Umjetnost u službi generiranja viška vrijednosti – o umjetničkom djelu kao (specifičnom) obliku kapitala

IF 0.1 4区 艺术学 0 ART Zivot Umjetnosti Pub Date : 2019-07-01 DOI:10.31664/zu.2019.104.09
Igor Loinjak
{"title":"Umjetnost u službi generiranja viška vrijednosti – o umjetničkom djelu kao (specifičnom) obliku kapitala","authors":"Igor Loinjak","doi":"10.31664/zu.2019.104.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to one of Marx’s classifications, human labour can be divided into productive and unproductive: productive labour produces and accumulates surplus value, while unproductive does not. In his analysis of the field theory, Pierre Bourdieu implied that, by its very existence, a work of art possesses value that generates the accumulation of capital on the market. In this sense, an artistic artefact is considered to be the result of productive labour. Bourdieu writes that, in the intellectual (artistic, scientific) field, priority is given to the symbolic capital, which can be converted into the economic one at any time. Although it is derived from Marx’s theses, Bourdieu’s concept of capital is not consistently based on the Marxist idea of the exploitation of surplus value. However, the French sociologist admits that all capital is essentially based on the economic one, because all other types of capital can be converted into the economic one, which brings Bourdieu’s theory back into the framework of Marxist economism. Fields are arenas in which participants clash over different types of capital, but they are also spaces of struggle for legitimacy and the right to monopolise. On the basis of insights into the relationships of gallerists, curators and critics with the work of artists belonging to the new artistic practice in Croatia in the late 1960s and 1970s, this article will examine the extent to which Marx’s theses on productive and unproductive labour correlate to Bourdieu’s concept of the artistic field and its capital, and how artistic products of the new artistic practice can justify their existence as products of productive labour.","PeriodicalId":41082,"journal":{"name":"Zivot Umjetnosti","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/zu.2019.104.09","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zivot Umjetnosti","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31664/zu.2019.104.09","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to one of Marx’s classifications, human labour can be divided into productive and unproductive: productive labour produces and accumulates surplus value, while unproductive does not. In his analysis of the field theory, Pierre Bourdieu implied that, by its very existence, a work of art possesses value that generates the accumulation of capital on the market. In this sense, an artistic artefact is considered to be the result of productive labour. Bourdieu writes that, in the intellectual (artistic, scientific) field, priority is given to the symbolic capital, which can be converted into the economic one at any time. Although it is derived from Marx’s theses, Bourdieu’s concept of capital is not consistently based on the Marxist idea of the exploitation of surplus value. However, the French sociologist admits that all capital is essentially based on the economic one, because all other types of capital can be converted into the economic one, which brings Bourdieu’s theory back into the framework of Marxist economism. Fields are arenas in which participants clash over different types of capital, but they are also spaces of struggle for legitimacy and the right to monopolise. On the basis of insights into the relationships of gallerists, curators and critics with the work of artists belonging to the new artistic practice in Croatia in the late 1960s and 1970s, this article will examine the extent to which Marx’s theses on productive and unproductive labour correlate to Bourdieu’s concept of the artistic field and its capital, and how artistic products of the new artistic practice can justify their existence as products of productive labour.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为创造更多价值服务的艺术——艺术作品是一种(特定的)资本形式
根据马克思的一种分类,人类劳动可以分为生产性劳动和非生产性劳动:生产性劳动产生并积累剩余价值,而非生产性劳动力则没有。在对场论的分析中,皮埃尔·布迪厄暗示,艺术作品的存在本身就具有产生市场资本积累的价值。从这个意义上说,艺术品被认为是生产劳动的结果。布迪厄写道,在知识(艺术、科学)领域,象征资本是优先考虑的,它可以随时转化为经济资本。布迪厄的资本观虽然来源于马克思的理论,但并不总是建立在马克思主义剩余价值开发思想的基础上。然而,这位法国社会学家承认,所有资本本质上都是以经济资本为基础的,因为所有其他类型的资本都可以转化为经济资本,这将布迪厄的理论带回了马克思主义经济学的框架中。领域是参与者在不同类型的资本问题上发生冲突的舞台,但也是争夺合法性和垄断权的空间。本文在深入了解20世纪60年代末和70年代克罗地亚新艺术实践中画廊经营者、策展人和评论家与艺术家作品的关系的基础上,将考察马克思关于生产性和非生产性劳动的论文与布迪厄的艺术场域及其资本概念的关联程度,以及新艺术实践的艺术产品如何证明其作为生产劳动产品的存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Community-Based Photographic Archives and “Potential” Histories of the Cold War in Eastern Europe Field notes revisited Bringing Down the “Archive Fever” Archival Transformations and the Value of Photographic Objects Our Photographs, Old and New
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1