Poetics 71 (2018) 1–6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Poetics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/poetic

Introduction to special issue on Global art markets T

1. How art markets have globalized

Although cross-border exchanges and movement of art date back many centuries if not millennia, it is only recently that people
active within art worlds, as well as outside observers, speak of global art markets. The exact meaning of the term is hard to define; in
fact, its usage will differ in the various articles of this Special Issue. But what this term alludes to is that artists around the globe
produce a form of art which is conceptually, stylistically or in other respects sufficiently similar for people to rubric it under the same
category. That category is called ‘global art’ or ‘contemporary art’. Moreover, these artists are part of ‘worlds’, to put it in Howard
Becker’s term (1984), or fields, to follow Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1993), which are becoming increasingly integrated or com-
patible, as well as progressively connected by financial and symbolic transactions (Buchholz, 2016).
The formation of these global art worlds and art markets are part of a multifaceted process that is far from linear. Its timeline as
well as its depth can differ even across regions that are in close geographical vicinity. The various papers in this edited volume
scrutinize and question these developments. They are a selection of papers presented at the conference The Art Market in a Global
Perspective, which took place at the University of Amsterdam (2016) and was the final conference of a cross-comparative research
project on the rise of markets for contemporary art in Brazil, Russia, India and China, run by the editors of this Special Issue.
We here wish to zoom into four developments that have been particularly salient in accelerating the globalization of art markets
in recent decades. Such developments are by no means even or uni-directional, yet they offer clues as to how global art markets might
be structured. The four developments relate to: how the field of art relates to other social fields definitions of what contemporary art
is; representation dynamics and underlying power inequalities; institution building and professional practices.
First of all, in some regions of the world, the rules of art, to put it in Bourdieusian terms (Bourdieu, 1992 [1996]), have changed
dramatically. Until the 1980s, in Eastern European countries, in the Soviet Union, and China, official art production was pre-
dominantly at the service of socialist or communist regimes in the style of Socialist Realism. In other regions artists were engaged in
the production of crafts or produced art for religious, decorative or tribal purposes; at least their art was seen, understood and
categorized as such. Although this did not prevent it from being collected or receiving critical attention across borders (as the case of
e.g. Aboriginal art, see Smith 2008), the global rise of contemporary art seems to hinge on (re-)instating art’s autonomy as a field in
regions across the world. The recognition of new, autonomous artistic categories is partly a corollary of the discursive legitimation
provided by cultural intermediaries who construct or reinterpret the symbolic meaning and value of art (Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010;
Rawlings, 2001).
Secondly, what counts as modern or contemporary art has evolved over time. Rather than providing a definition of these terms, as
so many have attempted before us (see e.g. Danto, 1997; Heinich, 1998), we prefer to see and study terms such as ‘modern’,
‘contemporary’ or ‘global’ art as emic terms, which are contested within cultural fields and whose meanings differ for members of
these fields across the world. What we note is that these terms have become used in an increasing number of geographical settings,
and get translated and adapted to these settings. Moreover, new, hybrid categories have been created by combining geographical and
artistic classification systems (e.g. ‘Modern Indian Art’, Chinese Political Pop, African contemporary art) in order to accommodate
and make sense of art produced in arising markets (Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010; Poulsen, 2012). This has also happened in response to
emerging constituencies of patrons and supporters of certain types of art, including critics, gallerists and curators, collectively
‘making names’ (Crane, 1992; Rawlings, 2001:25). More cultural forms have become incorporated in the category of contemporary
art, of which the legitimation of street art (Molnár, this volume) may be one of the most striking examples.
In the meantime, members of art worlds in Europe and the United States have become increasingly aware and self-reflexive about
the exclusiveness of and ‘othering’ involved in their own practices. The exhibition Magicien de la Terre (Centre Pompidou, 1989) is
often cited – albeit not without heavy critique - as a symbolic turning point in the institutional representation of diversity in artistic
production (Bydler, 2004). Art worlds and markets in Europe and US have started to open up to art produced in other parts of the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2018.11.007

