A Study on Institutionalisation of Contemporary Art from Turkey A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A Study on Institutionalisation of Contemporary Art from Turkey A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Emek Can Ecevit Brunel Business School Brunel University London 2016 i Abstract This doctoral study is concerned with identifying the determinants of the institutionalisation of art (IoA) in general and institutionalisation of contemporary art (IoCA) in particular It focuses on the influence of the state and the private sector on economics and politics of arts as artworld in Turkey The proposed relational framework is based on the current controversial problematisation of social theory in terms of various understandings of modernity and post-modernity Here, modern art is taken to be based on an orthodox (classical) modernity understanding In contrast, contemporary art (CA) is regarded as either a rejection of modern art from a postmodernity perspective or an intensive criticism of it from inside modernity Both positions direct their criticisms to the basic assumptions, methodological tools, epistemological sources and ontological basis of the classical understanding of modernity Within this scope, this study formulates and operationalises the research problem in terms of relational sociology and uses grounded-theory to establish the significant interactive relations that define IoA The unit of analysis is the interactive relations of individuals as artists The boundaries of the study are primarily limited to national level The research questions are, in general, framed with qualitative research techniques and specifically substantiated with data sources primarily obtained from a self-employed semi-structured survey method complemented by observations and an extensive review of the relevant literature as documentary-historical data The analysis of the data and the interpretations of the findings are undertaken within the scope of relational sociology and using the tools of groundedtheory methodology The empirical data collected from a sample of artists actively involved as producers of works of arts and/or academicians, advisors and art critics from Turkey ii Within this conceptual framework, the roles of the state and the private sector are questioned in terms of the economics and politics of arts, including their cultural couplings The domain of social relations remaining outside the private sector, specifically the art public and the groups, collectives and initiatives of arts are assessed as the civil domain of arts Knowledge of the arts and its formal (institutional) and informal relations provide an essential source and play a central role in this study Within this framework, the art market is considered as an emerging hegemonic construct in the economics and politics of arts Furthermore, artists and artworks are considered as the primary constituting components of the interactive relations of IoA The findings of this thesis have implications for increasing the knowledge about and practices of IoA and contribute to the development of a framework of research questions that explains the interactive relations of the IoA in Turkey and offers an insight into a growing body of literature on art and includes recommendations for the directions of future research The proposed relational framework is based on the current controversial problematisation of social theory in terms of modernity and post-modernity understandings Here, modern art is considered to be based on orthodox (classical) modernity understanding In contrast, contemporary art (CA) is regarded as either a rejection of modern art from post-modernity perspective or an intensive criticism of it from inside modernity Both positions direct their criticisms to the basic assumptions, methodological tools, epistemological sources and ontological basis of classical understanding of modernity Within this scope, this study formulates and operationalises its research problem in terms of relational sociology and uses grounded-theory to establish the significant interactive relations defining IoA The unit of analysis is the interactive relations of individuals as artists The boundaries of the study primarily remained at national level The research questions are framed in general with qualitative research techniques and substantiated specifically with data sources primarily obtained by self-employed semi-structured survey method in addition to observations and extensive review of the relevant literature as documentary-historical data The analysis of the data and the interpretations of the findings made within the scope of iii relational sociology and with the tools of grounded-theory methodology The empirical data collected from