Ok, sorry it took me a while, but I needed to post from a computer, my phone screen is partially broken, it looks like a stain, and I didn’t want it to touch my vocation for sociology.

The article is really bad, and predictively it doesn’t show the most basic respect to the people who’ve accepted his presence and invited him in various events. It’s honest about its meagre results but doesn’t account for any kind of possible improvement because there’s so much to say and I’m not even sure the author is aware of it; I’m really wondering how it even got accepted through peer-review. I’m using an old pair of glasses because it looks more feminine and it was stupid because now I struggle to focus, but I recall:

• Beaux-Arts students from the working class tend to fail to make a successful career in contemporary art because they fail to convert their cultural capital into social capital;
• the author has focused on two couples, the first one was living in a windmill when the article was published, they bought it thanks to the husbands’ economic capital and emotionally invested in it a "consolation universe"; they were accounting for environmental interests and more generally an artistic habitus (the author doesn’t talk about this common concept so I’m a bit embroidering on his article here) by showing the beams, etc.;
• the second couple had broken up; the husband had managed to work in a prestigious museum in Paris thanks to the cooptation of an artist he had contacted earlier, so he had made more social capital; the author mentions a strong "homophilia" (male artists coopting other male artists).

This article was mostly useful to outline a couple of properties from the contemporary art field, but hopefully freelance artists e.g. on Instagram don’t share the same constraints (maybe they’re on Instagram partly because they want to avoid them).