0304-422X/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

 Poetics 71 (2018) 1–6

world, especially when this art demonstrates affinities (stylistically, conceptually or otherwise) to ‘their’ art. Curators, critics and
other symbolic power brokers within art worlds provide a platform to artists from regions hitherto off the global art map. Some of the
world’s most prestigious museums, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York and Tate London, have staged exhibitions,
thereby legitimating the value of art created in these emerging regions (see Brandellero and Velthuis in this volume). The rise of art
biennials, which frequently served to provide more inclusive overviews of art produced around the globe, also played an important
role in this development (Sassatelli, 2017). Yet critical voices point out that a deeper transformation towards a more equitable geo-
aesthetics requires a stronger commitment to ‘de-Westernizing’ the loci where enunciations of value and legitimacy of art are emitted,
through changes to collection, knowledge and representation practices for a start (Barriendos, 2009).
Thirdly, we note a budding institutional landscape outside the “traditional” art centres. Cities like Beijing, Istanbul, São Paulo,
Seoul or Mumbai have developed as regional art centres. Their institutional development in many cases started informally decades
ago with the formation of self-sustaining artists’ groups or collectives who jointly organized small-scale exhibitions (see e.g.
DeBevoise, 2014 for a detailed account of the rise of contemporary art in post-Mao China; or the experience of the Rex Group in
Brazil; Lopes, 2009). Often driven by commercial interests, and to a lesser extent by government policies directed at e.g. gentrifi-
cation or cultural diplomacy, art galleries (Komarova & Velthuis, 2017), art districts (Currier, 2008), auction houses (Kharchenkova &
Velthuis, 2018), art fairs (Baia-Curioni, 2012; Yogev & Grund, 2012), biennials (Sassatelli, 2017) and private art museums (see e.g.
Kiowski, 2017; Larry's List, 2016; Zennaro, 2017) have sprung up in in many of these new art scenes. With the ‘rise’ of contemporary
art from Africa, the formation of global art worlds seems to be completed: in recent years, the first private contemporary art museums
have been established in Africa, while specialized art fairs (e.g. 1:54), dedicated auctions (see Banks in this volume) and thematic
exhibitions focusing on contemporary artists from the continent are organized in traditional art centres like London and New York.
Finally, the borders between art worlds, which used to be predominantly local, have become more porous. Even countries that
previously had few exchanges internationally have now become more integrated in a web of relations, flows of art, both from what is
referred to as the centre of the global art system to the periphery and back (Crane, 2002), though inequalities persist (Quemin 2006).
Through such exchanges, we note the spread of institutions, as well as conventions, routines and beliefs that are increasingly shared,
making art worlds to some extent isomorphic. The circulation, adoption and internalization of uncodified models of how art worlds,
art markets and their participants should get organized (see e.g. Velthuis, 2013; Crane, 2009) is facilitated and channelled through –
among others - artists’ educational mobilities, transnational curatorial careers, and residency programs. Practical ‘how to’ guides, art
market forums, and scholarly overviews of the international art market tend to reinforce such uncodified models, by showing how
countries around the world participate in the same institutional circuit and trade system (see for instance the influential TEFAF
reports; Goodwin, 2008; Robertson, 2011).
We do not wish to overemphasize this isomorphism: indeed research into the significant role of auction houses in the Chinese
contemporary art market shows that similar institutions might engage in diverging practices (Kharchenkova and Velthuis 2018). Yet
a sweeping trend is the marketization of the arts and cultural fields (Sevänen & Häyrynen, 2018). Commercial forces again played a
decisive role in the forging of new linkages. The spectacular global rise of art fairs, from less than a dozen in the 1980s to several
hundred nowadays, played an important role. These art fairs often operate as international meeting grounds for art world members
and serve to introduce work by foreign artists to local audiences and vice versa. They also serve as a meeting ground and even leisure
time destinations for new economic elites from emerging regions, who have taken an interest in buying contemporary art, whether
for decorative purposes, status or investment (Thornton, 2008).
As a result of these developments, global art worlds and global art markets have come into being. The two are increasingly
difficult to disentangle, as we observe that art markets never rise in isolation but always emerge entangled with wider art worlds
where symbolic value production takes place; and that ‘managerial principles’ obtain in art worlds (Sevänen & Häyrynen, 2018).

