Introduction
The case for this small field-analysis I chose to scope in on is a very interesting artist namely, the purple one, Prince. My rationale for doing so is, because there is a lot to tell or rather find of this subject and I could correlate this to a micro-sociological level. Because he did bring up a change to existing genres and even made his own genre in the music industry (Reese et al., 1991). With his album Dirty Mind (1980) he portrayed such a radical change in the music industry. The release of this album sky-rocketed him even further in to fame. And garnered even more fame with the following albums. I would like to study this from a very broad angle which still focuses on prince. But what he contributed to genres as funk, new wave and the Minneapolis sound, actually in particular what he did (the way he acts and dress on concerts, album-covers) and why this worked so well. Prince his album Purple Rain was also the album that eventually lead to the use of and the establishment of the parental advisory labels (Walser, n.d). This all lead me to the following research question, how did Prince became consecrated in the field of cultural production? And is this influenced by institutionalization.
Literature review
In the field of production Bourdieu (1983) examines the structural relations between de field of literary production and the field of class relations. These relations arise from the encounter between particular agents\’ dispositions (their habitus, shaped by their social trajectory) and their position in a field of positions which is defined by the distribution of a specific form of capital. This specific artistic capital functions within an ‘economy’ whose logic is an inversion of the logic of the larger economy of the society. The ‘interest in distinterestedness’ (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115).
Bourdieu (1992) defines (and compares in a sense) a field in analytic terms, that it can be defined as a network or a configuration of objective relations between positions. Furthermore are these positions objectively defined, in their existence and in the determinations they impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions, by their present and potential situation (situs) in the structure of the distribution of species of power (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115). These species of power often regarded as capital gives access to the specific profits that are at stake in the field, as well as by their objective relation to other positions (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115). Then Bourdieu (1992) makes a distinction between the fields who regulate other fields and the regulated ones and that this happens in highly differentiated societies, where the social cosmos is made up of a number of such relatively autonomous social micro-cosmos (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115). For this research it is important to know that the specific profits at stake are for Prince his artistic integrity and autonomy, whilst for the counterpart Warner Bros (an institution) economic capital (money, commodity value of art).
Then Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115) uses and explains the field by using the analogy of a game, with caution, I must add. Unlike a game a field is not the product of a deliberate act of creation, and it follows rules or, better said regularities, that are not explicit and codified. Thus we have stakes which are for the most the product of the competition between players (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115). At each moment, it is the state of the relations of force between the players that defines the structure of the field. And that every player or relative force in the game defines its position in the spaces of play by corresponding tokens (capital) which are divided by colours and their strategic orientations in ‘’the game’’(Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115.. These are very important statements in this analogy. Bourdieu describes that habitus could be understood as a structure of the mind and emotions characterized by a set of acquired schemata, sensibilities, dispositions and taste (Scott et al, 1998).
Furthermore Bourdieu (1992) answers the question of limitations of the field which he finds a very difficult one because, it is always at stake in the field itself and therefore admits of no a priori answer. Participants say economic firms, or high fashion designers constantly work to differentiate themselves from their closest rivals in order to reduce competition and establish a monopoly over a particular subfield(Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115). The limits of the field are situated at the point where the effects of the field cease. The principle of the dynamics of a field lies in the form of its structure and in particular in the asymmetries between the various specific forces that confront on another, by the use of specific forms of capital, but do mind that capital does not exist and function except in relation to a field (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115).
Then Bourdieu (1992) distinguishes the field theory from other theories or statements made by other cultural sociologists. Such as apparatus which Bourdieu calls the ‘’ the Trojan horse of pessimistic functionalism, because people use this conspiracy theory, the idea that an evil will is responsible for what happens in the field. And systems theory, where he states that one could easily retranslate the concepts of self-referentiality or self-organization by what he puts under the notion of autonomy, in both cases the process of differentiation takes on a pivotal role (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115). But these theories have radical differences from which the first is that the notion of the field excludes functionalism and organicism (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115). The second major difference is that a field does not have parts, components, every subfield has its own logic, rules and regularities. And I agree on this because in this particular research a subject is a victim, in a way of this particular institution, but uses its capital to define its position in the field (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115).
Lopes (2015) who extensively uses Bourdieu in his research, where he tries to research if the field theory produced by Bourdieu is applicable (and its limitations) to Preceding or current situation in the United States.
