be achieved with the recipient. Sol LeWitt formulated this programmatically in ›Paragraphs on Conceptual Art‹ (1967). Here, too, everyday objects of various kinds are used - often resulting in the form of an installation - but they are not the starting point of the artistic process, but merely a transition stage, a means to an end in the communication relationship between the artistic idea and the recipient. Ultimately, this has the main task of deciphering the object in a semiotic or intellectual operation.
At first glance, one could almost think of a reactivation of the aesthetic of genius, similar to the painter Conti in Lessing's Emilia Galotti, for whom a work of art can also remain in the artist's head without losing its originality.41 In fact, the postmodern ›conceptualization‹ means exactly the other way round, an inversion of the creative process, which is now not intended by the author but by the recipient: the actual creator is the recipient as the interpreter, and the task of the artist-subject is to perform as skillfully as possible Experimental set-up to initiate a reflection process in the recipient. In the end, the artistic test arrangement only has to be functional and remains interchangeable (if you do not do without it entirely). The productivism of the creative subject is thus reduced to a minimum. In its place comes the creation of a communicative relation between idea and recipient. In this context, the functional change in the artist's subject position in the direction of a curator and an art theorist of his own work can also be seen: it is always about skillful or deliberately enigmatic communication with the recipient.
4. The performativity orientation of creativity: While the proceduralization, the materialization and - with some reservations - the conceptualization of creativity mean a decentering from the artist subject to the creative process, to the materials and to the recipient and thus entauratize and demythologize the subject position, one last aspect only apparently points to the exact opposite Direction. What can be observed especially since the middle of the 20th century - already in the case of artists like Pollock or Warhol, but then since the 1980s - is a re-centering of the art field on the artist subject, as a public figure.42 This centering on the artist as a public spectacle has its precursors in the classic artist myth of the 19th century, but it took a significant turn in the second half of the 20th century: the performativity of the artist subject now forms a sub-element of a comprehensive, multi-part mass media ›star system‹ which covers a variety of fields from film to music to sports.43
The staging of the artist subject as an art star thus does not mark a contradiction to the normalization of creativity, but ultimately contributes precisely to this normalization, which now also relates to the routine and methodically experienced production of prominent artist individuals. The creativity at issue here is no longer to be found in the work, but in the performance of the artist-subject itself. It is aimed at the design of an artist's personality as a surface that is not only visible to an audience, but above all distinguishable. In a sense, the so-called. performance-Art i. e. S. advance this development by making the body of the artist itself an object of artistic design.44 The star system of art then re-centers attention in a more general form on the artist as a self-constituting subject whose ›creativity‹ focuses on the production of individual distinguishability on the level of the body, biography, private life, image, etc. . As Sabine Kampmann (2006) shows in her analysis of contemporary artist stars using the example of Christian Boltanski, Pipilotti Rist and Markus Lüpertz, the strategies of this production of a creative subject in front of an audience can and must be very different - playing with the concealment of one true identity with Boltanski, the staging as a pop feminist with Rist or the reactivation of the model of the painter prince with Lüpertz. It is crucial, however, that the public performance of the artist-subject and the assurance of their distinctiveness advance to the object of methodically controlled design, a design that consequently has to lead to different results in terms of content is it wants to be effective.45
The extent to which the transformation of creativity practices and discourses in the field of art has contributed to the postmodern generalization of creative practices and the creative subject can thus be illustrated: The exclusive figure of the artist and his work - whether psychologically or socially justified - has seen itself suppressed since the 1950s through the tendencies towards proceduralization, materialization, conceptualization and performativity orientation, all of which contribute to the normalization of creative processes and detach them from the classic-modern artist myth. For the most part, it is not about rationalization processes forced from outside, but about self-critical deconstructions within the art field itself. In their transformation, the artistic practices follow an artistic logic of their own. But one result of this intrinsic logic is, paradoxically, a de-autonomization and de-differentiation of artistic practice, a production of cultural formats that can also be used outside of art in the narrower sense. May the objects that contemporary art produce - for example their installations in the field of conceptual art - have achieved an unusual degree of less popular enigmatics - the general processes in whose context they are created turn out to be socially generalizable to a high degree. This normalization of the artist-subject is linked to its de-dramatization on a social and psychological level. The classic artist myth shapes its bearers as agents of struggles: of the struggles for advancement of the 'true artist' and struggles between bohème and bourgeoisie, not least of the artist's inner-psychological struggles with himself. The normalization of the creative replaces the battle constellations with a logic of methods - of procedures, competencies and self-styling - which, precisely in their promotion of the accidental and individual, allow systematics to rule.

