Skip to main content

The Economization of the Arts and Culture Sector in Germany After 1945

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Art and the Challenge of Markets Volume 1

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Arts ((SOA))

Abstract

The chapter argues that the implementation of the Neue Kulturpolitik in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s led to a widening of the concept of culture and, thus, to an unprecedented expansion of cultural services. Cultural policy became more and more social policy and was thus confronted with an ever-growing hybrid system of objectives. The massive costs of the German unification challenged the public finance sector in the 1990s and the cultural institutions came under massive cost-saving pressure at the time. Against this background, the calls for the liberalization of the cultural sector, its opening in favor of market logic grew louder and louder, resulting in proposals for a radical remodeling of the German cultural field. These ideas are today confronted with the slogan of “Cultural Education,” encompassing a further expansion of the cultural field toward pedagogy. The steadily increasing hybridity of the field adds more water to the mill of those who call for simple, easy-to-evaluate solutions and the democratization effects ascribed to market mechanisms. What is lacking here are studies that aim at reconstructing the cultural interests and consumption habits of these people that form audiences, by investigating their practice of visiting cultural institutions and engaging with culture and the arts. The chapter argues that studies aiming at systematically recording subjective interpretations and attitudes of culture consumption as part of everyday life could perhaps reduce existing fears and prejudices and lead to a more fruitful cultural. Policy discourse beyond antielitism and mass paranoia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Inscribed in the original foundational act of the Federal Republic of Germany and expressed through its constitutional articles, the local and regional authorities are given special emphasis in Article 30 of the basic law (Grundgesetz), stipulating the following: “The exercise of governmental powers and the discharge of governmental functions is the task of the Länder, except where otherwise provided for or permitted by this Basic Law” (Burns and Will 2003, 134).

  2. 2.

    In Leipzig, the longtime general manager of the theaters was suspended on December 6, 1989, almost immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the SED Council for Culture was replaced by an elected head of the department for culture, a doctorate in law from the former Federal Republic (Höpel 2015).

  3. 3.

    They were changed into Eigenbetriebe. Eigenbetriebe remain integrated in municipal administrative structures. They are legally dependent, but organizationally and economically, they act independently. The management of an Eigenbetrieb has to present an annual business plan and report regularly to the municipality about its economic actions. The organizational basis of an Eigenbetrieb is commercial bookkeeping. See Deutscher Bundestag (2007, 97–98) and Eichler (1995, 157–58).

  4. 4.

    It promotes an understanding of Bildung as individual self-cultivation, as originally found in ancient Greece: “Emphasis on this cultural legacy has been articulated since the middle of the 18th Century, when the educated middle classes (Bildungsbürgertum) started to dominate State administration. This influential grouping in society, described by Hans Ulrich Wehler as the ‘state intelligentsia’, had no direct parallel elsewhere in Europe. They favored education, highlighted talent in art and science as important within the concept of the humanistic world interpretation.” Poets and thinkers, therefore, became the tools of the educated middle classes, which they had set successfully against the previously privileged aristocracy, who gained access to power via land ownership and birthright but not via their cultural achievements (Wesner 2010, 438–39).

  5. 5.

    During the times of Classicism and Romanticism in Germany, art became an antithesis to rationality and utilitarianism. The economically ambitious but politically powerless bourgeoisie (Bürgertum) created art as refuge opposing economy and politics. Moreover, it designed the aesthetic as a place of purely subjective experience, promoting human individuality in a unique way. Art was thought of as autonomous, inasmuch as forming an unique aesthetic normativity beyond the obligations of representation and decoration: “If art played the role of decorating the life of the aristocracy, it received the higher duty in the life of the free-thinking bourgeoisie to become the messenger of the highest and lowest, which urges for expression in the human chest” (Schücking 1961, 27; my own translation.) Therefore, during Romanticism, the theory of the higher truth of art achieved increasing reputation (Zahner 2006 , 22–23).

  6. 6.

    One result of these new directions in cultural policy is the foundation of five self-governing, state-financed cultural funds acting as a mediator between the state and the arts sector. The fund “socioculture” is especially seen as exemplary for the successful democratization of funding in culture up to the present. In 1995, half of the 14 states (Länder) incorporated sociocultural associations directly or indirectly in the allocation of funds. See Wagner (1999, 205).