In the heroic age of American avant-garde art, Lopes (2015) states that a major contribution of Pierre Bourdieu to the study of art was his analysis of the autonomization of modern art fields. His model of autonomy and legitimacy in modern art were based on a study of the genesis of an avant-garde in French art in the late nineteenth century (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). A similar process of autonomization of art occurred in the mid-twentieth century in the United States, this general process of autonomization until now has been neglected in the work of many sociologists and historians on American art (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). Lopes’ analysis shows that the genesis of principles of autonomy in the United States, unlike France, developed in what were considered the high and popular arts (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). I generally argue that the concepts such as field is a very timeless and boundless concept, as it is applicable to a lot of social’’ structured structures’’ formed nowadays, because of its abstract content. And precisely defined components. And therefore relevant for this case study. However Bourdieu does not make use of specific locations of research (as far as i understood), The work of Lopes quit helps scoping in on the theory by making it relevant, because he studied the works of Bourdieu and tied it to developments in the United states therefore, making it more concrete and relevant for this study.
Bourdieu argued that the potential for autonomization of a national art field depended on the history of a specific country (Bourdieu 1993, 1996; Jurt 2001; Lipstadt 2003). He never, however, presented another case similar to his study of French art. His model of art fields has been applied to other nations, but as Jurt (2001) and Boschetti (2006) point out, scholarship addressing the genesis of subfields of autonomous art is lacking. The Lopes’ article argues that American art in the mid-twentieth century experienced a transformation comparable to the autonomization of French art in the late nineteenth century (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). The difference between these moments of autonomization is the role culture industries and popular artists played in the struggle over autonomy and innovation in American art (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). Thus he still acknowledged there is also a struggle, between the culture industries and popular artists, over autonomy and innovation in American art (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). Just like what Bourdieu (1983) describes in the theory of field.
Lopes (2015) provides two major contributions to the sociology of art. The first contribution expands our understanding of American art in the twentieth century. The second contribution which is more relevant is a re-evaluation of how Bourdieu understands modern art fields, and this is also what is really interesting in explaining the relevance of Bourdieu (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). Lopes shows how Bourdieu failed to recognize relations of opposition in art fields that can account for expressions of autonomy or rebellion in popular art. Shusterman (2000) and Fowler (1997) point to problems in Bourdieu’s narrow conception of popular art (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249).
This essay, however, builds upon the criticism of Hesmondhalgh (2006). Another sociologist who argues that Bourdieu ignores the complexity of the relations of production in popular art in the twentieth century, particularly the role of cultural intermediaries (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). Cultural intermediaries are the gatekeepers in the culture industry—commercial enterprises, professional organizations, and the decision makers within these organizations—who mediate between artists and audiences by producing, exhibiting, promoting, or representing artists and their works for specific venues and markets (Hirsch 1972). In contrary does Bourdieu point out that there are intermediaries which he describes as agents who influence the way of how ‘’ the space of play’’ follows its course and how people situate themselves in their corresponding positions (Bourdieu 1993, p. 49, 1996, p. 122). But this fact is very present in this particular research because this gatekeeper (culture industry, Warner Bros) played a very dominant role in the consecration of Prince in different points in time.
Bourdieu analyses art fields based on two determining factors, demand and consecration (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). These factors generate a field of positions occupied by genres, works, artists, and audiences—as well as intermediaries such as producers, publishers, exhibitors, sellers, and critics—which he sometimes represents in an abstract two-axis graph (Bourdieu 1993, p. 49, 1996, p. 122). And this demand and consecration have a very clear fluctuation regarding to prince in different periods of time.
Lopes (2015) has used American art examples in his description of art fields because of their greater familiarity to American readers. Bourdieu, however, approaches art fields, autonomy, and legitimation based on French art (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). More importantly, Bourdieu argues that the subfield of autonomous art and its relation to innovation and legitimation in French art is a historical product (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). During this period, new principles of autonomy set themselves against the dominant principles of legitimation found in academy and bourgeois art (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). Bourdieu (1992) links this rebellion to the growth of a French middle class. This change in the social structure led to a higher demand for the literary and visual arts and a simultaneous increase in writers and visual artists (Lopes, 2015, pp. 219-249). However Bourdieu’s work is very boundless and timeless Lopes Has used more American art examples therefore making it relevant for this research.
data and methods 1-2 pages
Methodologically I had to look into, the field theory, by Bourdieu (1983, 1992, 1996) which correlate to the findings and description of the artistic field where Prince finds himself in, and in addition it is not only the artistic field where Prince also functions in he was also involved in the movie industry and was in a way his own gatekeeper but lost control of his output, because of the larger structures involved. For this research it is also interesting to look at the concepts of habitus which define the logics of practices and how these participate in the consecration of Prince in the field (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115).