This is a shortened version of the text by Andreas Reckwitz: “From the artist myth to the normalization of creative processes: the contribution of the art field to the genesis of the creative subject appeared in: Menke, Christoph; Rebentisch Juliane (Ed.): Creation and Depression. Freedom in contemporary capitalism, Kulturverlag Kadmos: Berlin 2012, pp. 98–117.

1.) See Emmerling, Leonhard, Jackson Pollock, Cologne 2003.
2.) See Namuth, Hans / Rose, Barbara, Pollock painting, New York 1980.
3.) According to ibid.
4.) The terms mythologization and demythologization are used here based on Roland Barthes' concept of myth (Barthes, Roland, Mythen des Alltags, Frankfurt a. M. 1970), according to which this ›history as nature‹ is presented, thus what is culturally made presented as given.
5.) On the ›postmodern‹ deconstruction of the artist's myth as a whole, see Schuster, Peter-Klaus / Blume, Eugen, »› I can't cut off my ear every day ‹. Deconstruction of the Artist's Myth «, Museum für Gegenwart (14) 2008; Hellmold, Martin / Kampmann, Sabine / Lindner, Ralph / Sykora, Katharina (eds.), "What is an artist?", Munich 2003.
6.) This understanding is loosely based on Foucault, Michel, Überwachen und Strafen, Frankfurt a. M. 1977, 236ff., An.
7.) Cf. Reckwitz, Andreas, Das hybride Subject. A theory of subject cultures from bourgeois modernity to postmodernism, Weilerswist 2006, and Reckwitz, Andreas, »The invention of the creative subject. On the cultural construction of creativity «, in: ders., Unscharfe Grenzen, Bielefeld 2008, 235–257, and von Osten, Marion (ed.), Be creative! The creative imperative, Zurich 2002.
8.) For the analysis of art as a functional system see Luhmann, Niklas, Die Kunst der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. M. 1995.
9.) Boltanski, Luc / Chiapello, Ève, Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme, Paris 1999.
10.) Cf. Namuth, Hans / Rose, Barbara, Pollock painting, a. a. O.
11.) Cf. Jameson, Fredric, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham 1991.
12.) The term ›classical modern‹ is not used here in the sense of an art style and therefore does not designate the artistic ›modern‹ at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, but rather that ›long‹ phase from the Renaissance through the Romanticism up to modernism, which emphatically models the artist as an expressive individual.
13.) Pollock is not the inventor of drip painting; rather, similar processes were used mainly in the surrealistic circle, for example by André Masson or Max Ernst. Like the ›écriture automatique‹, it already appears here as a creativity technique for everyone that cannot be reduced to an artistic genius.
14.) On the sociological concept of the ›star‹ see Marshall, P. David, Celebrity and Power, Minneapolis, Minn. 1997; Braudy, Leo, The Frenzy of Renown. Fame and Its History, New York 1986.
15.) Cf. generally Krieger, Verena, Art as New Creation of Reality, Cologne / Vienna / Weimar 2006; Ruppert, Wolfgang, The modern artist, Frankfurt a. M. 1998; Wetzel, Michael, »Author / Artist«, in: Karlheinz Barck et al., Aesthetic Basic Concepts, Vol. 1, Stuttgart / Weimar 2000, 480–544.
16.) Cf. Burke, Peter, Die Europäische Renaissance. Centers and peripheries, Munich 1998.
17.) Cf. Zilsel, Edgar, Die Geniereligion. A critical attempt on the modern ideal of personality with a historical justification, Frankfurt a. M.1990; Schmidt, Jochen, The History of the Genius Thought in German Literature, Philosophy and Politics 1750–1945, Darmstadt 1988; Kris, Ernst / Kurz, Otto, legend from the artist, Frankfurt a. M. 1995.
18.) Schulte-Sasse, Jochen, "Einbildungskraft / Imagination", in: Karlheinz Barck et al. (Ed.), Aesthetic Basic Concepts, a. a. O., 88-120.
19.) Cf. Eagleton, Terry, Aesthetics. The history of their ideology, Stuttgart / Weimar 1994.
20.) Schiller, Friedrich, On the Aesthetic Education of Man in a Series of Letters, Stuttgart 1991.
21.) Cf. Lange, Barbara, Joseph Beuys. Directing forces of a new society: the myth of the artist as a social reformer, Berlin 1999.
22.) Cf. Bürger, Peter, Theory of the Avantgarde, Frankfurt a. M. 2005.
23.) Cf. Kreuzer, Helmut, Die Bohème. Contribution to their description, Stuttgart 1968.
24.) Cf. Roh, Franz, The misunderstood artist. Studies on the history and theory of cultural misunderstanding, Munich 1948.
25.) Cf. Neumann, Eckhard, Künstlermythen, Frankfurt a. M. 1986.
26.) Cf. Hohl, Hanna, Saturn, Melancholie, Genie, Hamburg / Stuttgart 1992.
27.) Cf. Bätschmann, Oskar, exhibition artist, Cologne 1997.
28.) Bourdieu, Pierre, The rules of art, Frankfurt a. M. 1999.
29.) Cf. ibid.
30.) Cf. Reckwitz, Andreas, The Production of Creativity (in preparation, will be published in 2011 by Suhrkamp Verlag).
31.) A fifth element of this normalization is neglected in the following: the ›industrialization‹ of the creative process, i. H. the coupling of art and industrial design in architecture and interior design since the 1920s, as it is groundbreaking in the Weimar and Dessau Bauhaus as well as in approaches in the revolutionary Soviet Union.
32.) See Schatzki, Theodore R., Social Practices. A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social, Cambridge 1996.
33.) Cf. Bender, Beate, release of creativity through psychic automatisms, Frankfurt a. M. 1989; Convents, Ralf, Surrealist Games, Frankfurt a. M. 1996; Holeczek, Bernhard / Von Mengden, Lida, Chance as Principle, Heidelberg 1992.
34.) Cf. Brand-Claussen, Bettina (ed.), Wahnsinnige Schönheit, Prinzhorn-Sammlung, exhibition catalog Kulturhistorisches Museum Osnabrück, Heidelberg 1997.
35.) Cf. Ullman, Gisela (ed.), Creativity Research, Cologne 1973. 36.) Cf. Marzona, Daniel, Minimal Art, Cologne 2004. 37.) Cf. Rebbelmund, Romana, Appropriation art, Frankfurt a. M. (et al.) 1999.
38.) Cf. Vogel, Fritz Franz, The Cindy Shermans. Staged identities. Photo stories
from 1840 to 2005, Cologne / Weimar 2006. 39.) Cf. Burgin, Victor, “Situational aesthetics”, in: Studio International 178 (1969), 118–121; Foster, Hal, "Subversive signs," in: Art in America 70/10 (1982), 88-92.
40.) Cf. Daniels, Dieter, Duchamp and the others, Cologne 1992; Marzona, Daniel, Conceptual Art, Cologne 2005.
41.) See also Werber, Niels, "Paradoxien der Kunst der Moderne", in: Hellmold, Martin et al., Das Subject der moderne Kunst, Munich 2003, 149–162.
42.) Cf. Graw, Isabelle, Der große Preis, Cologne 2008; Römer, Stefan, "Of course we all want to be rich, beautiful and famous", in: Martin Hellmold et al. (Ed.), Was ist ein Künstler ?, Munich 2003, 243–272; especially about Warhol: Zahner, Nina Tessa, The new rules of art, Frankfurt a. M./New York 2006. 43.) See Marshall, P. David, Celebrity and Power, Minneapolis, Minn. 1997.
44.) Cf. Goldberg, RoseLee, Performance. Live Art since the 60s, New York 2004. 45.) Kampmann, Sabine, being an artist, Munich 2006.