2. Rise of art market studies and state of the art of scholarship on global art markets

Until the late 1990s, social scientific studies of art markets were few and far between (see Moulin, 1987 for a pioneering study).
They have proliferated ever since, resulting in a subfield of art market studies. A special issue (Herrero, 2013), several edited volumes
(see e.g. Alexander, Hägg, Häyrynen & Sevänen, 2018; Lind & Velthuis, 2012; Velthuis & Baia Curioni, 2015), a plethora of academic
articles has been published, while an interdisciplinary association for scholarly studies of art markets (www.tiamsa.org) was es-
tablished in 2016. In the meanwhile, autogenously commissioned reports on the state of the global art market denote a growing level
of self-reflexivity (see for instance the TEFAF reports; Robertson, 2011). We see the rise of this academic, social scientific interest in
art markets to some extent as a reflection of the increased visibility of these markets in the public sphere. The mainstream press
routinely cover the opening of an art fair or the establishment of record prices for modern and contemporary art at auction. Moreover,
functioning as a social magnet which attracts elites from among others the world of business, fashion, sports, the global art world has
been transformed into one of the central arenas where status tournaments are fought (Thornton, 2008).
The abundant social scientific interest in art markets should also be seen in the light of the specific puzzles which art markets
present, and how they resonate with wider contemporary debates in social science. For instance, art markets raise interesting the-
oretical riddles related to valuation (see e.g. Beckert & Aspers, 2011). How is the value of art socially constructed (Beckert & Rössel,
2013; Bonus & Ronte, 1997; Moulin, 1994)? In particular, how does the consecration of art impact its economic value (see e.g. Pénet
& Lee, 2014)? How is it possible that works of art that are originally not intended for commodification, to return to the example of
street art, are transformed into commodities nevertheless (see Molnár, this volume)?
We think that the globalization of art markets adds new layers of complexity to these puzzles, and renders them theoretically even
more salient. For instance, what does globalization mean for the valuation of art? Does transnational trade mean that works of art

2
 Poetics 71 (2018) 1–6

move from one regime of valuation to another, so that different criteria to assess their artistic and economic value need to be
mobilized (see Brandellero and Velthuis, this volume)? To what extent can a Bourdieusian structure of a heteronomous vs. an
autonomous pole be retrieved in these compositions, and if such a structure is absent, how should we make sense of this (see
Komarova, this volume)? What variation does the institutional composition of art markets show across the globe? How does the
Internet impact the global art market? Can online, ‘disembedded’ sales be made across ever-larger distances, or is the local em-
beddedness of markets (just think of studio visits, gallery dinners, high profile evening auctions, vernissages) sine qua non for art
markets to exist?1 What exclusionary mechanisms are still at work? For instance, in what ways do racial boundaries play a role in the
evolution and integration of global art markets? Does a myth of multiculturalism and internationalism only serves to overshadow
persisting exclusionary and unequal power relations, as artist and art critic Rasheed Araeen has argued (Araeen, 2000)?
While it is beyond the scope of this introduction to provide an extensive literature review on global art markets, we note that, in
spite of this unique terrain of research offering numerous fruitful areas of investigation, so far research has primarily centred on two
areas. First of all, empirical work has been conducted on cross-border flows within art markets and the representation or presence of
different nationalities in gallery programs, art fair presence or rankings based on the commercial value and artistic recognition of
artists. The main finding has been that the depth of global art markets is rather limited, for instance when looking at the number of
foreign galleries at art fairs (Quemin, 2006; Crane, 2009), the percentage of foreign works on offer at auction sales (Renneboog &
Spaenjers, 2015), or the number of foreign artists represented by local galleries (Velthuis, 2013). In doing so, these studies have
questioned claims made in some strands of humanities scholarship that global art is “contemporary and in spirit postcolonial (…),
guided by the intention to replace the centre and periphery scheme of a hegemonic modernity, and also claims freedom from the
privilege of history” (Belting, 2013: 178). Some of these studies have argued instead that a centre-periphery structure persists in the
global art market. According to adherents of this perspective, cultural globalization equals westernization or Americanization,
leading to a further concentration of market power with a small group of Western actors and institutions. For instance, European and
American artists continue to dominate rankings based on either auction sales or institutional recognition, while artists from Asia,
Africa or Latin America hardly make it into these rankings at all (Buchholz & Wuggenig, 2006; Quemin & van Hest, 2015. See
Buchholz, this volume, for a more nuanced perspective).
A second research area concerns institutional or organizational dimensions of global art markets. These can range from the new
categories that need to be constructed in order to lend meaning and value to art from emerging regions, as Khaire and Wadhwani’s
work on the construction of the new market category of modern Indian art exemplifies (Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010); the global rise of
art as an asset class, which has been enabled by the establishment of art advisory services by private banks, the creation of financial
derivatives linked to art, and the dozens of attempts, in ‘old’ as well as ‘new’ art markets, to set up art investment funds (Horowitz,
2010); the reasons why auctions have been used to sell new works of art in China, unlike in other parts of the world: in an emerging
art world where independent museums and critics were absent, auctions were eagerly embraced as a trustworthy judgment device by
novice buyers (Kharchenkova & Velthuis, 2018); the role which traditional, official art institutions continue to play in the organi-
zation of contemporary art worlds in China and Russia (Kharchenkova, Komarova, & Velthuis, 2015); the ways in which support
systems got introduced into emerging art scenes, often assisted by migrants from Europe, as Brandellero’s study of the post-war rise of
a modern art market in Brazil demonstrates (Brandellero, 2015; Durand, 1989); the relative distance or independence of the Japanese
art world from the global art world, which results among others from a young generation of Japanese artists who are disillusioned
with the global and for whom engagement with Japanese nationhood and Japanese popular culture is sufficient (Favell, 2014); or the
ways in which different forms of capital provided by Indian families structure the decision of entrepreneurs to open a commercial art
gallery in India, which contrasts with Russia, where such capital is absent. Instead, for Russian entrepreneurs, the socio-economic
turmoil in Russia and the impact it had on their life trajectories activated them to open a gallery (Komarova & Velthuis, 2017). What
these studies have in common is that they take a micro perspective. In doing so, they contrast with critical strands in humanities
scholarship on global art markets, which tend to equate the globalization of art markets, without much systematic empirical research,
with the global spread of neoliberalism, offshore capitalism, or financialization (see e.g. Stallabras, 2004; Harris, 2011; Harris, 2013).