And I also would like to reflect on Paul Dimaggio (a bit) and the concept of institutionalization is “A widely accepted theoretical posture that emphasizes rational myths, isomorphism, and legitimacy (Scott, 2004). What I find particularly interesting to use for this course and field-analysis, is that how he knew to create his own publicity and knew how to create value for his forms of art, maybe not actively, but the concepts that Bourdieu and Dimaggio have constructed, for instance cultural capital, social mobility and institutionalization have provided rationales in the legitimization and consecration of his productions (Bourdieu, 1992, pp.94-115). Besides cognoscenti in the field state that he always knew how to stay relevant and keep up with the times but still stayed loyal to his origins. Which will be clarified in a later stage of my research, but this data is important to know forehand that his origins helped him in constructing his own genre which was the Minneapolis sound (Campbell, 2008. Pp.300).
Also Looking into Croteau (2012) who provides a sociological approach that examines overarching relationships between the various components of the media process. The industry, its products, audiences, technology and the broader social world (Croteau, 2012). For mostly useful in the how of consecration got influenced in between the periods of time (Croteau, 2012). An integrated study of mass media that looks at media technologies, collective influences, and connections between mass media issues that are often treated as separate (Croteau, 2012). This finding is particularly interesting, because it provides rationales for the gate keepers who realised the impact Prince’s music had on its audience. And why there was a need for a distinction in appropriation in the segments of correlating audiences. This fact was realised again by the use of the parental advisory labels. Furthermore I link these theories up to actual facts about Prince and I will make use of numbers linked to his success and consecration provided by e.g. billboard charts, art historical references and statements regarding Prince’s level of consecration, success and autonomy.
Results of Analysis
Bourdieu (1986) constructed the concept of the three forms of capital, which are social, cultural and economic capital. These Forms of capital acts as a social relation within a system of exchange, and the term is extended ‘to all the goods material and symbolic, without distinction, that present themselves as rare and worthy of being sought after in a particular social formation (Harker, 1990, pp. 13). This is interesting for my research because it can provide rationales for his choices. For instance Prince knows how to play every instrument and generally composes, plays and arranges all instruments on most of his albums (Prince, n.d., para. 2.1). Why is it that his more simple ones, relatively spoken, are the ones the mainstream favoured very much and the complex ones are favoured more by his peers. This relative simplicity were he ultimately chosen for made the system of exchange easier, resulting in an easier way of targeting an audience (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). It is easier for peers to understand the complex side of being a musician but that is not what the larger part of a mainstream audience is dying to listen to.
This effect is most immediate in the case of so-called classic works, which change constantly as the universe of coexistent works changes (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). This is seen clearly when the simple repetition of a work from the past in a radically transformed field of compossibles produces an entirely automatic effect of parody (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). Prince his two albums (For you and Prince) prior to Dirty Mind (1980), Controversy (1981), 1999 (1982) and Purple Rain (1984), were albums that on itself were great and did garner recognition but did not bring anything very new to the field, that was experiencing a change in ‘’ the space of possibles’’ (funk was already a recognised brand and genre) (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). This effect requires the performers to signal a slight distance from a text impossible to defend as it stands; it can also arise in the presentation of a work corresponding to one extremity of the field before an audience corresponding structurally to the other extremity (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). For example when an avant-garde play is performed to a bourgeois audience, or the contrary, as more often happens (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). It is significant that it breaks with the most orthodox works of the past (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356).
In 1980, Prince released the album, Dirty Mind, this album was recorded in his own studio (Erlewine, 2010). The album was certified gold and the attendant single “Uptown” reached Number 5 on the Billboard Dance chart and number 5 on the Hot Soul Singles charts. Prince was also the opening act for Rick James\’ 1980 Fire It Up tour (Prince, n.d., para. 2.1). Dirty Mind contained sexually explicit material, including the songs titled, “Head”, and “Sister”. Prince (1981) first appeared on Saturday Night Live, performing the single “Party-up”(Prince, n.d., para. 2.1). Rick James was by then already a celebrated and a good-selling artist who recognised Prince’s potential and therefore letting him function as an opening act.
