| Abstract: | Several theorists have suggested the use of social circles in studying patterns of interaction among artists. Crane has proposed that artistic circles approximate circles found among scientists. Kadushin feels that a particular type of circle—the movement circle—characterizes art. Research on the emergence of various artistic groups—the American Artists' Congress, American Abstract Artists, and the surrealist movement—indicates that these two frameworks are not adequate for understanding all artistic circles. What becomes clear is that artistic circles vary along a number of dimensions. First, there is variation in what brings artists together. At times it is the propagation of an aesthetic faith. At others it is a similar political orientation or issue. Finally, artists come together as a result of the practical concerns of making a living. Secondly, there is a wide variation in the types of structures around which these circles drape themselves. These may range from highly instituted structures, such as the federal government art projects, to a club or a bar. Finally, the linkages between these circles, unlike the invisible colleges in science, are individuals characterized not by their belongingness to a particular circle, but rather by their marginality to those circles. Simmel's social type, “the stranger,” is suggested as characterizing this type of individual. |