3. Contribution of papers in the edited volume

Notwithstanding the growing number of studies on global art markets, big gaps in our understanding of them remain. In the
remainder of this introduction, we identify three gaps in particular, and explain how the seven articles in this edited volume address
them.

3.1. Factual knowledge

Quantitative, factual knowledge is limited. How large is the cross-border trade in art (Schulze, 1999)? How many artists, col-
lectors and intermediaries are involved in emerging regions, and what is the overall size of the market in these regions? In estab-
lishing these numbers, there is a lot of confusion. Do we look at the top or the bottom? Are the statistics reliable, for instance for
auction sales in China, where buyers are known to bid on works but never pay for them and pick them up? Is there a bias in the

1
Recent art market commissioned reports suggest that the Internet is slowly changing the art market level playing field. While the take up of
online business has been relatively modest to date, and primarily centred on lower priced art (a TEFAF 2017 report on e-commerce suggests that
online auction sales are at 8%) the expectation is that younger, more Internet savvy generations will purchase art to a greater extent online.

3
 Poetics 71 (2018) 1–6

numbers, depending on the source (e.g. auction houses in emerging regions do not seem to be covered as well by global art price
databases as auction houses in Europe and the United States; exhibition websites such as Artfacts.net seem to have a better coverage
of the exhibition trajectories of Western European artists)? Maybe developments go so quickly that what was true 10 years ago, e.g.
when it comes to the limited visibility of art from the periphery (Buchholz & Wuggenig, 2006; Quemin, 2006), has already changed
now?
One of the papers in this volume that contributes to bridging this gap is Patricia Banks’s. She shows that the notion of a boom in
globalization of African contemporary art that the art press speaks of is exaggerated, at least at the top segment of the market. While
the art market attention’s for African contemporary art is visible in the increase in auctions specializing in the continent, the number
of African born artists whose work is consigned at Christie’s mainstream auctions (which Banks’s data focus on) has risen only
slightly. For Banks, these results show that debates on globalization of the art market should engage more openly with national and
international politics of race and how they in turn might shape the valuation of black artists and African heritage. Moreover, Banks
shows that the process of inclusion is not a linear one and has to some extent started much earlier than media accounts suggest: in the
US, museums for African art were already established in the 1960s. Likewise, based on auction data and data measuring artistic
reputations derived from artfacts.net, Buchholz comes up with new rankings of countries based on the amount of symbolic and
economic capital these countries’ artists have accumulated. The results are nuanced: when it comes to symbolic capital, the US,
Germany and the UK continue to dominate, but for economic capital, artists from China in particular have made an impressive ascent
in a short period, and now dominate the ranking.