a sample of artists actively involved as producers of works of arts and/or academicians, advisors and critics of arts from Turkey Within this conceptual framework, the role of the state and the private sector is questioned in terms of economics and politics of art, including their cultural couplings The domain of social relations remaining outside of the private sector, specifically the art public and the groups, collectives and initiatives of arts are inquired as the civil domain of arts Knowledge of arts and its formal (institutional) and informal relations provide an unavoidable source and play a central role in this study Within this framework, art market is considered as an emerging hegemonic construct in the economics and politics of arts Furthermore, artists and artworks were taken as primary constituting components of the interactive relations of IoA The findings have implications for knowledge and practices of IoA and contribute in the developing a framework of research questions that explains the interactive relations of the IoA in Turkey and adds an insight to a growing body of literature on art including recommendation for future research directions iv Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my parents Yıldız Ecevit and Mehmet Ecevit v Table of Contents Abstract Dedication Table of Contents List of Abreivations Acknowledgements Decleration Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Background and the Scope of the Study 1.3 Research Problem 1.4 Aims and Objectives of the Study 1.5 Expected Contributions of the Study 1.5.1 Theoretical Contributions 1.5.2 Methodological Contributions 1.5.3 Practical Contributions 1.6 Structure of the Thesis Past and Present Theoretical Discussions on Institutionalisation 2.1 A Framework for Social Analysis: Institutions as Organisations and Institutionalisation as a Social Field 2.2 Criticisms of Classical Understanding of Institutionalisation 2.2.1 General criticisms 2.2.2 Taken-for Granted Accounts and Assumptions 2.2.3 Historical Institutionalism: Relationships between Individuals and Institutions 2.2.4 Relativity as a Source for Contingency 2.2.5 Critical approach to fields: Bourdieu 2.2.6 Action with and without agency 2.2.7 Limitations of Discursive and Network Institutionalism 2.2.8 Tensions and Conflicts Not Inherent but Social 2.3 Conclusion: Power Relations Demand Reinterpretation Artworld and the Field of Art: nstitutionalisation of Art 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Institutionalisation of Art 3.2.1 From Functionalism to Institutionalism 3.2.2 From Philosophy to Institutionalisation: Controversy of the Philosophy of Art 3.3 Art as an Artworld 3.3.1 Howard S Becker 3.3.2 DiMaggio and Powell 3.3.3 Arthur C Danto 3.3.4 Work of Art is Relational, Social and Contextual 3.4 Art as a Cultural Field: Pierre Bourdieu 3.5 Categories of the Institutionalisation of Art and the Artworld 3.6 Conclusion Institutionalisation of Art in the Social Setting of Turkey vi ii v vi ix x xi 1 11 14 16 16 18 19 21 23 23 29 29 30 31 33 33 35 36 38 40 46 46 49 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 68 73 86 88 4.1 Introduction 88 4.2 An Overview of the Artworld, the Cultural Field in Turkey and the City of Istanbul 90 4.2.1 Organisational and Institutional Features of Art and the Cultural Field: Capital and the State in the Pre-1980 Period 90 4.2.2 Art and cultural transformation: The state and capital in the post-1980s 92 4.2.2.1 The Role of the State 93 4.2.2.2 Institutionalisation through Privatisation after the 1980s 98 4.2.3 Overall Picture of Culture and Art Activities 104 4.2.3.1 Initial Engagement of Capital: Philanthropic Intentions 106 4.2.3.2 Hegemony of the Capital: Investments in Culture and Art 107 4.2.3.3 The Significance of Cultural Centres and Institutions 109 4.2.4 The Civic Domain of Culture and Art: Artist Initiatives 112 4.2.5 The Global Image of Istanbul: 2010 European City of Culture Project 116 4.2.6 Istanbul Art Biennials 119 4.2.7 Controversial Modelling of Culture and Art: The Case of Turkey 124 4.3 Concluding Comments 128 Research Design and Methodology 132 5.1 Introduction 132 5.2 Relational Sociology 132 5.3 Qualitative Research 138 5.4 Grounded Theory 141 5.4.1 Grounded Theory and the Features of its Methods 141 5.4.2 Justification of the use of Grounded Theory 147 5.4.3 The Application of GT to the Current Study 152 5.5 Research Question and the Design 155 5.5.1 Research Question 155 5.5.2 Research Design and the Fieldwork 162 An Analysis of Contemporary Art and the Art Market 169 6.1 Introduction 169 6.2 Characterization and Evaluations of Art: Converging and Diverging Views 173 6.2.1 Integrated Problematic: To Describe Art and the Non-Art 178 6.2.2 What Makes Art Social? 