In October 1981, Prince released the album, Controversy. Which he promoted in several concerts in support of it, at first as one of the opening acts for the Rolling Stones, who were then on tour in the US (Prince, n.d., para. 2.1). He began 1982 with a small tour of college towns where he was the headlining act. The songs on Controversy were published by Controversy Music which was his own label formed himself under Warner Bros (Prince, n.d., para. 2.1). With Dirty Mind (1980) Prince broke with these orthodox works of the past while staying true to his base genre (funk) and incorporated a lot of other genres (new wave, punk, synth-pop) into a mixture what seemed to be ground breaking. Influenced by the contemporary punk and new wave scene and artists like David Bowie, Talking heads etc. Prince started to incorporate certain aspects of these aesthetics and made an eclectic mixture of these seemingly different genres (Rawlings, 1991).
Furthermore because of his social-, cultural capital and habitus Prince had the measures to establish a larger platform of social mobility for himself (through networking), for example performing for Saturday Night life, and through closing the distinction gap in his audience, which consisted of low brow and highbrow (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). He could understood, the logics of the practices he was involved in, as Bourdieu (1983) describes it. Bourdieu (1983) describes that habitus could be understood as a structure of the mind and emotions characterized by a set of acquired schemata, sensibilities, dispositions and taste (Scott et al, 1998).
Prince released a double album, 1999, which sold over three million copies worldwide (CNN, 1999).The title track was a protest against nuclear proliferation and became his primary top ten hit in countries outside the borders of the United States. Above that was Prince\’s “Little Red Corvette” one of the first two videos by a black artist played in heavy rotation on MTV, along with Michael Jackson\’s “Billie Jean”(Buckley, 2003). The song “Delirious” was also placed in the top ten on the Billboard Hot 100 chart (Prince, n.d., para.2.1). And Prince\’s 1984 album Purple Rain solemnly grossed more than 13 million copies in the United States and spent 24 consecutive weeks at Number 1 on the Billboard 200 chart (Prince, n.d., para. 2.2). The film that shared the same name won an Academy Award and grossed more than $80 million in the United States (The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, n.d.). This was Prince’ highest grossing project to date (Prince, n.d., para. 2.2). And it faired a lot of consecration due to several factors like, legitimization and institutionalization and recognizing as artist that you are a part of this ‘’realm’’ (Bourdieu, 1986, pp. 241-258).
Building up on Paul Dimaggio and the concept of institutionalization, and legitimacy (Scott, 2004). With the transgressing period of the eighties a lot of artists’ tried to push the boundaries and break conventions to cause controversy. Prince really knew how to push the buttons in terms of causing controversy and tampering with orthodox works of the past. Isomorphism is a similarity of the processes or structure of one organization to those of another, be it the result of imitation or independent development under similar constraints (Dimaggio; Powell, 1983, pp. 147-160). Prince his style got imitated a lot by his contemporary peers, which continuously led him to strive for innovation. This could provide rationales for his acceptance particularly in the time of the eighties, because back then prince was considered a macho, also a lot of his peers and followers dressed in that fashion.
Legitimization followed as a rational process as the cultural industry pushed the dominant trends on its audience (Dimaggio; Powell, 1983, pp. 147-160). This also decreased a lot in the early nineties as the more extravagant and flashy artist had to make room for the more raw practitioners’ of hip hop. An article by Glickman related to Prince’s name change to the unpronounceable love symbol and TAFKAP, and how the institution Warner Bros. is related to this decision (Glickman, 2003). That was the period Prince rebelled against the symbolic violence the institution forced upon him after this (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). Prince realised he was losing control over his own productions and rights (e.g. master tapes). The autonomy of his work was endangered and they made a brand of his birth-name. He began to question his artistry and rebelled against Warner Bros. by changing his name into an unpronounceable ‘’love symbol’’ (Prince, n.d., para. 2.4). This resulted a lot of under-promoted and (many unofficial release) while meanwhile ‘’the space of possibles’’ kept developing (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). For example now if you ask the younger generation about Prince they always bring up that they dislike him for being extravagant (because they often think he is a homosexual).