3.2. Theoretical gap: legitimation questions

One of the broader questions which has not been addressed sufficiently by studies so far, is if and to what extent theories
developed in Europe and the United States are relevant outside of these regions as well. In her contribution, Buchholz argues that
Bourdieu’s theory of the field of cultural production is indeed applicable. She extends Bourdieu’s field approach and shows that while
artists from peripheral regions, and from China in particular have achieved commercial success, reducing economic inequalities
between the centre and the periphery of the global art field, they have been much less successful in reducing symbolic inequalities:
symbolic capital is still accumulated more by artists from the centre than from peripheral regions. Another implication of Buchholz
paper is that apparently, economic capital can be had in global art markets without first accumulating symbolic capital, to put it in
Bourdieu’s terms. This contrasts with Banks’s interpretation that the rise of African artists in auction markets has been preceded by
their legitimation by e.g. museums. In a global art market, the dynamics between artistic legitimation or institutional recognition and
commercial success may in other words continue to be shaped locally.
This is also what Komarova’s contribution suggests. She compares two countries, India and Russia, with a highly dissimilar
institutional composition of the cultural field. Her argument is that the denegation of the economy among artists, which is frequently
taken as a universal in fields of cultural production, may be specific to fields like Russia with an institutional composition dominated
by non-profit art institutions. In those fields artists can afford to disavow economic interests because careers can be built on ex-
hibiting in these non-profit art institutions. Instead, in a country like India, where the government hardly supports the arts and few
non-profit organizations exist, market actors are dominant and artists can therefore not afford to disavow economic interests. Career
strategies of artists are as a result informed by a market logic.
Molnár takes yet another perspective on the dynamics between commercial success and artistic legitimation. Her contribution
focuses on street art as an ecology of interstitial practices: in spite of its growing commercialization and co-optation by business and
marketing, from the fashion industry to tourism, it nonetheless manages to preserve part of its countercultural edge. Street artists
have developed alternative strategies to keep their art accessible to the wider public, notably through the use of social media
platforms and affordable pricing strategies. As a boundary (and field) crossing art form, street art has gained artistic and economic
legitimacy alike, yet the two are experienced as non-contradictory. Artists who straddle the line between art for the market and art for
societal goals view the former as a way to subsidize their commitment to the latter. Finally, Brandellero and Velthuis’ contribution
zooms in on the legitimation processes themselves. They study how modern and contemporary art from Brazil get inserted into the
global field and what evaluative repertoires are staged in this process, zooming into two dimensions specifically: indicators of
institutional recognition and associations with other artists or movements. Through the press, audiences in the UK, US and Brazil are
familiarized with Brazilian artists in different ways: while social networks, collaboration with other Brazilian artists and recognition
by Brazilian institutions tend to be used more often in the Brazilian press, UK and US audiences are more likely to hear about how an
artist compares to established (and non-Brazilian) artists. The authors also caution against methodological nationalism: differences in
the ways in which artists get evaluated, are not simply related to the nationality of the reviewer, but also to specific newspaper titles
as well as to individual artists.

