According to many sociologists, the study of what our society calls ‘art’ can only really progress if we drop the highly specific and ideologically loaded terminology of ‘art’, ‘artworks’ and ‘artists’, and replace these with the more neutral and less historically specific terms ‘cultural forms’, ‘cultural products’ and ‘cultural producers’. These cultural products ― be they paintings, sculptures, forms of music or whatever ― should be regarded as being made by certain types of cultural producer, and as being used by particular groups of people in particular ways in specific social contexts. By using the more neutral term ‘cultural products’ for particular objects, and ‘cultural producers’ for the people who make those objects, the sociologist seeks to break with a view that she/he sees as having dominated the study of cultural forms for too long, namely trying to understand everything in terms of the category ‘art’. This is a category that is too limited and context-specific to encompass all the different cultural products that people in different societies make and use. It is a term that is also too loaded to take at face value and to use naively in study of our own society. Since it is in the interests of certain social groups to define some things as ‘art’ and others as not, the very term ‘art’ itself cannot be uncritically used by the sociologist who wishes to understand how and why such labelling processes occur. Quite simply, then, in order to study cultural matters, many sociologists believe one has to __________ the terms ‘art’, ‘artwork’ and ‘artist’ as the basis for our analysis. Instead, these terms become important objects of analysis themselves.