[Torus34]

Define value. The truth is the success and talent attributed to art depends on the name attached to it. Van Gogh's paintings today are highly praised. But in his lifetime he sold one painting. But his story and death brought his paintings to life. And now they are worth millions. So who vetted his paintings? His brother? Gauguin?Letrec? The maid he gave his ear to? Or the people who attended a exhibition that his family organised after his death which spread his story on? Same broad strokes, same vivid colours. Same canvas, same images. The same everything. But the value still changed over night. And the same is true today as it happens. A nameless artist will be lucky to get his expenses back. And an artist with a name can do the bare minimum and make a million. I don't care much about this millionaire playground. But I will always shit on it.

Hi, BOycey!

With regard to your first sentence, 'value' is defined as the ability of a work of art to 'say' something to those interested in art qua art over an extended period of time. Let me add something, if I may. Science tells us about the world outside of ourselves while art tells us something about our inner world.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

[B0ycey]

With regard to your first sentence, 'value' is defined as the ability of a work of art to 'say' something to those interested in art qua art over an extended period of time. Let me add something, if I may. Science tells us about the world outside of ourselves while art tells us something about our inner world.

Hi Torus.

Value is defined by the worth of something, and on many cases that doesn't mean monetary anyway. But even if I agree with the fundamental principle that the worth of art should be in regards to what that art 'says to us', well in response to that I would say who should decide that in any case?

The truth is all art will say something to someone. Whether that is a five year old making a mothers day card or someone smearing shit onto a canvas. But when it comes to Modern art, what I have found is that in most cases a descriptor is needed to explain what the fuck is going on within the art anyway. What does a shark in a box mean to you without going on line to find out or a tent with names sewed on. I doubt it means the same thing the artist was trying to portray. Yet once you read the descriptor it then all makes sense which then comes down to, was it the art or your intelligence that is saying something to you. That can't be said with all art in general.

[Torus34]

Hi Torus.

Value is defined by the worth of something, and on many cases that doesn't mean monetary anyway. But even if I agree with the fundamental principle that the worth of art should be in regards to what that art 'says to us', well in response to that I would say who should decide that in any case?

The truth is all art will say something to someone. Whether that is a five year old making a mothers day card or someone smearing shit onto a canvas. But when it comes to Modern art, what I have found is that in most cases a descriptor is needed to explain what the fuck is going on within the art anyway. What does a shark in a box mean to you without going on line to find out or a tent with names sewed on. I doubt it means the same thing the artist was trying to portray. Yet once you read the descriptor it then all makes sense which then comes down to, was it the art or your intelligence that is saying something to you. That can't be said with all art in general.

Hi again.

I answered your initial question in the first sentence of my quoted post.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

[Potemkin]

The art market is rather like the cryptocurrency market - in both cases, you have a 'commodity' whose intrinsic value is essentially zero, but in which large numbers of people are frantically speculating in the hope of obtaining a monetary return. As Marcel Duchamp so wittily demonstrated with his famous urinal, an art object is merely a useless object which, instead of being discarded, has been appropriately 'framed', for example by being exhibited in a gallery. As far as the art market is concerned, an art object is any object whose use-value is zero, but whose exchange value is significantly non-zero.

[Wellsy]

https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/on-labor-as-the-substance-of-value/

After all, Marx is saying that labor and only labor creates value in a capitalist society. Yet there are examples of things that have exchange-value that are not products of labor. How does Marx deal with this? He holds that not everything with an exchange-value has a value. This seems odd at first since we have said previously that exchange-value is the form of appearance of value. If a good has no value, is not the product of labor, what is its exchange-value measuring?
...
Later in Chapter 1 of Capital Marx explores the exchange of other non-produced goods:

“Objects that in themselves are no commodities, such as conscience, honour, &c., are capable of being offered for sale by their holders, and of thus acquiring, through their price, the form of commodities. Hence an object may have a price without having value. The price in that case is imaginary, like certain quantities in mathematics.”