A very interesting finding is that Prince his album Purple Rain was also the album that eventually lead to the use of and the establishment of the parental advisory labels. The album is included on the list of Time magazine\’s All-Time 100 Albums (Time Magazine, 2006). After Tipper Gore found out that her 12-year-old daughter Karenna was listening to Prince\’s song “Darling Nikki”, she founded the Parents Music Resource Center (Siegel, 2009). The center advocates the mandatory use of a warning label (“Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics”) on the covers of records that have been judged to contain language or lyrical content which are unsuitable for minors (Macdonald, 2006). The recording industry later voluntarily complied with this request. Of what is considered the ‘’Filthy Fifteen’’ Prince\’s compositions appear number1 and number 2 (Macdonald, 2006).
So in this way the institution legitimized the explicit content what saves Prince’s artistic autonomy and even consecrate by placing him on top of the list (Dimaggio; Powell, 1983, pp. 147-160). Very much of his lyrics pushed the boundaries of the then standing social conventions. Which can be correlated to an institutional level, because these labels legitimized the use of verbally explicit lyrics under the disclaimer that it was for an adult or mature audience (Dimaggio; Powell, 1983, pp. 147-160). On an institutional level this was actually a huge development, because of a huge decrease of censorship on the lyrics and also allowed the artist to have more artistic freedom (Dimaggio; Powell, 1983, pp. 147-160). And specialize more on targeting different age segments of their public. So also organizations could benefit from this fact.
1991 marked the debut of Prince\’s new band, the New Power Generation (Prince, n.d., para. 2.4). With significant input from his band members, Diamonds and Pearls was released on October 1, 1991, reaching Number 3 on the Billboard 200 album chart (Hahn, 2004). The album Diamonds and Pearls saw four hit singles released in the United States. The lead single “Gett Off” had its peak at number 21 on the Hot 100 and number 6 on the R&B charts, followed by the single “Cream”, which gave Prince his fifth national number 1 single (Prince, n.d., para. 2.4). The title track “Diamonds and Pearls” became the album\’s third single, reaching Number 3 on the Hot 100 and the top spot on the R&B charts (Prince, n.d., para. 2.4). The single “Money Don\’t Matter 2 Night” peaked at number 23 and number 14 on the Hot 100 and R&B charts respectively (Hahn, 2004). This was the last year in which Prince kept his artist name after the name change and the controversy involving Warner Bros (Prince, n.d., para. 2.4).
1992 saw Prince and The New Power Generation release his 12th album, Love Symbol Album, bearing only an unpronounceable symbol on the cover (later copyrighted as Love Symbol #2) (Carter, 1999). The album, generally referred to as the Love Symbol Album, would peak at number 5 on the Billboard 200 (Billboard Chart for (Prince, n.d., para. 2.4). While the label Warner Bros wanted “7” to be the first single, Prince has fought and struggled to have “My Name Is Prince” as he “felt that the song\’s more hip-hoppery would appeal to the same audience” that had purchased the previous album (Hahn, 2004, pp. 187). Prince got his way but “My Name Is Prince” only managed to reach number 36 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 23 on the R&B chart (Prince, n.d., para. 2.4).
The follow-up single “Sexy MF” fared worse, charting at Number 66 on the Hot 100 and number76 on the R&B chart (Prince, n.d., para. 2.4). While music technically these are highly produced songs. The label\’s preferred lead single choice “7” would be the album\’s lone top ten hit, reaching number 7 (Prince, n.d., para. 2.4). \’Love Symbol Album\’ would go on to sell 2.8 million copies worldwide (Hahn, 2004). This has to do with not having a homology (alignment) and the natural positions and position takings (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). Power of e.g. critics rests on faith, being convinced that you already agreeing the agreement between position in the field and habitus of consumer and producer (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). Warner Bros distrusted Prince with the fact that he did not know how to pick the most successful songs (monetary). Or even being more specific not in the right position to make such a decision.
