Symbolic Capital and Relationships of Flow: Canada, Europe, and the International Performing Arts Festival Circuit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essay examines the political and creative relationships between curators and artists operating in the field of cultural production known as the international performance festival circuit. Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic capital, a metaphorical currency that confers prestige on an individual and is exchanged between agents vying for status and power in the field, is applied to both the overall dynamic of the festival network and to individuals who occupy positions in the network. The social Darwinist character of Bourdieu’s theory is balanced by a group of theories that describe the gestalt of an aesthetic encounter as something sought-after, treasured, and undertaken for its own sake. Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow, Dewey’s theory of qualitative thought, and Fischer-Lichte’s “radical concept of presence” help make the case that aesthetic encounters have the potential to become what the essay calls “touchstone experiences”: somatically felt events that are prized by curators and artists, and that become the basis for the drive to accumulate symbolic capital—capital which is then leveraged to create more touchstone experiences. Curators and artists on both sides of the Atlantic are interviewed, providing personal insight into the creative and practical concerns that drive them to develop work for the festival circuit. What emerges is a complex web of relationships among the various producers of performance in this particular field of cultural production: the festival network becomes, for the artist, either a potential market in which to promote work or a restrictive gate that blocks access to a larger audience; the curator becomes both a gate-keeper regulating access and a cultural agent providing a platform for cultural exchange and offering local artists exposure to diverse practices from elsewhere. The differences in real and symbolic wealth between the Canadian and European contexts is also considered in the essay, with an emphasis on how European cultural institutions provide opportunities and obstacles to Canadian artists seeking to promote their work overseas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".