[This text can be found in Reader No. 1 on p. 465.]

[There are no other materials available for this post.]

Andreas Reckwitz

(* 1970), Prof. Dr. Studied sociology, political science and philosophy at the Universities of Bonn, Hamburg and Cambridge. Since 2010 he has been Professor of Comparative Cultural Sociology at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder). Numerous visiting professorships and research stays in Berkeley, London, Bielefeld, Heidelberg and Vienna, among others. His last books include: Blurred Borders. Perspektiven der Kultursoziologie (2008), The Invention of Creativity. On the process of social aestheticization (2012). Web:


Bohème, film, photography, genius, staging, concept, body, creativity, art history, artist, art market, art production, painting, material, media, myth, narration, normalization, original, originality, pathologization, performativity, popular culture, portrait, postmodernism, Process, audience, representation, sociology, subversion, quotation

Benjamin, Walter Bergson, Henri-Louis Beuys, Joseph Boltanski, Christian Boltanski, Luc Bourdieu, Pierre Bürger, Peter Burgin, Victor Duchamp, Marcel Ernst, Max Fichte, Johann Gottlieb Kampmann, Sabine Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim LeWitt, Sol Lüpertz, Markus Masson, André Nietzsche, Friedrich Reckwitz, Andreas Rist, Pipilotti Rousseau, Jean-Jacques Saint-Simon, Henri de Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schiller , Friedrich · Sherman, Cindy · Warhol, Andy