  7. 7.

    It is estimated that the number of cultural institutions in German decoupled from 1960 to 2008 (Sievers 2008, 1).

  8. 8.

    Advertising and software/games industry are described as creative industries . Deutscher Bundestag (2007, 335).

  9. 9.

    In the city of Erlangen, the budget for culture dropped from 1991 to 1994 from 6.29% to 5.42% of the general budget, and in Nuremberg, from 5.14% to 4.40%. In Gelsenkirchen, the share of cultural expenditure within the general budget decreased from 1992 to 1995 from 4.6% to 3.5%, and in Dortmund, from 4.5% to 4.08%. In the mid-1990s in Frankfurt, DM 72 million had to be shaved of the cultural budget, which had been DM 400 million at the beginning of the 1990s. See Röbke (1995, 135) and Burns and Will (2003, 147).

  10. 10.

    In 1993, the Senate of Berliner decided to close the Schiller Theatre and discussed cutting down the funding of other theaters in Berlin. Theaters in the cities of Hamburg, Köln, and Frankfurt were forced to achieve significant savings. Management consultants advised the reduction of the funding for theaters in other cities; for example, McKinsey recommended a cutback of the cultural budget of the city of Bremen by DM 45 million within three years. See Giese and Göke (1999, 60–61).

  11. 11.

    In Frankfurt, for example, the decision was made to cut the funding of the open scene by 10%. See Röbke (1995, 136).

  12. 12.

    The discourse on “New Public Management” (NPM) was initiated in the Western industrial states in the 1980s. (See Deutscher Bundestag 2007, 91.) The goal of this new administrational control system was to relieve public services from some of their duties, to improve their performance, and to achieve cost savings. Part of NPM is the decentralized administration of resources, management by objectives, contract management, and replacement of fiscal accounting by double-entry economic accounting (Doppik). (See Sievers 1995, 30–34; Schrijvers 1995, 45–48; Detert-Weber 1997.) With reference to NPM , extensive privatizations were postulated: public services should be converted into commercial companies resp. public authorities transferred into private legal forms in order to appear on markets to improve their performance. Moreover, massive savings should be realized by “the participation of social groups in the creation of public goods” (Sievers 1995, 30–31; Fuchs 1997, 236) and the strengthening of the cooperation of public and private actors. (See Deutscher Bundestag 2007, 92).

  13. 13.

    In 1983, the Zentrum für Kulturforschung (ZfK) (Center for Cultural Research) and the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) founded the Qualifikationsverbund Kultur (Qualification Network for Culture) to develop continuous educational offers for cultural managers on federal, state, and local levels. Hamburg offered in 1989 the first master’s course in Cultural Management in Germany. See (Rauhe 1994, 14–16).

  14. 14.

    It goes along with the overall path of the German consensus-oriented policy system of that time. Even if the influence of neoliberalist ideas increased somewhat under the conservative chancellor Helmut Kohl (1982–98) and a more liberal view of state activities was implemented, there was no aggressive liberalization taking place in Germany compared with Margaret Thatcher’s Britain or Ronald Reagan’s United States (Schnyder and Jackson 2013, 329).

  15. 15.

    More than 60% of the existing cultural foundations in Germany were established from 1980 to 1990, including cultural foundations of public authorities, for example, cultural foundations of the Länder (e.g., Stiftung Kulturgut Baden-Württemberg, founded 1986, Stiftung Niedersachsen, founded 1987, Kulturstiftung des Landes Sachsen, founded 1993). The public cultural foundations are provided with one-off assets that they have at their disposal and are therefore no longer bound to public budget regulations. See Wagner (1999, 191–92).

  16. 16.

    For example, the cultural foundation of Sachsen does not offer subsidy on a long-term or institutional basis, but only for projects.

  17. 17.

    “Governance” is an administration concept discussed since the mid-1990s. It extends methods of NPM toward an “activating state,” aiming at integrating social groups and institutions in solving social problems in a more structured way. The cooperation of public and private actors is to be increased and improved, and the development and promotion of networks and societies supported. Deutscher Bundestag (2007, 92).