(As an aside I find it amusing that Marx uses such strange examples of non-commodities here like conscience and honor. Clearly it is hard to find examples of non-produced exchangeable goods! Perhaps a modern-day example might be a politician who sells his “loyalty” to the capitalist class or an athlete who sells his “like-ness” to advertisers.)
...
The first thing we might note is that since conscience and honor are not products of labor they are not freely reproducible and thus do not respond to the laws of supply and demand, or socially necessary labor time, the typical forces by which prices are established. This is a good reason to exclude them from the class of goods that we are considering since this sale of conscience or honor does not follow any predictable economic logic. Rather, the price of conscience or honor would be whatever the two parties of the exchange decide upon at the moment. We draw no further conclusions or laws from this. If we were to use these exchanges to construct a theory of value we would end up with an indeterminate, nihilistic theory of value in which values are merely whatever people decide they are in the moment, with no law-like regulation by the production process. (This is, of course, the direction that BB and his ilk would like to move value theory, into a nihilistic, hedonistic terrain where value is whatever an individual decides it is leaving us unable to make any theories about social structure, class, or production relations.) But it is not the fact that we can deduce no laws from it that Marx excludes imaginary value from the central focus of a theory of value. Instead it is because such exchanges are an entirely irrelevant and peripheral phenomenon in our society. The nihilistic, indeterminate logic of “imaginary values” does not extend into the realm of commodity production. So there is no reason to bend the laws of commodity value to fit into the arbitrary whims of those who sell conscience and honor.

On the other hand, the basic category of value (and money!) extends over all exchangeable goods. Because commodity production dominates all production and exchange, the exchange of “imaginary values” takes the form of commodity exchange, even though it is not commodity exchange proper. To win the loyalty of a Cardinal in medieval Europe a king would need ply the Cardinal with political favors. To win the loyalty of a politician in a capitalist society one must give her money. Thus the price of loyalty takes the form of commodity exchange even if it is not commodity exchange proper.
...
Though BB does not bring up the topic at this point we might also mention the exchange-value of produced commodities that are not freely reproducible. A one-of-a-kind work of art like a Picasso painting is a commodity but it cannot be reproduced. Thus it does not respond to the pressure of socially necessary labor time. The exchange-value of a Picasso is a reflection of whatever someone is willing to pay for it at the moment, much like honor and conscience. Marx excludes non-reproducible commodities from his analysis for the most part as well since they are peripheral to capitalist production. However, like imaginary value, when we look at non-reproducible commodities we see that they take the form of commodity-exchange because that is the dominant form of social labor in our society.

[Potemkin]

This is one advantage of reading Marx - it helps to clarify certain matters of economic and cultural interaction within human society. Instead of vague, airy philosophical musings about the "essence" of art, or the "indefinable meaning" which art holds for some individual or other, we can cut straight to the chase and look at what people actually do in the art market, rather than what they think they're doing or what they say they're doing, most of which is just self-delusional anyway. If you look at it from that perspective, it becomes clear that there is no essential difference between the art market and the cryptocurrency market. Thank you, Karl!

[ckaihatsu]

This is one advantage of reading Marx - it helps to clarify certain matters of economic and cultural interaction within human society. Instead of vague, airy philosophical musings about the "essence" of art, or the "indefinable meaning" which art holds for some individual or other, we can cut straight to the chase and look at what people actually do in the art market, rather than what they think they're doing or what they say they're doing, most of which is just self-delusional anyway. If you look at it from that perspective, it becomes clear that there is no essential difference between the art market and the cryptocurrency market. Thank you, Karl!

I *generally* agree / confirm this, but I'll note that there may be *some* difference between art and crypto- / currency -- one might say that if a work of art is actually *liked* by someone then it has particular *use* value to them, making the artwork more than just a financial vehicle like cryptocurrency.

[Potemkin]

I *generally* agree / confirm this, but I'll note that there may be *some* difference between art and crypto- / currency -- one might say that if a work of art is actually *liked* by someone then it has particular *use* value to them, making the artwork more than just a financial vehicle like cryptocurrency.