In 1994, Prince\’s attitude towards his artistic output underwent a notable shift. He began to view releasing albums in quick succession as a means of ejecting himself from his contractual obligations to Warner Bros (Prince, n.d., para. 2.5). The label, he believed, was intent on limiting his artistic freedom by insisting that he release albums more sporadically (Prince, n.d., para. 2.5). He also blamed Warner Bros. for the poor commercial performance of the Love Symbol Album, claiming that it was insufficiently marketed by Warner (Prince, n.d., para. 2.5). It was out of these developments that the aborted, The Black Album, was officially released, approximately seven years after its initial recording and near-release (Prince, n.d., para. 2.5). The “new” release, which was already in wide circulation as a bootleg, sold relatively poorly (Prince, n.d., para 2.5). Here it is clear to see that Prince’s in a way is an victim of symbolic violence, because they undermine his position on decision making of his own autonomous art and therefore in his belief brought stagnation in his amount of consecration (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356).
Also would i like to add that the industry in this fact is its own gatekeeper and chooses what gets marketed, promoted and publicised. These are forms of the struggle that Bourdieu (1983) describes in his theory of field. There is a shift in the dynamics, Warner Bros recognized there was a decrease in the sales figures brought up by the art of Prince. Prince reacted to this by the act of negation (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). By disregarding the economic goals Warner Bros intentionally had for Prince, and actively showing indifference to money as higher value. And he started to release more albums by quicker succession purely for the sake of his autonomy (Prince, n.d., para 2.5). Prince took it even so far by showing up at concerts with the word slave written on his cheek (Hahn, 2004).
On May 16, 2000, (there was a turn-around) Prince ceased using the Love Symbol moniker and returned to using “Prince” again, after his publishing contract with Warner/Chappell expired (Prince, n.d., para. 2.6). In a press conference, he stated that, after being freed from undesirable relationships associated with the name “Prince”, he would formally revert to using his real name (Prince, n.d., para. 2.6). Prince still frequently uses the symbol as a logo and on album artwork and continues to play a Love Symbol-shaped guitar (Prince, n.d., para. 2.6). On February 8, 2004, Prince appeared at the Grammy Awards with Beyoncé Knowles (Prince, n.d., para 2.6). In a performance that opened the show, Prince and Knowles performed a medley of “Purple Rain”, “Let\’s Go Crazy”, “Baby I\’m a Star”, and Knowles\’ “Crazy in Love”(Prince, n.d., para 2.6). The following month, Prince was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Wiederhorn, 2004). Here follows an increase again in recognition and consecration.
In April 2004, Prince released Musicology through a one-album agreement with Columbia Records. For the first time in a very long time (1994-2004) again the album rose as high as the top five on a number of international charts (including the US, UK, Germany and Australia). These US chart successes were in turn assisted by the CD being included as part of the concert ticket purchase, and each CD thereby qualifying (as chart rules then stood) towards United States chart placement (D’Angelo, 2004). Musicology is R&B and soul-themed album with eclectic elements of funk, pop, quiet storm, and rock. This eclecticism is a feature which always follows through in Prince’ oeuvre. Three months later, Spin named him the greatest frontman of all time, regarding his stage performances (Contactmuseum.com, 2004). Following the same year, Rolling Stone magazine named Prince the highest-earning musician in the world, with an annual income of $56.5 million (Prince Crowned Top Music Earner, 2005). Largely due to his Musicology Tour, which Pollstar named as the top concert draw among musicians in US (Prince, n.d., para. 2.6). The artist played an impressive run of 96 concerts; the average ticket price for a show was US$61 (Prince, n.d., para. 2.6). Further highlighting and consecrating the success of the album, Prince\’ Musicology went on to receive two Grammy wins and several nominations, for Best Male R&B Vocal Performance (Thompson, 2004).
Conclusion
In these results of analysis you see fluctuations of success and consecration which in a way are controlled by the institution and its gatekeepers itself. Lopes (2015) was useful in translating Bourdieu’s theory more to the field aspects of the United States. To retrieve back Bourdieu’s (1983) concept of the field: The modern western reality has come into being through a process of differentiation into semi-autonomous and increasingly specialized spheres of action (army, church, hospital, cultural industry etc.) He calls these spheres, fields (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). Bourdieu states that power relations within these fields and between fields structure human behaviour, this is what he calls the habitus (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). In order to understand Prince’s behaviour in terms of relation to his art and consecration, it is important to understand in what power relations they take part.