  18. 18.

    A rather recent example for this practice is the Museum Brandhorst, which opened in May 2009 in the Kunstareal Munich. Anette and Udo Brandhorst had been collecting contemporary art since the 1970s and wanted to make their collection available to the public via a newly constructed museum. The state of Bavaria financed the €46 million building, and the Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlung (Bavarian State Painting Collections) covers the running costs of the institution. See Museum Brandhorst (2014).

  19. 19.

    On an axis measuring nations’ total public expenditure per capita on culture, Germany still figures toward the top of that axis, with $85 per capita compared, for example, with the United States with $6 per capita (National Endowment for the Arts 2000 ). The intervention of public authorities in Germany still vastly overshadows that of private foundations and the market. Governmental sources in Germany still supply roughly 90% of the funding necessary to sustain cultural undertakings compared with only 5% in the United States (Ahearne 2003 , 128; McIsaac 2007, 372).

  20. 20.

    Approximately 815,000 people were employed in the German cultural sector (public and nonprofit sector included) in 2003. Approximately 197,000 of these people were self-employed. With almost 25% of all employees in the cultural sector, this is well above the overall percentage of freelancers in the entire German job market and the tendency is rising. See ERICarts (2013, D-31), Söndermann (2005, 459–77), and Söndermann (2007, 387–406).

  21. 21.

    This advanced function of prices is illustrated by the practice of the gallery René Block at the 1969 Cologne Art Market. Block priced the installation The Pack by Joseph Beuys at the same price as a comparable work by Robert Rauschenberg : DM 110,000. Rauschenberg was one of the leading American Pop Art artists at the time. He had won the “Great Award for Painting” at the 1964 Biennale in Venice and possessed immense prestige within the art field of the time. It was a huge sensation when The Pack was sold at that price on the last day of the show to a German collector. Beuys was immediately perceived on par with the first rank of American Pop Art.

  22. 22.

    The term Kulturelle Bildung appeared for the first time in the 1970s and is strongly related to idea of “culture for all and from all.” It only gained momentum within the cultural policy discourse during recent years.

References

  • Adorno, Theodor W., and Max Horkheimer. 2012. Kulturindustrie. Aufklärung als Massenbetrug. In Dialektik der Aufklärung, ed. Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, 128–176. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag GmbH. (Orig. pub. 1944).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahearne, Jeremy. 2003. Cultural Policy in the Old Europe: France and Germany. International Journal of Cultural Policy 9 (2): 127–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. 2012. Bildung in Deutschland 2012. Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zur kulturellen Bildung im Lebenslauf. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für die neuen Ländern. 2014. Jahresbericht der Bundesregierung zum Stand der Deutschen Einheit 2014. Berlin: BMWi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechler, Ekkehard. 1991. Wirtschaftsfaktor Kultur – Eine überraschende Erkenntnis? In Kulturmanagement. Kein Privileg der Musen, ed. Friedrich Loock. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behnke, Christoph. 2012. Gründe für den Besuch von Ausstellungen und Fragen der Kunstvermittlung. In Das Kunstfeld. Eine Studie über die Akteure der zeitgenössischen Kunst, ed. Ulf Wuggenig and Heike Munder, 125–141. Ennetbaden: Lars Müller Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendixen, Peter. 1997. Ende des Kulturstaates? Thesen zur Finanzlage der Kultur. In Krise des Wohlfahrtsstaates – Zukunft der Kulturpolitik, Edition Umbruch Texte zur Kulturpolitik, ed. Bernd Wagner and Annette Zimmer, Vol. 11, 165–178. Bonn: Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e.V. and Essen: Klartext-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1974. Zur Soziologie der symbolischen Formen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (Orig. pub. 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesregierung. 2014. 25 Jahre Freiheit und Einheit. Berlin: Bundesregierung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. http://www.bpb.de/politik/hintergrund-aktuell/165043/eu-und-usa-verhandeln-ueber-freihandel. Accessed 21 Nov 2014.