3.3. Perspective gap: perception of people within the field

The final knowledge gap pertains to emic perspectives of global art markets. In particular, we know little about the ways local
actors in emerging art markets see and understand their worlds. In different ways, the papers of Svetlana Kharchenkova and Olga
Sooudi contribute to filling this gap. Kharchenkova studies the metaphors actors use to make sense of the Chinese market for
contemporary art and the way this market develops. Sooudi focuses on the way in which actors in the Indian art market remember the
past, in particular a dramatic moment in the development of the Indian art market: its boom in the years 2005-2008 and its sub-
sequent bust, exemplified by the quick rise and sharp fall of the Mumbai-based gallery Bodhi Art. Remarkably, both studies find that

4
 Poetics 71 (2018) 1–6

actors see the market highly critically: Indian actors see the boom years as overtly commercial, as an unhealthy development stage
that should not return. Chinese actors see the market as an organism that is, compared to Western art markets, immature. Both papers
are about market mythologies that come to serve a purpose as referents for appropriate or desirable market behaviour or devel-
opments.
Why bother? Apart from enriching our understanding of globalization in their own right, these two papers demonstrate that
perceptions and mythologies have a lasting impact. In Sooudi’s case, the memories of the market’s past are a way for market
participants in the present to deal with on-going tensions in the commodification of contemporary art. For Kharchenkova, the
metaphors shape the behaviour of market participants in an attempt to overcome and remedy the shortcomings of the Chinese art
market.

4. Concluding remarks

Judging by the most striking developments in the field over the last two decades, such as the spectacular rise of biennials, art fairs
and gallery districts in cities around the world, it seems only natural to assume that we are gradually moving towards a truly
borderless, globalized art world. In this world, works of art would travel without friction to other parts of the world. There they get
exhibited, appreciated and eventually sold, as if distance does not matter, to audiences with a cosmopolitan taste and inclusive ethics.
To some extent, the articles in this special issue do indeed support this assumption. Yes, it is true that there is more mixing of
artists from emerging regions at auction (Banks) or in rankings (Buchholz); there are signs that the evaluative repertoires which are
used to review art look alike in the periphery and the centre in at least some respects (Brandellero and Velthuis); it also seems to be
the case that some morals of the market, including what Bourdieu (1993) called the disavowal of the economy, are increasingly
shared across the globe (Kharchenkova and Sooudi). But at the same time, this special issue also demonstrates that key boundaries
persist: especially when it comes to reputation formation or recognition of artists from emerging regions, processes of inclusion have
so far been slow (Buchholz); in particular, recognition of artists by museums in the periphery, still does not mean much on a global
scale, suggesting on-going power differentials with global art markets (Brandellero and Velthuis). Moreover, in spite of the har-
monization or convergence of art world infrastructures, key differences in infrastructures and support structures continue to exist
(Komarova), raising questions about the compatibility of local or regional markets.
Although not explicitly thematized in this special issue, there are other signs that make us wonder if we are not regressing to a
more closed art world instead of a more global, or open one. The rise of populism in European countries, the United States, or Brazil
might have an impact on the dynamics of cultural globalisation in the near future, e.g. through funding for culture, attitudes towards
‘the other’, or the inclusion of foreign art in national museums. In 2018, art almost became a casualty of president’s Trump America
First policies. When a trade war emerged between China and the United States, it took an extensive lobbying effort to remove
Chinese-made art and antiquities from a list of goods that a 10 per cent import tariff would be imposed on (Neuendorf, 2018). In the
UK, Brexit may make it more difficult for foreign artists to establish themselves there, or, vice versa, for British artists to work from a
studio in continental Europe. In China, in the meantime, president Xi Jinping has emphasized that art should serve the people and
socialism; contemporary art has (again) come under the scrutiny of the government, and artists reportedly avoid political art (Ash,
2018). At the end of 2017, the Brazilian art world witnessed the abrupt closing of the exhibition Queermuseu - Cartografias da
Diferença na Arte Brasileira (Queer Museum – Mapping diversity in Brazilian art) amid outcries against censorship, following a wave of
protests by right-wing campaigners (Darlington 2017). In Russia and India, violent attacks have been levelled against modern and
contemporary art, mostly by radical, conservative groups (Maheshwari, 2019).
It is hard to deny, then, that contemporary art has become increasingly politicized around the globe. For some audiences, con-
temporary art worlds are a platform for the appreciation of cultural expressions of artists with different national, ethnic and racial
backgrounds, thereby contributing to more inclusive societies. For others, contemporary art signals a loss of identity, a disregard for
traditional, conservative or religious values, while contemporary art markets are seen as the playground of economic and cultural
elites. In short, the rise of nationalist movements across countries in the world and anti-globalization political rhetoric opens up new
sets of questions about the future of global art markets and art worlds. This special issue has mapped some trends in growing mutual
awareness and visibility of contemporary art, as market actors grapple with questions of inclusion and representation; time will tell
whether more insular times are to come.