178 6.2.3 An Unavoidable Distinction: Modernity-Based Modern Art and Postmodernity-Based Contemporary Art 180 6.3 Which Knowledge? Scientific and Others (Intellectual and Everyday Knowledge) 180 6.4 The Knowledge and Education Basis of Institutionalisation of Contemporary Art 197 6.5 Contemporary Art and Its Historical Sources: Art Movements and Art Systems 209 6.6 Contemporary Art is Still Controversial 210 6.6.1 Scattered and Diversified Descriptive Meaning of Contemporary Art 211 6.6.2 Limited Awareness: Insufficient Theoretical Conceptualisations of Contemporary Art 214 6.6.3 Contemporary or Current Art: Does it Matter? 217 6.6.4 Point of Departure and/or Break Point: From Modern to Contemporary Art 219 vii 6.6.5 Art is Contemporary but its Final Destination Not Yet Reached 6.6.6 Does it Matter? Global or Local Art 6.7 Contemporary Art as the Relationality of the Artworld 6.8 Concluding Remarks Analysis of the Nature of Institutionalization of Art from Turkey 7.1 Introduction 7.2 The Institutionalization of Art in General and CA in Particular 7.3 Contemporary Art is Political: Art outside Politics is an Empty Shell 7.4 The Nature of Cultural Policy in Turkey 7.4.1 Cultural Policy and its Theory 7.4.2 History of Cultural Policy Practices in Turkey: Nation-Building 7.4.3 Cultural Field and Cultural Democracy: Differences between Justice Development Party Governments 7.5 The State and Institutionalization of Contemporary Art 7.5.1 What the State does and fails to do? 7.5.2 The State cannot delegate its responsibilities 7.5.3 Stagnating and conservative policy 7.5.4 The Difference between Public and Private Sector Support 7.5.5 No Open Support from the State 7.6 The Role of Capital: Market Formations and Commercialization of Art 7.6.1 Some Historical Features of the Private Sector 7.6.2 Internet as an Alternative to Big Capital 7.6.3 End of ‘Art Tunnel’: Art Market 7.6.4 Hegemony of the Private Art Sector: Heading to the Global 7.7 The Relationship between Contemporary Art and the Market 7.7.1 Emergence of the Art Market: Early Experiences 7.7.2 The Bubble Effect: A Common Manipulation 7.7.3 The Artist and the Art Market 7.7.4 Branding Culture and Entrepreneur Artists 7.7.5 Importance of Personal Choices and Preferences 7.7.6 A Precarious Profession Conclusion 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Research Contributions 8.2.1 Theoretical Contributions 8.2.1.1 Contributions to Organisational Studies 8.2.1.2 Contributions to Institutional Theory and IoA 8.2.2 Methodological Contributions 8.2.3 Practical Contributions 8.3 Research Limitations of the Study 8.3.1 Theoretical Limitations of the Study 8.3.2 Methodological Limitations of the Study 8.4 Recommendations for future research References Appendix: Pen Picture (Short Biographies) of Research Participants viii 220 221 225 237 247 247 264 300 308 309 314 324 332 336 337 337 339 339 342 346 349 355 359 361 362 367 368 369 370 373 378 378 381 381 382 392 395 397 400 400 402 403 408 438 List of abbreviations CA: CA world: DTCF: ECOC: EU: FYDP: GT: IAA: IFCA: IoA: IoCA: JDP: MoCT: NGO: SPO: TÜSAK: Contemporary art Contemporary Art world Faculty of Letters, History and Geography European Capital of Culture European Union Five Year Development Plan Grounded Theory International Association of Art Istanbul Foundation of Culture and Art Institutionalization of Art Institutionalization of Contemporary Art Justice and Development Party Ministry of Culture and Tourism Non-Governmental Organisation State Planning Organisation The Draft Law of Turkish Art Institution ix Acknowledgments I would like to thank many people for their invaluable support during my thesis I would like to thank many people for their invaluable support during my endeavours in this thesis First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to all who took part in this study and gave their support for my research I am extremely grateful to my supervisor Professor Mustafa Özbilgin for his invaluable guidance, advice, comments, critiques and his continuous support for the completion of this study He encouraged me to acquire an enhanced vision in my intellectual development I also owe much to my past supervisors Professor Hasan Ünal Nalbantoğlu and Professor Erdoğan Yıldırım at Middle East Technical University for their guidance and endless sharing of knowledge and support I am also indebted to my friends and colleagues; Haluk Naci Gülalp, Pelin Renda, Dr Hale Babadoğan, Emre Çimen, Dr Ayşe Kurşuncu, Dr Barış Kuymulu, Ilgaz Giritlioğlu, Kerim ệmer ầalar, Sarp Kaya, Nazl Kazanolu, Dr Ayỗa ầubukỗu, Kerem Reyhan, Nihat Tsolak, Şebnem Öz and Bora Akıncıtürk for their ongoing emotional support at times of hardship and in the stressful months of writing up this thesis I am grateful to Dr Pınar Öktem