Granted, but most people who buy and sell works of art in the marketplace do so in the hope of making money rather than because they gain anything from looking at the work. I know somebody who habitually buys expensive works of art, and simply stacks them up in the corridors of one of his many homes and never looks at them again until he wants to sell. He may as well be speculating in gold, or bitcoins. To him, the use-value of a work of art is zero, and its (speculative) exchange value is all that matters to him. Granted, he's an extreme example, but I think it reveals the essence of what's going on in the art market in general.

[ckaihatsu]

Granted, but most people who buy and sell works of art in the marketplace do so in the hope of making money rather than because they gain anything from looking at the work. I know somebody who habitually buys expensive works of art, and simply stacks them up in the corridors of one of his many homes and never looks at them again until he wants to sell. He may as well be speculating in gold, or bitcoins. To him, the use-value of a work of art is zero, and its (speculative) exchange value is all that matters to him. Granted, he's an extreme example, but I think it reveals the essence of what's going on in the art market in general.

Yeah.

Hey -- if you'll entertain this, I've tackled the question / issue in the past, of how a *post*-capitalist society would conceivably 'value' something intangible like a work of art. Here's my treatment:

Here's *another* thought-experiment, to illustrate potential weaknesses with the standard, strictly-voluntary communistic gift economy:


Originally Posted by ckaihatsu

My favorite illustrative scenario for this -- if you'll entertain it -- is that of a landscape artist in such a post-commodity world.

They make public their artistic endeavor to drape a prominent extended length of cliffs with their creation, and they'll require a custom-made fabric that is enormous and must be made with a blending of precious and rare metals formed as long threads.

Who is to deny them? (Or, how exactly would be this treated, politically?)

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ost2497544

---


Also, f.y.i.:


This Is Modern Art

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... xRt79GIwn9

[Potemkin]

By the way, I think this also explains why so much modern art is so bad. The speculators in art objects really don't care if a work of art looks like shit - all that matters is if they can sell it on to another speculator for a profit. That guy I know who speculates in art tends to buy art works which are startlingly ugly, but which happen to be fashionable on the art market for some inexplicable reason (Keynes' phrase about "animal spirits" springs to mind). This doesn't matter, of course, because he never looks at them again until he sells them. Likewise, someone who speculates in Bitcoin doesn't care whether Bitcoins are actually useful to anyone or not - all that matters is if they can sell them on to another speculator for a profit.

[ckaihatsu]

By the way, I think this also explains why so much modern art is so bad. The speculators in art objects really don't care if a work of art looks like shit - all that matters is if they can sell it on to another speculator for a profit. That guy I know who speculates in art tends to buy art works which are startlingly ugly, but which happen to be fashionable on the art market for some inexplicable reason (Keynes' phrase about "animal spirits" springs to mind). This doesn't matter, of course, because he never looks at them again until he sells them. Likewise, someone who speculates in Bitcoin doesn't care whether Bitcoins are actually useful to anyone or not - all that matters is if they can sell them on to another speculator for a profit.

Yeah -- anything to say about potential collective decision-making over art production (and its social 'valuation'), post-capitalism -- ?

[Potemkin]

Yeah -- anything to say about potential collective decision-making over art production (and its social 'valuation'), post-capitalism -- ?

I guess it would depend on how many other people he could persuade to collaborate with him in making that custom-made fabric to drape over the landscape. In a capitalist economy, you just pay them to make it (assuming you have the money). In a post-scarcity, post-capitalist society, it would probably not be that simple. Under capitalism, people are driven to do stuff they would rather not be doing out of necessity. This can be useful if you happen to have lots of money and a project you want to achieve.... Lol.

[ckaihatsu]

I guess it would depend on how many other people he could persuade to collaborate with him in making that custom-made fabric to drape over the landscape. In a capitalist economy, you just pay them to make it (assuming you have the money). In a post-scarcity, post-capitalist society, it would probably not be that simple. Under capitalism, people are driven to do stuff they would rather not be doing out of necessity. This can be useful if you happen to have lots of money and a project you want to achieve.... Lol.