References

Alexander, V. D., Hägg, S., Häyrynen, S., & Sevänen, E. (2018). Art and the challenge of markets volume 1: National cultural politics and the challenges of marketization and
globalization. Springer.
Araeen, R. (2000). A new beginning beyond postcolonial cultural theory and identity politics. Third Text, 14(50), 3–20.
Ash, A. (2018). Why young Chinese artists are avoiding political art. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: 〈https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/07/
young-chinese-artists/565040/〉 July 26th .
Baia Curioni, S. (2012). A fairy tale: The art system globalisation and the fair movement. In M. Lind, & O. Velthuis (Eds.). Contemporary art and its commercial markets: A
report on current conditions and future scenarios (pp. 115–151). Berlin: Sternberg Press.
Becker, H. S. (1984). Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Beckert, J., & Aspers, P. (Eds.). (2011). The worth of goods: Valuation and pricing in the economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beckert, J., & Rössel, J. (2013). The price of art. European Societies, 15(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2013.767923.
Bonus, H., & Ronte, D. (1997). Credibility and economic value in the visual arts. Journal of Cultural Economics, 21, 103–118.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art. Stanford: Stanford University Press [1992].
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Essays on art and literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brandellero, A. (2015). The emergence of a market for art in Brazil. In O. Velthuis, & S. Baia Curioni (Eds.). Cosmopolitan canvases: The globalization of markets for