  • Burns, Rob, and Wilfried van der Will. 2003. German Cultural Policy: An Overview. International Journal of Cultural Policy 9 (2): 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe/ERICarts. 2013. Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, ed. Ulrike Blumenreich. 15th ed. 2014. http://www.culturalpolicies.net

  • Detert-Weber, Karin. 1997. Neue Aufgaben der Kulturpolitik durch Leitlinienentscheidung. Chancen und Risiken des Kontraktmanagements. In Krise des Wohlfahrtsstaates – Zukunft der Kulturpolitik, Edition Umbruch Texte zur Kulturpolitik, ed. Bernd Wagner and Annette Zimmer, Vol. 11, 160–164. Bonn: Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e.V. and Essen: Klartext-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Bank Research. 2011. Cultural and Creative Industries. Growth Potential in Specific Segments. April 29, 2011, Frankfurt: Deutsche Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Bundestag ed. 2007. Schlussbericht der Enquete-Kommission‚ Kultur in Deutschland. Drucksache 16/7000. December 11, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Kulturrat e.V. ed. 2013. Arbeitsmarkt Kultur. Zur wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Lage in Kulturberufen. Berlin: Deutscher Kulturrat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichler, Kurt. 1995. Kulturbetriebe Dortmund. Ein neues Steuerungsmodell für die kommunale Kulturverwaltung. In Unternehmen Kultur. Neue Strukturen und Steuerungsreformen in der kommunalen Kulturverwaltung, ed. Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e.V. and Reinhart Richter, 155–165. Essen: Klartext-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermen, Reinhard. 2007. Joseph Beuys. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermert, Karl. 2012. Demografischer Wandel und Kulturelle Bildung in Deutschland. In Handbuch Kulturelle Bildung, ed. Hildegard Bockhorst, Vanessa-Isabelle Reinwand, and Wolfgang Zacharias, 237–240. München: kopaed.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2014. TTIP and Culture. Informationspapier der Europäischen Kommission vom, July 16, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It Is Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, Heinz. 1991. Kultur und Markt. Einige kritische Anmerkungen. In Kulturförderung. Mehr als Sponsoring, ed. Rupert Strachwitz, 11–14. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, Max. 1997. Ehrenamt und Empowerment. Freiwilliges Engagement als neue Ressource der Kulturpolitik? In Krise des Wohlfahrtsstaates – Zukunft der Kulturpolitik, Texte zur Kulturpolitik, ed. Bernd Wagner and Annette Zimmer, Vol. 11, 234–240. Bonn: Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e.V. and Essen: Klartext-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassen, Richard W., and Roland Scotti. 1996. Von Pop bis Polit. Kunst der 60er Jahre in der Bundesrepublik. Ludwigshafen am Rhein: Wilhelm-Hack-Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giese, Illona, and Michael Göke. 1999. Markt versus Staat in der Kulturpolitik. List Forum für Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik 25 (1): 60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieseke, Frank. 1996. Flieger, Filz und Vaterland. Eine erweiterte Beuys-Biografie. Berlin: Elefanten Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glogner-Pilz, Patrick. 2011. Das Spannungsfeld von Angebot, Nachfrage und generationsspezifischen kulturellen Einstellungen: offene Fragen für eine nachhaltige Kulturpolitik. In Nachhaltige Entwicklung in Kulturmanagement und Kulturpolitik, ed. Patrick S. Föhl, Patrick Glogner-Pilz, Markus Lutz and Yvonne Pröbstle. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göschel, Albrecht. 1994. Verlassene ‘Strecke’ und enttäuschendes ‘Erlebnis’: Kulturelle Perspektiven im vereinten Deutschland. In Kulturmanagement. Professionalisierung kommunaler Kulturarbeit, ed. Thomas Heinzec, 38–58. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Gesellschaftlicher Wandel und kulturelle Bildung. In Handbuch Kulturelle Bildung. ed. Bockhorst, Reinwand and Zacharias, 230–236. München: kopaed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groschopp, Horst. 2001. Breitenkultur in Ostdeutschland. Herkunft und Wende – wohin? Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B11: 15–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselbach, Dieter, Pius Knüsel, Armin Klein, and Stephan Opitz. 2012. Der Kulturinfarkt. Von Allem zu viel und überall das Gleiche. München: Albrecht Knaus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrichs, Werner. 1997. Kulturpolitik und Kulturfinanzierung. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höpel, Thomas. 2015. Kultur, Bildung und Freizeit in Leipzig seit der politischen Wende 1989. In Stadt Leipzig: Geschichte der Stadt Leipzig. Band 4: 1914 bis heute. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höppner, Christian. 2013. Zielgruppenbestimmung! Kulturelle Bildung im Spannungsfeld von Breite und Spitze. In Kultur bildet. Beiträge zur kulturellen Bildung, ed, Deutscher Kulturrat e.V. 2/13, 4. Berlin: Deutscher Kulturrat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klepacki, Leopold, and Jörg Zirfas. 2012. Die Geschichte der Ästhetischen Bildung. In Handbuch Kulturelle Bildung. ed. Bockhorst, Reinwand and Zacharias, 68–77. München: kopaed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kösser, Uta. 2006. Ästhetik und Moderne. Konzepte und Kategorien im Wandel. Erlangen: Filos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, Birgit. 2012. Kulturvermittlung, Kulturmanagement und Audience Development als Strategien für Kulturelle Bildung. In Handbuch Kulturelle Bildung. ed. Bockhorst, Reinwand and Zacharias, 279–83. München: kopaed.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIsaac, Peter M. 2007. Public-Private Support of the Arts and German Cultural Policy. The Case of Wilhelm Bode. International Journal of Cultural Policy 13 (4): 371–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Museum Brandhorst. 2014. http://www.museum-brandhorst.de/de/gebaeude/architektur.html. Accessed 4 Aug 2014

