場域遊戲

事實上，我們可以將一個場域小心地比做一種遊戲（jeu），儘管場域 與遊戲有許多不同：場域不像遊戲，是深思熟慮的創造行為產物，而 且它所遵循的規則，或更恰當地說，它所遵循的常規，並不是明白無 疑、編纂成文的。¹³³

Bourdieu 將場域比喻作遊戲無非是因為它們同樣涉及：投資、競爭、衡量資 本、打出王牌等特性。而所謂的藝術價值必須透過合法性的遊戲獲得，且其參與 者不僅是藝術家個人，還包括了一群如評論者、經紀人、博物館長這樣的文化相 關人士。因此，「藝術作品價值的生產者不是藝術家，而是生產場域作為一個信 仰的世界，透過藝術家的創造權力中生產作為偶像的藝術作品的價值。」¹³⁴ 文 化生產場域的施為者信服遊戲規則的原因，立基於一個共同支持藝術價值的幻象。

這個幻象受到施為者的支持，即便施為者所持的立場不同，進入場域的施為者仍

132 Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production, 63.

133 皮耶‧布赫迪厄（Pierre Bourdieu）、華康德（Loïc Wacquant），《布赫迪厄：社會學面面觀（An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology）》，李猛、李康譯，頁 159。

134 ‘The producer of the value of the work of art is not the artist but the field of production as a universe of belief which produces the value of the work of art as a fetish by producing the belief in the creative power of the artist.’ in Pierre Bourdieu, The Rules of Art, 229. 參考中譯：布爾迪厄，《藝術的法 則》，劉暉譯，頁 205。

48 contribute to a continual reproduction of belief in the game, interest in the game and its stakes, the illusio－of which the struggles are also the product. Each field produces its specific form of the illusio, in the sense 6f an investment in the game which pulls agents out of their indifference and inclines and predisposes them to put into operation the distinctions which are pertinent from the viewpoint of the logic of the field, to distinguish what is important (‘what matters to me’, is of interest, in contrast to “what is all the same to me”, or in-different).’ in Pierre Bourdieu, The Rules of Art, 227. 參考中

譯：布爾迪厄，《藝術的法則》，劉暉譯，頁 203-204。

136 ‘The collective belief in the game (illusio) and in the sacred value of its stakes is simultaneously the precondition and the product of the very functioning of the game; it is fundamental to the power of consecration, permitting consecrated artists to constitute certain products, by the miracle of their signature (or brand name), as sacred objects.’ in Pierre Bourdieu, The Rules of Art, 230. 參考中譯：

布爾迪厄，《藝術的法則》，劉暉譯，頁 205-206。

49

而，Bourdieu 認為，即便丹托（Arthur Danto, 1924-2013）透過藝術世界的概念來 說明現代藝術合法性的獲得，但仍省去了對現代藝術世界的制度如何生成和結構

137 ‘One of the central stakes in literary (etc.) rivalries is the monopoly of literary legitimacy, that is, among other things, the monopoly of the power to say with authority who is authorized to call himself writer (etc.) or even to say who is a writer and who has the authority to say who is a writer; or, if you prefer, the monopoly of the power of consecration of producers and products. More precisely, the struggle between occupants of the two opposite poles of the field of cultural production has at stake the monopoly on the imposition of the legitimate definition of the writer, and it is comprehensibly organized around the opposition between autonomy and heteronomy.’ in Pierre Bourdieu, The Rules

of Art, 224. 參考中譯：布爾迪厄，《藝術的法則》，劉暉譯，頁 200。

138 ‘The strictest and most restricted definition of the writer (etc.), which we accept these days as going without saying, is the product of a long series of exclusions and excommunications trying to deny existence as writers worthy of the name to all sorts of producers who could live as writers in the name of a larger and looser definition of the profession.’ in Pierre Bourdieu, The Rules of Art, 224. 參考

中譯：布爾迪厄，《藝術的法則》，劉暉譯，頁 200。

50

特定藝術家的自為合法，目的在於爭取藝術家爭取文化終極的象徵權力。實際上，

十九世紀大量出現的文藝生產者、新的文化商品，成為威脅傳統藝術場域權威的 一項因素，突顯重新劃定與維護藝術場域界線的重要性。

場域的分析拒絕以單向的作品論、個別作者論或神聖化的傳記評價藝術行為 與作品的成功，因為它可能受到更複雜的外部與利益因素的影響。Bourdieu 同時 批評藝術史「只是從表面上與最傳統的對象建構的前提決裂」，與藝術社會學「侷 限於對（尤其是通過藝術家的社會出身和他的教育被把握的）單個藝術家的社會 生產條件進行分析，聽任藝術『創造』的傳統模式的原則強加給自己……。」¹³⁹ 他認為，藝術價值並非由藝術家個人創造，而是透過包括文化從業人士（作家、

藝術家、博物館館長、評論家、畫廊經濟）、收藏家（貴族、資產階級）、教育 體制或相關機構的共同產製及宣揚的結果。整體連結的價值體系，就是一個集體 的信仰空間。藝術信仰空間囊括實體的文學藝術作品生產、評論的生產，以及不 可或缺的審美能力的培養。因此，如果重建無數的場域活動，也就是關於作品、

藝術家、評論家、集團與機構之間的各種象徵行為、信用交換、展出與序言的真 實效果，就可以瞭解到它們是無限的行為循環與象徵地位的建構。無論是消除一 項作品或一位藝術家的合法性，或重新認可未曾被發掘的二流藝術家，信用認可 權都作為文化場域最基礎且歷久不衰的法則。