and Dr Zumray Kutlu for sharing their intellectual and practical knowledge with me I would like to thank Chris Taylor for her support in undertaking the task of the professional editing and proofreading of my thesis I am thankful to Brunel University and especially to Brunel Business School, who believed in my potential and let me join their dynamic organisation and intellectual environment by providing a full bursary for studentship of graduate teaching assistant throughout my four years of research at the institution Finally, I would like to thank my family and especially my parents, F Yıldız Ecevit and Mehmet Cihan Ecevit, not only for being a part of the creation of this thesis but also for being a pillar of strength, a constant source of happiness, support and encouragement throughout my life x Şen, B (2006) Ekonomik gelișmenin kültürel stratejileri: İstanbul kent merkezleri ve tarihi kentsel alanların yeniden yapılandırılması Planlama 2, pp 65-76 Available at: www.spo.org.tr/resimler/ekler/61412e4a03c02f9_ek.pdf (Accessed: December 2014) Şeni, N ( 2011) İstanbul’da özel kültür politikası ve kentsel alan İstanbul kültür mirası ve kültür ekonomisi envanteri 2010 İstanbul: T.C.Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Tansuğ, S ( 2005) Çağdaş Türk sanatı İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi Tanyeli, U.,Gưren, A.K., Oktay, A.,Ưztürkmen,A (2003) ‘ Tartışma: Cumhuriyet’in ilk yıllarında sanata yaklam ve sonuỗlar, Sanat Dỹnyamz, (89), pp 81-96 Temizel, G (2012) Sanat eğitimi alan öğrencilerin sanat ve estetik tutumlarına görsel kültürün etkisi Konya: Palet Yayınları The concept of Aesthetic Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aestheticconcept/ (Accessed: 19 January 2014) The Definition of Art Group (Sanat Tanımı Topluluğu) Available at: (http://www.sanattanimitoplulugu.com/) (Accessed: April 2014) Thornton, P.H and Ocasio, W (2008) ‘Institutional logics, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, R.C., Suddaby, R and Sahlin, K.(ed.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism Los Angeles: Sage Publications, pp.99-129 Tolbert, P.S and Zucker, L.G (1983) ‘Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (1), pp 22-39 Tolon, C (2011) ‘The clean and polished side of art institutions makes us ignore the pressures they are under’ (Nazl Gỹrleks interview with Canan Tolon), in Baliỗ, (ed.) Second Exhibition.2/2 İstanbul: ARTER , pp 136-159 427 Turner, C (2006) ‘Indonesia: Art, freedom, human rights and engagement with the West’, in Turner, C (ed.) Art and social change: Contemporary art in Asia and the Pacific, Canberra: Pandanus Books, pp.164-179 TÜSAK (2014) http://www.kultursanatsen.org/kks/index.php/a %C3%A7iklamalar/basin-a%C3%A7iklamalari/2014/item/908-basina-vekamuoyuna Ulldemolins J.R and Arostegui, A.R (2013) ‘The governance of national cultural organisations: comparative study of performance contracts with the main cultural organisations in England, France and Catalonia (Spain)’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 19 (2), pp 249-269 Uysal, M (2011) Visual constructions of identity in ECOC 2010: The ambiguous status of İstanbul, Master’s Thesis in Design, The Graduate School of Social Sciences, İzmir University of Economics, İzmir Uzun, N (2009) The meaning of ‘Being Political’: An analysis of ‘Artist Initiatives’ in İstanbul Master’s Thesis in Cultural Studies, Graduate School of Arts and Social Sciences, Sabancı University, İstanbul Ünver, E (2011) Görsel Sanatlar ve Eğitimi Üzerine Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık Vestheim, G (2007) ‘Theoretical reflections’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13 (2), pp.217-236 Vestheim, G (2012) Cultural policy and democracy: an introduction, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18 (5), pp.493-504 Weitz, M (1993[1956] ‘The role of theory in aesthetics’, in Bender, J.W and Blocker, H.G (ed.) Contemporary philosophy of art: Readings in analytic aesthetics Englewood Cliffs: Pretice Hall 428 Wheeler, B.B (2003) ‘The Institutionalization of an American Avant-Garde: Performance art as democratic culture, 1970-2000’, Sociological Perspectives, 46 (4), pp 491-512 Wheeler, B.B (2004) ‘The social construction of an art field: how audience informed the institutionalization of performance art’, Journal of Arts Management, Law, and, Society, 33 (4), pp 336-350 Wolff, J (1993) The Social Production of Art London: The Macmillan Press Ltd Wollheim, R (1987) Painting as an art Princeton: Princeton University Press Wooten, M and Hoffman, A J (2008) ‘Organizational fields: Past, present and future’ in Greenwood, R., Oliver, R.C., Suddaby, R and Sahlin, K (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism Los Angeles: Sage Publications, pp.130-147 Wu, C (2002) (ed.) Privatizing culture: corporate art intervention since 1980s New York and London: Verso Yanal, R J (1998) ‘The institutional theory of art’, in Kelly, M (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics, Oxford: Oxford University, Press, pp.508-512 Yardımcı, S (2005) Küresel İstanbul’da bienal; Kentsel değişim ve festivalizm İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları Yıldız, E (2008) ‘Giriş’, in Duben, İ and Yldz, E (eds.) Seksenlerde Tỹrkiyede ỗada sanat; Yeni aỗlmlar stanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.pp 12-36 Yılmaz, M (2013) Modernden postmoderne sanat Ankara: Ütopya Yayınevi 429 Yurdanur,G (2008) Strategies for cultural non-profit organisations in Turkey, Master of science in economics and management of arts culture, and communication, Faculty of economics, Univesita Commerciale Luig Bocconi,Milano Zeytinoğlu, E.(2008) ‘Emre Zeytinoğlu’yla diyalog:12 Mart 2007’, in ầalkolu, L (Haz.) 90larda Tỹrkiyede ỗada sanat: ầada sanat konuşmaları İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, pp 142-164 Zilber, T.B (2002) ‘Institutionalization as interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis centre in Israel Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1), pp 234-254 Zimmer, A and Toepler, S (1996) ‘Cultural policies and the welfare state: the cases of Sweden, Germany and the United States’, The journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 26 (3), pp 167–193 Zimmer, A Toepler, S (1999) The subsidized muse: government and the arts in Western Europe and the United States Paper delivered at the 10th International Conference on Cultural Economics, Barcelona Zucker, L.G (1977) ‘The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence’, American Sociological Review, 42 (5) pp.726-743 (2014) Turkey: Protest against Proposed Arts Council Available at: http://artsfreedom.org/?p=7616 (Accessed: 13 January 2015) Biggest rises and falls in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index Available at: http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php (Accessed: 22 March 2015) -(https://www.gov.uk/vat-registration-thresholds) http://sanatorgutleniyor.org/?category_name=sanatemekcileri&document_type=bildiri) (Accessed: 24 April 2015) 430 http://www.groundedtheory.com/what-is-gt.aspx (Accessed: 11 February 2015) Siyahbant: http://www.siyahbant.org/ (Accessed: 10 February 2015) 431 Appendix: Pen Picture (short biographies) of research participants Note: To make them anonymous, the original names have been changed with the names of the Late Ottoman Artists AGOPYAN, Simon: Artist; founding dean and professor of Painting Department at Gazi University; also teaching at Middle East Technical University Fine Arts and Music Department AHMED, Şeker: Artist; co-founder of the Definition of Art Group; organised the first conceptual art exhibitions in Turkey; participated in Paris, Istanbul (2th), Osaka and Venice biennials ; has been teaching in various universities in Istanbul AKSEL, Malik: Artist; lecturer at various art and education institutions; activist ARSLANYAN,Viỗen: Artist; assistant professor at Bilgi University, Faculty of A rchitecture, and Department of Interior Design ASAF, Hale: art critic and curator, director of the Kuad Gallery; directing BM Contemporary Art Center (since 1984) She coordinated Istanbul Biennales, and crated exhibitions of Turkish Artists in Venice Biennales She is a founding member of Diyarbakır Art Center (established September 2002) and founding member and president of AICA, Turkey (established 2003) BERGER, Aliye: Cultural anthropologist ; visiting assistant professor at Sabancı University Cultural Studies Department; Co-founder of and member of advisory board of SİYAH BANT (a research platform that documents censorship in the arts across Turkey and advocates for freedom of expression) for the discussion and documentation of censor on arts.) BİREN, Naciye Tevfik: Director of the Istanbul Biennials; working in IFFA (Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts) 432 BOYAR, Ali İsmail: Gallery owner and director of Gallery Nev; teaching graduate courses Istanbul Technical University, Yıldız Technical University and Marmara University; chief editor of art books, İletisim Publishing House; art consultant to The Turkish Central Bank; founder and editor of e-scop (electronic journal on art and critique) BOZCALI, Sabiha: Editor in Chief - Contemporary Istanbul Art Fair and Organization ÇALLI, İbrahim: Artist and lecturer at Mimar Sinan University, Faculty of Fine Arts; co-founder of Hafriyat Artist Initiative: http://www.msgsu.edu.tr/faculties/guzel-sanatlarfakultesi/temel-egitim CELAL, Melek: Ceramic artist; teaching at Middle East Technical University, Fine