  • National Endowment for the Art. 2000. International Data on Government Spending on the Art. Research Division, Note 74, January 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posca, Claudia. Zwischen 1999 und 1959. In Informel. Der Anfang nach dem Ende, ed. Heinz Althöfer and Claudia Posca, 46–65. Dortmund: Museum am Ostwall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przyborski, Aglaja, and Monika Wohlrab-Sahr. 2010. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Arbeitsbuch. München: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauhe, Hermann. 1994. Management für Kunst und Kultur. In Kulturmanagement: Theorie und Praxis einer professionellen Kunst, ed. Hermann Rauhe, 5–24. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Röbke, Thomas. 1995. Verwaltungsreform und freie Szene in Zeiten schrumpfender Haushalte. In Unternehmen Kultur. Neue Strukturen und Steuerungsreformen in der kommunalen Kulturverwaltung, ed. Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e.V. and Reinhart Richter, 135–141. Essen: Klartext-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rössel, Jörg. 2009. Kulturelles Kapital und Musikrezeption. Eine empirische Überprüfung von Bourdieus Theorie der Kunstwahrnehmung. Soziale Welt 60 (3): 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothauer, Doris. 1996. Struktur & Strategie. Künstlerpositionen. In Struktur & Strategie im Kunstbetrieb. Tendenzen der Professionalisierung, ed. Doris Rothauer and Harald Krämer. Wien: WUV Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppert, Wolfgang. 1998. Der moderne Künstler. Zur Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte der kreativen Individualität in der kulturellen Moderne im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheytt, Oliver. 1994. Kommunale Kulturpolitik und die Folgen der Wiedervereinigung. In Kulturmanagement. Professionalisierung kommunaler Kulturarbeit, ed. Thomas Heinze, 141–152. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnyder, Gerhard, and Gregory Jackson. 2013. Germany and Sweden in the Crisis: Re-coordination or Resilient Liberalism? In Resilient Liberalism in Europe’s Political Economy, ed. Vivien Ann Schmidt and Mark Thatcher, 313–344. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schrijvers, Alfons P.M. 1995. Das Tilburger Modell. Die Verwaltungsorganisation von morgen? In Unternehmen Kultur. Neue Strukturen und Steuerungsreformen in der kommunalen Kulturverwaltung, ed. Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e.V. and Reinhart Richter, 43–52. Essen: Klartext-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schücking, Levin L. 1961. Soziologie der literarischen Geschmacksbildung. Bern: Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebenhaar, Klaus. 2001. ‚Beziehungszauber’ – Zur Praxis privater und privatwirtschaftlicher Kulturförderung. In Kultur und Wirtschaft. Knappe Kassen – Neue Allianzen, ed. Hilmar Hoffmann, 151–164. Köln: DuMont.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sievers, Norbert. 1995. Aktive Kulturpolitik und Kulturverwaltungsreform. Neue Steuerungsformen in der Diskussion. In Unternehmen Kultur. Neue Strukturen und Steuerungsreformen in der kommunalen Kulturverwaltung, ed. Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e.V. and Reinhart Richter, 23–41. Essen: Klartext-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. Kulturelle Teilhabe als Voraussetzung und Ziel aktivierender Kulturpolitik. Fakten und Trends aus der Empirischen Kultur- und Publikumsforschung. Vortrag auf der Tagung „Kultur bewegt” in der Ev. Akademie Tutzing vom 22. bis 24. February 2008. www.ev-akademie-tutzing.de/doku/programm/get_it.php?ID=785