5
 Poetics 71 (2018) 1–6

contemporary art (pp. 215–237). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buchholz, L. (2016). What is a global field? Theorizing fields beyond the nation‐state. The Sociological Review Monographs, 64(2), 31–60.
Buchholz, L., & Wuggenig, U. (2006). Cultural globalization between myth and reality. The case of the contemporary visual arts. Artefact, 4 〈http://artefact.mi2.hr/_
a04/lang_en/theory_buchholz_en.htm〉.
Bydler, C. (2004). The Global Art world, Inc.: On the globalization of contemporary art, diss. Figura Nova Series32Uppsala: Acta Universitas Upsaliensis.
Crane, D. (1992). The production of culture: Media and the urban arts. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crane, D. (2002). Culture and globalization. Theoretical models and emerging trends. In D. Crane, N. Kawashima, & K. Kawasaki (Eds.). Global culture. Media, arts,
policy and globalization (pp. 1–25). New York: Routledge.
Currier, J. (2008). Art and power in the new china: An exploration of Beijing’s 798 district and its implications for contemporary urbanism. Town Planning Review,
79(2–3), 237–265. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.79.2-3.6.
Danto, A. C. (1997). After the end of art. Contemporary art and the pale of history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Darlington, S. (2017). Brazilian art show sets off dispute that mirrors political battles. September 17 The New York Times. Retrieved from 〈https://www.nytimes.com/
2017/09/13/world/americas/brazil-art-show-gender-controversy.html〉.
DeBevoise, J. (2014). Between state and market: Chinese contemporary art in the post-Mao era. Leiden: Brill.
Durand, J. C. (1989). Arte, Privilégio e Distribuição: Artes Plásticas, Arquitetura e Classe Dirigente no Brasil, 1955-1985. São Paulo, Perspectiva.
Favell, A. (2014). Creative East–West cosmopolitanism? The changing role of international mobility for young Japanese contemporary artists. In Y. N. Soysal (Ed.).
Transnational trajectories in East Asia (pp. 101–123). London: Routledge.
Goodwin, J. (Ed.). (2008). The International Art Markets: The essential guide for collectors and investors. London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Harris, J. (2013). Gatekeepers, poachers and pests in the globalized contemporary art world system. Third Text, 27(4), 536–548.
Harris, J. (Ed.). (2011). Globalization and contemporary art. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Heinich, N. (1998). Le triple jeu de l’art contemporain. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Herrero, M. (2013). Introduction. European Societies, 15(2), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2013.767925.
Horowitz, N. (2010). Art of the deal: contemporary art in a global financial market. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2010). Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category: Modern Indian art. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(6), 1281–1304. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57317861.
Kharchenkova, S., Komarova, N., & Velthuis, O. (2015). Official art organizations in the emerging markets of China and Russia. In O. Velthuis, & S. Baia Curioni (Eds.).
Cosmopolitan canvases: The globalization of markets for contemporary art (pp. 78–101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kharchenkova, S., & Velthuis, O. (2018). How to become a judgment device: Valuation practices and the role of auctions in the emerging Chinese art market. Socio-
Economic Review, 16(3), 459–477.
Kiowski, D. S. (2017). A museum a day: New private art museums in Shanghai. Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art, 4(1), 45–60.
Komarova, N., & Velthuis, O. (2017). Local contexts as activation mechanisms of market development: Contemporary art in emerging markets. Consumption Markets &
Culture, 21(1), 1–21.
Larry's List. (2016). Private art museum report. Vienna: Modern Arts Publishing.
Lind, M., & Velthuis, O. (Eds.). (2012). Contemporary art and its commercial markets: A report on current conditions and future scenarios. Berlin: Sternberg Press.
Lopes, F. (2009). A experiência REX. “Éramos o time do Rei”. São Paulo: Alameda.
Maheshwari, M. (2019). Art attacks. Violence and Offence-Taking in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Moulin, R. (1994). The construction of art values. International Sociology, 9(1), 5–12.
Neuendorf, H. (2018, September 19). The latest round of Trump administration tariffs spares Chinese art and antiquities. ArtnetNews. Retrieved from: 〈https://news.
artnet.com/art-world/china-tariffs-1351112〉.
Pénet, P., & Lee, K. (2014). Prize & price: The turner prize as a valuation device in the contemporary art market. Poetics, 43, 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
poetic.2014.01.003.
Poulsen, N. (2012). Creative tensions: Contemporary fine art in the ‘new’ India. In A. P. De Costa (Ed.). A new India? Critical reflections in the long twentieth century (pp.
179–194). London: Anthem Press.
Quemin, A., & Hest, F. v (2015). The impact of nationality and territory on fame and success in the visual arts sector: Artists, experts, and the market. In O. Velthuis, &
S. Baia Curioni (Eds.). Cosmopolitan canvases. The globalization of markets for contemporary art (pp. 193–212). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quemin, A. (2006). Globalization and mixing in the visual arts: An empirical survey of ‘High culture’ and globalization. International Sociology, 21(4), 522–550.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580906065299.
Rawlings, C. M. (2001). ‘Making names’: The cutting edge renewal of African art in New York City, 1985-1996. Poetics, 29(1), 25–54.
Renneboog, L., & Spaenjers, C. (2015). Investment returns and economic fundamentals in international art markets. In O. Velthuis, & S. Baia Curioni (Eds.).
Cosmopolitan canvases. The globalization of markets for contemporary art (pp. 129–146). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robertson, I. A. (2011). A new art from emerging markets. Farnham: Lund Humphries.
Sassatelli, M. (2017). Symbolic production in the art biennial: Making worlds. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(4), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276416667199.
Schulze, G. G. (1999). International trade in art. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 109–136.
Smith, T. (2008). Creating value between cultures: Contemporary Australian aboriginal art. In M. Hutter, & D. Throsby (Eds.). Beyond price. Value in culture, economics
and the arts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stallabras, J. (2004). Art incorporated. The story of contemporary art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
TEFAF (2017). TEFAF Art Market Report. Online Focus. Prepared by Prof. Dr. Rachel A.J. Pownall. Helvoirt: The European Fine Art Foundation (TEFAF).
Thornton, S. (2008). Seven days in the art world. New York: Norton.
Velthuis, O. (2013). Globalization of markets for contemporary art: Why local ties remain dominant in Amsterdam and Berlin. European Societies, 15(2), 290–308.
Velthuis, O., & Baia Curioni, S. (2015). Making Markets Global. In O. Velthuis, & S. Baia Curioni (Eds.). Cosmopolitan canvases. The globalization of markets for
contemporary art (pp. 1–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zennaro, G. (2017). Between global models and local resources: Building private art museums in Shanghai’s west bund. Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art, 4(1),
61–81.

Olav Velthuis, Amanda Brandellero