Commodification of the art or cultural object
Marx had a particular view of ‘commodity’ that has informed many views of the consumer society and can be seen to have an impact on the way the collectors of artworks see their desire to collect.
Marx had a particular view of ‘commodity’ that has informed many views of the consumer society and can be seen to have an impact on the way the collectors of artworks see their desire to collect.
In summary of Marx (Marx, K. Das Kapital Vol. 1. 1867), there is nothing mysterious of a commodity’s value being in use. As a product of human labour its property is to satisfy human desire. Man, by industry, transforms raw materials into a commodity, something that is transcendent from its raw state. This transcendence does not originate from its use value or its production labour because a commodity has no distinction between quality and quantity. The aesthetic form, the character of the product, assumes the form of commodity as human labour is render equal and expressed objectively. Meaning, fetishism of commodities consists of objects seeming to have value inherent in them because the commodity’s form alone connects producing units in the market society, via exchange value; value produced by labour. This puts the power of the workers in definite social relations of production.
Also it is important to stress that the value relation between the products of labour, the commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with material relations arising there from. The fetishism of commodities arises when the products of labour are inseparable from the
the production of commodities.
Also it is important to stress that the value relation between the products of labour, the commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with material relations arising there from. The fetishism of commodities arises when the products of labour are inseparable from the
the production of commodities.
· Can you see ways which this may help us understand the art market?
Yes, I can see this helping me to understand the art market. Though art has never been entirely separate from commerce as Marx and Engels addressed in The German Ideology (1845-1846). Where they stated art was not produced by great geniuses, but simply another form of economic production (evident through patronage e.g. Rembrandt).
It makes sense that art being a commodity is a product that is harvested, extracted or created in order to be sold for profit. Today, as creative output can be seen as a commodity to be traded does profit become a supplementary factor in the creation of modern art?
Maybe this is the only way capitalism can accommodate art’; reduced to an ‘investment opportunity’, rather than existing for its intrinsic qualities.
Again to repeat myself, in a post-modernist culture, is the determining factor for the creation of contemporary art its ability to generate revenue and profit?
It is important to note that Hungarian Marxist philosopher George Lukas (1885-1971) – No, not Star Wars! – Developed Marx’s idea of the commodity fetish in, History and Class Consciousness (1923); I think this better explains the nature of the art market. He proposed things could only be understood in a capitalist society in terms of their exchange value in money and objectification. Though, he allowed for commodities of symbolic capital i.e. prestige.
Lukas also believed in that in the absence of socialism, art is only way to counter commodification because it mediates between the individual and totality, as it inherently relates to both. Isn’t this ignored, as art is sold on a market?
It makes sense that art being a commodity is a product that is harvested, extracted or created in order to be sold for profit. Today, as creative output can be seen as a commodity to be traded does profit become a supplementary factor in the creation of modern art?
Maybe this is the only way capitalism can accommodate art’; reduced to an ‘investment opportunity’, rather than existing for its intrinsic qualities.
Again to repeat myself, in a post-modernist culture, is the determining factor for the creation of contemporary art its ability to generate revenue and profit?
It is important to note that Hungarian Marxist philosopher George Lukas (1885-1971) – No, not Star Wars! – Developed Marx’s idea of the commodity fetish in, History and Class Consciousness (1923); I think this better explains the nature of the art market. He proposed things could only be understood in a capitalist society in terms of their exchange value in money and objectification. Though, he allowed for commodities of symbolic capital i.e. prestige.
Lukas also believed in that in the absence of socialism, art is only way to counter commodification because it mediates between the individual and totality, as it inherently relates to both. Isn’t this ignored, as art is sold on a market?
· Does the article above go any way to explain the sort of work made by artists such as Jeff Koons? Find a couple of examples of artists who work in a similar way to Koons?
The article, by explaining the creation of commodities, explains the context which allows work to be made to by such artists as Jeff Koons (b. 1955). I believe it can be further explored by the work of the Frankfurt School, especially the work of Theodore Adorno (1903-1969) and Max Horkeheimer (1895-1973).
The concept that art and commodity refines social relationships was developed by the Frankfurt School, who focused on popular art and culture. A key example would be the work of Adorno on the culture industry. He believed that art can be used to pacify and co-opt the working classes, to spread dominant ideology.
On the other hand, Horkheimer (in, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception), proposed that Capitalist societies produce cheap standardised art that pacifies the mind; making individuals focus on fulfilling false needs, the desire for consumer goods, than to achieve human potential (i.e. T.V, Radio, Film, Mass Media).
Maybe the work created by Koons and others uses irony and ambiguity to challenge Horkheimer’s viewpoint. This idea that post-modernism draws from ‘ahistorical economy of images, subjects, and other representations’ (Carol Armstrong in ‘Visual Culture Questionnaire’, 1996: 27).
Art as commodity is referenced in Koons work, for example Aqui Barcadi (1968) which is in the style of an advert. Advertising uses elements of visual culture to sell commodities. Koons, deliberately makes a work of art that could be denoted as an advert. Could this be seen as ironic; a reference to capitalisms commodification of art. I tend to agree with him, as it is evident in the saleability of his work in the art market.
Another similar artist who works in a similar way, in regards to treating his art as commodity, is Damien Hirst. Both Koons and Hirst use a team of other people to construct their art work (called art fabrication), this equates as regardless of the labour value of the artwork it is objectively equalled under the persona of the artist. Does this equate to Marx’s theory of alienation? Also the conception of their work is taken from the ‘ahistorical economy of images, subjects, and other representations’ of post-modernism. Interestingly, they have both been accused of plagiarism.
I think one of the first artists, an influence on both Koons and Hirst, who worked in this way (both in production of his work and what it represented), was Andy Warhol. Warhol also commented on art being a commodity e.g. Campbell’s Soup Cans (1962).
Obviously, I have not discussed the Pop Art movement in general, as from my initial knowledge I consider not such much a comment on art as commodity but more of an exploration of the distinction between high and low art.
A reaction against commodification in art has caused some modernist movements, including Minimalism and Conceptualism, to actively develop practices that it make difficult for this process to happen.
Further Investigation
The concept that art and commodity refines social relationships was developed by the Frankfurt School, who focused on popular art and culture. A key example would be the work of Adorno on the culture industry. He believed that art can be used to pacify and co-opt the working classes, to spread dominant ideology.
On the other hand, Horkheimer (in, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception), proposed that Capitalist societies produce cheap standardised art that pacifies the mind; making individuals focus on fulfilling false needs, the desire for consumer goods, than to achieve human potential (i.e. T.V, Radio, Film, Mass Media).
Maybe the work created by Koons and others uses irony and ambiguity to challenge Horkheimer’s viewpoint. This idea that post-modernism draws from ‘ahistorical economy of images, subjects, and other representations’ (Carol Armstrong in ‘Visual Culture Questionnaire’, 1996: 27).
Art as commodity is referenced in Koons work, for example Aqui Barcadi (1968) which is in the style of an advert. Advertising uses elements of visual culture to sell commodities. Koons, deliberately makes a work of art that could be denoted as an advert. Could this be seen as ironic; a reference to capitalisms commodification of art. I tend to agree with him, as it is evident in the saleability of his work in the art market.
Another similar artist who works in a similar way, in regards to treating his art as commodity, is Damien Hirst. Both Koons and Hirst use a team of other people to construct their art work (called art fabrication), this equates as regardless of the labour value of the artwork it is objectively equalled under the persona of the artist. Does this equate to Marx’s theory of alienation? Also the conception of their work is taken from the ‘ahistorical economy of images, subjects, and other representations’ of post-modernism. Interestingly, they have both been accused of plagiarism.
I think one of the first artists, an influence on both Koons and Hirst, who worked in this way (both in production of his work and what it represented), was Andy Warhol. Warhol also commented on art being a commodity e.g. Campbell’s Soup Cans (1962).
Obviously, I have not discussed the Pop Art movement in general, as from my initial knowledge I consider not such much a comment on art as commodity but more of an exploration of the distinction between high and low art.
A reaction against commodification in art has caused some modernist movements, including Minimalism and Conceptualism, to actively develop practices that it make difficult for this process to happen.
Further Investigation
· Capitalism infringement on the visual arts (i.e. change in advertising in the 1960s – an adoption of intertextual) in the epoch of post-modernism.
· How the work of the artist Bansky has gone from alternative, ‘Street’, art to something of a commodity as it is desirable on the art market.
Bibliography
Barry, Peter. (2009) Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp.150-164.
D’Alleva, Anne. (2005) Methods & Theories of Art History. London: Laurence King Publishing.
Koons, J., 2010. Jeff Koons. [online] Available at: < http://www.jeffkoons.com/> [Accessed 03 October 2010]
Marx, K., 2010. Das Kapital Vol. 1: SECTION 4; THE FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES AND THE SECRET THEREOF. [online] Available at: < http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#27b> [Accessed 03 October 2010]
Evans, J. and Hall, S. ed. 1999 Visual culture: a reader. London: Sage Publications
Barry, Peter. (2009) Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp.150-164.
D’Alleva, Anne. (2005) Methods & Theories of Art History. London: Laurence King Publishing.
Koons, J., 2010. Jeff Koons. [online] Available at: < http://www.jeffkoons.com/> [Accessed 03 October 2010]
Marx, K., 2010. Das Kapital Vol. 1: SECTION 4; THE FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES AND THE SECRET THEREOF. [online] Available at: < http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#27b> [Accessed 03 October 2010]
Evans, J. and Hall, S. ed. 1999 Visual culture: a reader. London: Sage Publications
No comments:
Post a Comment