Yeah, thanks -- I also mean to address the lack of 'socio-economic-material-geographic liquidity' that may be imagined for any such post-scarcity-type society / social order / political economy. (Such could arguably tend towards localist *redundancy*, regarding social production.) (See the diagram below.)

In other words how would such 'discretionary' large-scale projects conceivably be implemented, in such a political economy? Would everyone have to unanimously *agree* on a particular landscape-fabric installation for it to then be socially 'green-lighted' -- ? (etc.)


Rotation system of work roles

Spoiler: show

(For illustration / explanation purposes only. I don't *advocate* this model since it's *localist* in scale. Instead see the following.)


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

I'll add that the 'landscape fabric art installation' scenario is just an example of the more *general* socio-political issue of work-for-oneself-versus-work-for-society.

There will always be the empirical social issue of how much time do people get for *themselves*, and how much time should one afford to all-of-society / the commons / the public good / collectivist production.

Here's the 'rock star' metaphor, for the same:

Yeah, everyone could just decide to be 'rock stars', post-capitalism, favoring their own life and interests almost exclusively to the abandonment of everything-else / everything social, but I think that, in reality, this wouldn't be the case. As long as *some* people wanted to do the gruntwork for everyone else's benefit, then *enough* would get done, preferably on labor-leveraging computerized automated mass industrial production, for everyone to get the things they most needed, and maybe even some of what they *want*, too -- the most-common items, anyway.

Maybe such a society would mandate *some* rudimentary revolving work roles as a bare minimum for everyone, so that the most critical stuff doesn't get *overlooked* by everyone.

Yes, not everyone is going to *want* to be 'more utilitarian' and be 'towards solving global problems' -- maybe most people just want to 'hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and debate philosophy in the evening'.

This is an analogue to my aforementioned 'rock star' archetype, which implies that *some* kinds of labor are *personal / internal*, while other kinds of labor are *social* / for-the-common-good / collectivist.

Consider the 'rock star' -- is the world somehow *less off* due to a particular musician doing well and becoming famous and getting rich -- ? (The rock star would argue otherwise.)

viewtopic.php?p=15190609#p15190609

‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show

[Rugoz]

Art before commies is like pearls before swine.

[ckaihatsu]

Art before commies is like pearls before swine.

Shouting from the bleachers / cheap-seats, huh -- ? (grin)

[Saeko]

Maybe that's how it was supposed to work.

If they wanted to evoke confusion and disgust, they should just invite the viewing public to their board meetings.

[Skynet]

Since Andy Worhol western modern art outputs just crap. At most I like Ai Wei Wei. Is he a Chinese artist or Western?

[Wellsy]

Hi, BOycey!

With regard to your first sentence, 'value' is defined as the ability of a work of art to 'say' something to those interested in art qua art over an extended period of time. Let me add something, if I may. Science tells us about the world outside of ourselves while art tells us something about our inner world.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

That is certainly a kind of value but one distinct from the market forces which now dictate a lot of things in the art world.
In the same way that there is of course a lot of great music, but what is actually financially supported can be quite narrow due to the risky nature of such investments.

But I do agree that there is always something worthwhile in a classic or some piece which continues to resonate in the present and withstands the test of time.
https://newrepublic.com/article/126679/many-faces-john-berger

Berger wants us to understand why 50,000-year-old paintings are relevant right now. On one hand, this approach makes Berger’s essays feel very urgent. On the other, it shows us that art history, like all history, has to be continually rewritten. Only when the historian understands the needs of the present can he elucidate how these needs are answered by the art of the past.
...
“All history is contemporary history,” begins a famous paragraph from G, his 1972 novel that won the Man Booker that year. “For even when the events which the historian studies are events that happened in the distant past, the condition of their being historically known is that they should vibrate in the historian’s mind.”

[ingliz]

Most people buy art that matches their curtains (decor).

A Rothko goes well in a minimalist setting, for example.