Social scientists concerned with aesthetics differ in orientation from scholars more clearly associated with aesthetic or humanist fields. Because until recently few American sociologists have studied the arts at all, the work of those who do so is exceptional to, rather than typical of, mainstream sociology. At their best both sociologists and aestheticians cast new light on the arts by bringing to bear externalist analyses, simultaneously highlighting aspects of society. Nevertheless, although no longer as controversial as in the past, straddling the humanistic and scientific fields continues to be rather unusual.

Even when they accept the art world's definitions of what art is, sociologists usually question its traditional assumptions about art. Principally, these assumptions consist of three interrelated components: that a work of art is a unique object; that it is conceived and made by a single creator; and that it is in these works that the artist spontaneously expresses his genius. Together, they represent a conception of art that is at odds with facts well-known not only to sociologists (Becker 1982) but to other scholars as well. Frequently the implications of these assumptions are unexamined, but as I show in the following cases, even if sociologists are committed to them on a personal basis, they find them in conflict with the social scientific ethos and use various strategies, intellectual and professional, to surmount the disjunctions.