I have demonstrated that in the years of 1980 till 1981, in which he released most of his successful albums (Dirty Mind till Diamonds and Pearls) Prince and Warner Bros had a mutual consent toward the output of his music and his autonomy on this particular fact(Prince, n.d., para. 2.1-2.3). He has favoured a lot consecration and success with Purple Rain functioning as his peak in success (Walser, N.d). After Warner Bros saw a decrease in sales figure they tried to impose more control over Prince his work, because they imply to know what sells better. They clearly regard Prince his Art as a commodity, because like social classes, artistic products have both an economic/material and a symbolic dimension (Bourdieu, 1993). Here you clearly see the struggle of Arts-as-commodity vs. arts-as-pure-signification (Bourdieu, 1993). Hereby they impose what important is for them and totally disregard what is important to Prince. This is an act of Symbolic violence which fundamentally is, the imposition of categories of thought and perception upon dominated social agents who then take the social order to be just (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). It is the incorporation of unconscious structures that tend to perpetuate the structures of action of the dominant (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). Instead of being dominated and taking their position to be “right’’ and being subjected to the power of doxa (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). Prince rebelled (struggle in terms of field) by changing his name and even increasing output in exchange of the risk of losing consecration. Which is an act of economical negation to keep his artistic integrity (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356).. When a struggle occurs between those who want to conserve and transform the structure of relations within a field, players make use of their power (capital) to impose the rules that favour them the most (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356).
Prince still appealed to cognoscenti even when he had relatively poor sales figures, because he had a lot of social and cultural capital relating to the artistic field and translated it to worthy productions (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). He also stayed true to his artistic integrity, which later payed off. After Prince severed ties with Warner Bros he released a new album Musicology (2004) which again garnered a lot of success to such an extent that he got consecrated to being the best earning performer and later on also got consecrated in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame(Wiederhorn, 2004).
Croteau’s (2012) sociological approach examines the overarching relationships between the various components of the media process. The industry, its products, audiences, technology and the broader social world (Croteau, 2012). For mostly useful in the how of consecration got influenced in between the periods of time because Prince (2004) stated that Warner Bros failed in marketing his music, because they had other plans with his product. They had more interest in other possibles and favoured to stimulate these processes (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). Because the industry is tightly linked to gatekeepers, such as publishers, venues etc. And therefore choose what to give a lot of exposure, and more possibility of consecration, and what not.
Regarding the fact what then did made Prince successful, are also the process involved within the field, but then linked to what is institutionalized and therefore legitimized in the field. Prince as an artist knew what was favoured by the audience and made a lot of his own publicity by making his audience conspicuously doubt about facts like his sexuality and ethnicity. He even changed the field by normalizing the sexual explicit content in his lyrics, which resulted in establishment of the parental advisory labels and even consecrated him on the first two positions of holder of the most ‘’vulgar’’ content in music (Siegel, 2009). This resulted in his audience being triggered and curious, and publicize him by simply addressing him to peers. Prince also knew he had to bring up an eclectic sound of Minneapolis, new wave and funk because these were booming genres at the time and therefore had a smaller risk of not garnering consecration. This happened in such a success that Prince is even sometimes called the modern-day Mozart (Hahn, 2004). Prince was very aware of his position in his field and this is acknowledged by a lot of cognoscenti in the field (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). He has won countless awards and even got consecrated in the hall of fame with multiple nominees (Wiederhorn, 2004). What is important to stress is the fact that Prince was very aware of his position.
In a particular field, players (or agents) all occupy a position. Each position carries with it different dispositions and likely or potential courses of action for the player (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). The positions that the agents occupy in the field are determined by a number of things: habitus, doxa (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). Fields interact with each other, and are hierarchical, when a struggle occurs between those who want to conserve and transform the structure of relations within a field, players make use of their power (capital) to impose the rules that favour them the most (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311 – 356).
So regarding to the question what actually caused Prince his consecration in the field, are several factors: Himself, as he had enough cultural, economic and social capital to establish a network between different fields to expose his art. And had the means to struggle with this doxa, what actually made him lose a lot of chances at consecration but helped him being recognised as an artist with a lot of integrity (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). There was also a homology with the position he had in the field and acted with the right position-taking (Bourdieu, 1983, pp. 311-356). But this only happens in consent with bigger institutions like Warner Bros, who function as gatekeepers who legitimize the actions in the field and actually can constrain him if he does not conduct in a way they find appropriate and therefor can determine his level of consecration.