Markets and Networks

  • Xavier Greffe
Part of the Creativity, Heritage and the City book series (CHC, volume 1)


Artistically creative artist-enterprises are obliged to seek the help of markets to find the resources necessary for their activity. Traditionally, they should be able to enter independently without having to build relationships that would lead to agreements unfavourable to consumers. The same could also be said about the latter because “an enterprise is a drop in the ocean of supply” just as “a buyer is a drop in the ocean of demand” and competition leads to the highest possible price for producers and the lowest possible price for consumers. However, this approach does not comply either with the nature of artistically creative enterprises or with the behaviour of buyers of culturalartistic goods. Enterprises do not function in pre-existing markets; they have to create new markets where they are not even sure of finding buyers. Buyers can influence each other’s tastes and the way they express their needs. Enterprises often cooperate with one another to boost their creativity, share costs, etc., when they are creating new products. Buyers set up associations and communities. Here too, traditional methods are making way for new ones as seen in the emergence of cultural districts and social communities.


Cultural Capital Symbolic Capital Skilled Craftsman Bandwagon Effect Artistic Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Danto, Arthur. 1964. The artworld. The Journal of Philosophy 61(19). URL: .
  2. 2.
    Danto, Arthur. 1989. La transfiguration du banal. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dickie, George. 2009. « La nouvelle théorie institutionnelle de l’art », Tracés. Revue de Sciences humaines No. 17, put online on 30 November 2011. URL : .
  4. 4.
    Becker, Howard S. 1982. Art worlds. Berkeley: The University of California Press (translated into French as Les mondes de l’art with an introduction by Pierre-Michel Menger. Translated from English by Jeanne Bouniort (Paris, Flammarion, 1988)).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Le Breton, David. 2004. L’interactionnisme symbolique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, « Quadrige Manuels ». Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benghozi, Pierre-Jean. 1990. Review of Howard S. Becker. 1990. « Les mondes de l’art ». Revue française de sociologie 31(1): 133–139. URL:
  7. 7.
    Becker Howard, S., and Alain Pessin. 2006. « Dialogue sur les notions de Monde et de Champ ». Sociologie de l’art 8(1): 163–180. URL: .
  8. 8.
    Nelson, Phillip. 1970. Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy 78(2): 331–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akerlof, George. 1970. The market for ‘Lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3): 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stigler, George J., and Gary S. Becker. 1977. De gustibus non est disputandum. American Economic Review 67(2): 76–90.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leibenstein, Harvey. 1950. Bandwagon, Snob and Veblen effects in the theory of consumer demand. Quarterly Journal of Economics 64(2): 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Vany, Andre. 2004. Hollywood economics: How extreme uncertainty shapes the film industry. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steinert, Heinz. 2003. Culture Industry. Bristol: Polity.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maskell, Peter, and Mark Lorenzen (2002). The cluster as market organization. Danish research for industrial dynamics. Druid working paper, N°03–14Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caves, Richard. 2000. Creative industries; Contracts between arts and commerce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greffe, Xavier. 2007. Les districts culturels en France. Rapport d’études pour le ministère de la Culture. Paris: DEPSGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glais, Michel. 1972. « La notion de demande à l’entreprise ». In Concurrence monopolistique concurrence imparfaite. Paris: Mame.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heilbrunn, B. 2009. « Comment créer de l’affectif avec de l’olfactif ? L’attachement aux marques de parfum ». Institut Français de la mode : Mode de recherche, N° 11Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heilbrunn, B. 2004. Contribution in Olfaction & Patrimoine : quelle transmission ?, ed. Francine Boillot, Marie-Christine Grasse and André Holley. Paris: Editions Edisud.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morin, Violette. 1969. « L’objet biographique ». In « Les objets », Communications 13: 132.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Collot, Michel. 1997. « La matière émotion ». Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Belk, Russel. 1988. Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research 15(2): 139–168.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tisseron, Serge. 1999. « Comment l’esprit vient aux objets ». Paris: Aubier.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaufmann, Jean-Claude. 1996. « Lettres d’amour du repassage », Culture matérielle et modernité, Ethnologie française, 1er mars.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Greffe, X., and V. Simonnet. 2008. La survie des nouvelles entreprises culturelles: Le rôle du regroupement géographique. Recherches économiques de Louvain 74(3): 327–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greffe, Xavier. 2007. Artistes et marchés. Paris: la Documentation française.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greffe, Xavier. 2007. Les districts culturels en France. Rapport d’études pour le ministère de la Culture, DEPS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Greffe
    • 1
  1. 1.University Paris I Panthéon-SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations