Marx defines several terms such as 'product', 'commodity', and so on. He values human labor in the sense that it is to create things necessary to our development or survivability or that of people we know. On the other hand, products that are made not for ourselves, or rather for people that are unknown to us - such as mass produced items -, are seen negatively by Marx. These products, named commodities, have the ability to alienate the creator/worker/builder. Marx also mentions the use-value of an object versus its exchange-value. He states that when a person looks only into the exchange-value (monetary value) of an object, it can lead to what he refers to as 'fetishism', a sort of attraction and strong desire to the object in question.
In today's world, it seems that we attach a lot of value to an object based on its exchange-value, even though we do not always realize this fact. Marx' argument is much like that of Kant, who argued in his Critique of Judgment that beauty in itself does not belong to an object, but is rather our reponse to the said object. If we exchange the words "beauty" and "value", then we obtain Marx' argument. (from http://everything2.com/?node=commodity+fetishism http://everything2.com/?node_id=1365102) It sounds like a very negative point of view, which suggests that the whole existence of commodity fetishism is based on the illusion of the importance of the monetary system. This whole argument bases our lives around commodities, especially since we are so strongly anchored into a capitalist system. We become less preoccupied with the social bonds present in a society because we are in a race to acquire diverse commodities.
Considering that we are so preoccupied with the exchange-value of objects today, would Marx' theory apply to art? In this sense, are people more interested in the commercial value of art than its content or originality?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment