Lamps and Bourdieu

Gotta say, I used to find some value in Kant's theory that intrinsic ethical value determines art, but Bourdieu's pretty convincing. Found myself agreeing with his social observations, so he hooked me on the assertions. His emphasis on essentially capital-motivated distinctions didn't bother me as it has in other essays by other thinkers - in fact, I found his observations to be mainly true and inoffensive.

I wonder, however, if his context in French culture presents a purer case study for art as social distinguisher. Now, I know less about authentic French culture and more about stereotypical French culture ('all stereotypes founded in truth'?), so I can't ponder on the French side of the quandary. But of our contrasting United States social structure, that I know a bit about. Here's the catalyst for the thought: today I visited a friend's senior art show, a creative display of her designed prints upholstered (if that's the right word) to lamp shades. A marriage of aestheticism and function. Her thesis indicated that she aimed for this very effect. Noting the trend of mass-produced, aesthetically-pleasing housewares by chain stores like Ikea and Target, she desired to address the growing alliance of beauty and practicality. Essentially, art (though admittedly not "high art,"or legitimate art, as Bourdieu would say) available to the bourgeois masses.

This type of art certainly seems to fall into the "popular taste" category of which Bourdieu writes. It recognizes necessity, makes no attempt to sublimate primary needs, and refuses to shy away from the banal and ordinary. (After all, everyone loves lamp. Who doesn't need light?) It participates, actively, in the systematic reduction of the things of art to the things of life, quoth Bourdieu. It favors function over form. Or, at least, unifies the two.

So, do the French experience this trend also? The mass-production of aestheticism, the essential leveling of the artistic playing field? And if, in our country, members of all socioeconomic strata consume the same goods (Even the wealthy enjoy a bargain - why else is WalMart still kickin'?), does art still distinguish our social classes? In our age of availability, is the definition of "legitimate art" - and thus, the Elite - simply narrowing in scope?