Arts and Music Department CEMAL, Ali: Street artist; activist; Director of Muaf Cafộ CVANYAN, Mgrdiỗ: Artist; curator; lecturer; member of the artist initiative HAFRİYAT (initiative group); editor of the RED THREAD journal DAĞ, Şevket: Professor at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul; Head of Sociology Department; writer; art critic Dağ has organized and curated numerous art exhibitions in national and international galleries and museums He is an art curator and art adviser of Istanbul Modern and Akbank Culture and Art Center DİKMEN, Şükriye: Independent curator and artist; coordinated numerous national and international solo and group exhibitions in Turkey; currently MA student in Mimar Sinan Fine Art University of Photography department DURAN, Güzin: Activist; art critic; instructor at Marmara University Fine Art Department 433 ECEVİT, Nazlı: IFFA (Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts) sponsorship programme coordinator ENVER, Celile Hikmet: Artist; project coordinator of RED THREAD e-journal “Red Thread is envisioned as an active network and platform for exchange of knowledge and collaboration of artists, curators, social scientists, theorists and cultural operators from the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus, North Africa, and beyond.” http://www.red-thread.org/en/about.asp GİZER, Vildan: Professor; worked in the Department of Archaeology and History of Art at Hacettepe University; founding Dean and the Professor of Art History and Archaeology, Chairperson of the Visual Arts and Design Department, and the Director of Culture and Art Research Centre at Bakent University; currently teaches at Koỗ University, Faculty of Archaeology and History of Art GUILLEMENT, Pierre Desire: Artist; teaching in Bilgi University; member of the GROUPS ZEN and HAFRİYAT artist initiatives; participated in the Istanbul Biennial HAMDİ, Osman: Curator; teaches at Mimar Sinan University Fine Arts Faculty and Eskişehir Anadolu University HANIM, Müzdan Sait: Freelance writer; co-founder of M-est (an artist-centered online publication founded in March 2011) İSMAİL, Namık: Lecturer at Faculty of Art and Social Sciences and had been executive manager of educational development firm of Emergence that has ten centers in France KADRİ, Müfide: Artist; activist; lecturer at Kültür University, Istanbul LETONİ, Ernestin: Artist; Instructor; teaching private courses LİTFİJ, Avni: Artist; Head of the Ceramic Department at the Kocaeli University, Faculty of Fine Arts Also teaching at Mimar Sinan University and Istanbul Technical University 434 LITFIJ, Harika: Artist, research assistant at Bahỗeehir University Communication Design Department; Ph D Candidate at the same department MÜŞFİk, Mihri: Ceramic artist; research assistant at Mimar Sinan University, Ceramic and Glass Design Department, PhD Candidate in the same department ONAT, Hikmet: Artist; writer, translator; teaching at Gazi University Fine Arts Faculty and Middle East Technical University Fine Arts and Music Department OZANSÜ, Şadi: art initiative established mainly by art and architecture students of Sabancı University (interviewees: R Manas, S Manas, Mustafa, J Manas) SANDIKLILI, Ziya: Artist; living in London SEYYID, Süleyman: Artist; teaching courses and organizing workshops at various institutions and universities TUGAY, Emine Fuat: Artist; Instructor in the Department of Painting at Mimar Sinan University, Fine Arts Faculty); co-founder of Atılkunst (Artist initiative) until 2013 (http://atilkunst.blogspot.co.uk) VAHİT, Mehmed: Art critic; lecturer; vice Chancellor of Kadir Has University; General Coordinator of the Contemporary Istanbul Art Fair VOSKAN, Yervant: Art critic; instructor at Kemerburgaz University, Fine Arts and Design School; curator at Çanakkale Biennial ZEİD, Fahrünnisa: Project Coordinator at DEPO (a culture and debate center serving as a platform supporting the collaboration of artists, artist collectives, civic and cultural organizations in Turkey, the South Caucasus, the Middle East and the Balkans); Publication secretary of a social science journal Toplum ve Bilim; editor of the İletişim Publishing House 435 ...Abstract This doctoral study is concerned with identifying the determinants of the institutionalisation of art (IoA) in general and institutionalisation of contemporary art (IoCA) in particular... Relational, Social and Contextual 3.4 Art as a Cultural Field: Pierre Bourdieu 3.5 Categories of the Institutionalisation of Art and the Artworld 3.6 Conclusion Institutionalisation of Art in the. .. that is, the politics of art and economics of art are related to the institutions of art and the institutionalisation of art The important question here is to what degree the institutions of art