The explanation by theBrahmaTiger above is excellent. However, we should employ more than a strategy to tackle a question.
Boil down the question to the core.
Most of the sociological research on arts managers relies on the assumption that the roles and functions in the artistic universe can be precisely separated and that the arts manager‘s role is limited to financing, and that an arts manager uses one orientation only. However, Bourdieu
This is a fact. Researches show that the manager should care only about the financial side of the story. Ni implication with art even though we are talking about art. Thisnk for instance to a museum's director. Bourdieu disagrees with this line.
recognizes a
certain fusion of orientations as (i) essential to do the job correctly or efficient or whatever it is.
the art managers.
But Even though he agrees on that .we do have another sentence shift. He admits that this is detrimental, however. Turns out, he implies that the art aspect and the financial aspect of the art management is not possible, basically.
he conceptualizes this as an act of (ii) ,
for the (ii) deviation is tricky but the sentence after the comma mention
intrusion. So we do have (ii) and then, as an intrusion. So, he made parallelism between the (ii) and intrusion. We must have a similar word which is
infiltration.
as an intrusion of an economic disposition into the arts, so that he sees it as pure (iii) _____.
The infiltration is the keyword - or balance point - of the entire sentence. having infiltration, which is a bad thing, the financial aspect exploits the art for its purpose.
Exploration and idealism are completely out of scope.
Hope now is more clear.
Regards
_________________