  • Sloterdijk, Peter. 2000. Die Verachtung der Massen. Versuch über Kulturkämpfe in der modernen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Söndermann, Michael. 2005. Beschäftigung im Kultursektor in Deutschland 2003/2004. Ergebnisse aus der Kulturstatistik. Jahrbuch für Kulturpolitik 2005, 459–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Der Kultursektor als Beschäftigungs- und Wirtschaftsfaktor in Europa. Jahrbuch für Kulturpolitik 2007, 387–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stachelhaus, Heiner. 2002. Joseph Beuys. Düsseldorf: Econ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strachwitz, Rupert. 1991. Wer fördert Kunst und warum? In Kulturförderung. Mehr als Sponsoring, ed. Rupert Strachwitz, 15–23. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Karin. 2002. Kunst in Deutschland seit 1945. Köln: DuMont.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velthuis, Olav. 2003. Symbolic Meanings of Prices. Constructing the Value of Contemporary Art in Amsterdam and New York Galleries. Theory and Society 32: 181–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Bernd. 1999. Neue Wege öffentlicher Kulturförderung. In Kulturfinanzierung: Sponsoring, Fundraising, Public-Private-Partnership, ed. Thomas Heinze, 187–213. München/Hamburg: Lit.-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesner, Simone. 2010. Cultural Fingerprints – The Legacy of Cultural values in the Current Cultural Policy Agenda in Germany. International Journal of Cultural Policy 16 (4): 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahner, Nina Tessa. 2006. Die neuen Regeln der Kunst. Andy Warhol und der Umbau des Kunstbetriebs im 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Zur Soziologie des Ausstellungsbesuchs. Positionen der soziologischen Forschung zur Inklusion und Exklusion von Publika im Kunstfeld. Sociologia Internationalis. Europäische Zeitschrift für Kulturforschung Band 50, Heft 1/2: 209–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Das Laienpublikum als Herausforderung für die Feldanalyse. In Perspektiven der Kunstsoziologie II. Kunst und Öffentlichkeit, Reihe “Kunst und Gesellschaft”, ed. Dagmar Danko, Olivier Moeschler, and Florian Schumacher, 187–210. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahner, Nina Tessa, and Uta Karstein. 2014. Autonomie und Ökonomisierung der Kunst. Vergleichende Betrachtungen von System- und Feldtheorie. In Autonomie revisited – Beiträge zu einem umstrittenen Grundbegriff in Wissenschaft, Kunst und Politik. Sonderband 2 der Zeitschrift für Theoretische Soziologie, ed. Martina Franzen, Arlena Jung, David Kaldewey, and Jasper Korte, 192–214. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwirner, Rudolf. 2000. Ausverkauf der Moderne. Die Entwicklung des Kunsthandels nach 1945. In Das Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. Standpunkte zur Kunst in Deutschland, ed. Joachim Jäger and Peter-Klaus Schuster, 47–68. Köln: DuMont.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Zahner, N. (2018). The Economization of the Arts and Culture Sector in Germany After 1945. In: Alexander, V., Hägg, S., Häyrynen, S., Sevänen, E. (eds) Art and the Challenge of Markets Volume 1. Sociology of the Arts . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64586-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64586-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64585-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64586-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics