If we take political economy to be concerned with the way a society satisfies its needs, we would expect that an account of Marx’s critique of political economy of art should begin with a critique of the way a need for art is perceived within capitalistic production relations. We will try to provide a sketch of such a critique in this paper, taking various accounts of the place and role of art within a system of human needs as a context in which art works and artistic creation are connected with categories of commodity, production, labour, market etc. Then we will turn to an account of human needs, provided by Agnes Heller, that are not limited to political economy and aim to show that the need for art is properly located within that system of “non-alienated” needs and human self-determination.
{"title":"Marx o potrebi za umjetnošću: umjetnost između političke ekonomije i samoodređenja","authors":"B. Blagojevic","doi":"10.31664/ZU.2019.104.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.06","url":null,"abstract":"If we take political economy to be concerned with the way a society satisfies its needs, we would expect that an account of Marx’s critique of political economy of art should begin with a critique of the way a need for art is perceived within capitalistic production relations. We will try to provide a sketch of such a critique in this paper, taking various accounts of the place and role of art within a system of human needs as a context in which art works and artistic creation are connected with categories of commodity, production, labour, market etc. Then we will turn to an account of human needs, provided by Agnes Heller, that are not limited to political economy and aim to show that the need for art is properly located within that system of “non-alienated” needs and human self-determination.","PeriodicalId":41082,"journal":{"name":"Zivot Umjetnosti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.06","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49594386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For an artist at the earliest stages of his career, accumulating a stock of knowledge and skills can become the most important basis from which he or she might expect a higher income or ranking on the art market in the future. These investments can be seen as the direct costs of higher education in art, which together with other costs make a significant corpus of investment for the artist, from which some future return may be expected. According to the renowned theoretician of economy Ruth Towse, such investment can also be considered as a “percentage of personal income,” which can be understood as compensation for any interest that the artist would have realized in case he had effectively converted such investment into savings or invested in something else. Thus, the indirect costs of investing in art education are all those that we can consider as earnings that were missed during the training period, or period of knowledge accumulation. In this case, theorists will agree that such investment may be considered as an opportunity cost, which would have been compensated had that time been used for work, that is, invested in earning rather than learning. Therefore, in this paper, based on these dichotomy contributions, we will build on the general views of the contract theory as proposed by Richard E. Caves on the negotiating position of the artist, which in most cases constitutes an “incomplete contract” that cannot compensate for all the costs of art education and later the price and market value of his or her work. The need to pay special attention to this topic in the new conditions of political economy arises from a rather dominant and hypostatic form of cognitive capital on the one side, and the neoliberal model of cultural policy on the other.
对于一个处于职业生涯初期的艺术家来说，积累知识和技能可能成为他或她未来期望获得更高收入或在艺术市场上排名的最重要基础。这些投资可以被看作是艺术高等教育的直接成本，它与其他成本一起构成了艺术家投资的重要主体，从中可以预期一些未来的回报。根据著名经济学家Ruth Towse的说法，这种投资也可以被理解为“个人收入的百分比”，这可以理解为艺术家如果将这种投资有效地转化为储蓄或投资于其他东西，将获得的任何利息的补偿。因此，投资艺术教育的间接成本就是我们可以认为是在培训期间或知识积累期间所失去的收益。在这种情况下，理论家们会同意，这种投资可以被视为机会成本，如果把时间用于工作，也就是说，投资于赚钱而不是学习，这种投资就会得到补偿。因此，在本文中，基于这些二分法的贡献，我们将以Richard E. Caves提出的关于艺术家谈判立场的合同理论的一般观点为基础，这在大多数情况下构成了一种“不完全合同”，无法补偿艺术教育的所有成本以及后来他或她的作品的价格和市场价值。在政治经济学的新条件下，需要特别关注这个话题，一方面是因为认知资本的一种相当占主导地位的实体形式，另一方面是因为文化政策的新自由主义模式。
{"title":"Prilog teoriji izvođačkog ugovora","authors":"Edin Jašarović","doi":"10.31664/ZU.2019.104.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.07","url":null,"abstract":"For an artist at the earliest stages of his career, accumulating a stock of knowledge and skills can become the most important basis from which he or she might expect a higher income or ranking on the art market in the future. These investments can be seen as the direct costs of higher education in art, which together with other costs make a significant corpus of investment for the artist, from which some future return may be expected. According to the renowned theoretician of economy Ruth Towse, such investment can also be considered as a “percentage of personal income,” which can be understood as compensation for any interest that the artist would have realized in case he had effectively converted such investment into savings or invested in something else. Thus, the indirect costs of investing in art education are all those that we can consider as earnings that were missed during the training period, or period of knowledge accumulation. In this case, theorists will agree that such investment may be considered as an opportunity cost, which would have been compensated had that time been used for work, that is, invested in earning rather than learning. Therefore, in this paper, based on these dichotomy contributions, we will build on the general views of the contract theory as proposed by Richard E. Caves on the negotiating position of the artist, which in most cases constitutes an “incomplete contract” that cannot compensate for all the costs of art education and later the price and market value of his or her work. The need to pay special attention to this topic in the new conditions of political economy arises from a rather dominant and hypostatic form of cognitive capital on the one side, and the neoliberal model of cultural policy on the other.","PeriodicalId":41082,"journal":{"name":"Zivot Umjetnosti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.07","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69461743","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, we analyse two recent contributions to the Marxist critique of the political economy of art: the article “Artistic Labor and the Production of Value: An Attempt at a Marxist Interpretation” by José María Durán and the book Art and Value: Art’s Economic Exceptionalism in Classical, Neoclassical and Marxist Economics by Dave Beech. While Durán emphasizes the emergence of the legal category of intellectual property rights as crucial for value production in art, Beech has reached the contrary conclusion that artistic labour does not produce value and that artistic production is therefore excepted from capitalist commodity production. In our paper, we criticize both conclusions. While agreeing with Beech that artistic labour does not produce value and is thus excepted from the ideology of commodity fetishism, we believe that through the ideology of converted forms it nevertheless becomes part of capitalist commodity production. We would argue that the sector of artistic production, through the converted form of monopoly rent, establishes a production relation with other, competitive, sectors of capitalist economy. This production relation is enabled by the ideology of aesthetic fetishism, supported by the ideology of legal fetishism through the category of intellectual property rights. Contrary to Durán, we thus conclude that intellectual property rights allow for a hidden transfer of surplus value produced by the workers in the competitive sectors of the capitalist economy.
{"title":"Robni fetišizam, pravni fetišizam, preobraženi oblici i estetski fetišizam","authors":"R. Pantić","doi":"10.31664/ZU.2019.104.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.03","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we analyse two recent contributions to the Marxist critique of the political economy of art: the article “Artistic Labor and the Production of Value: An Attempt at a Marxist Interpretation” by José María Durán and the book Art and Value: Art’s Economic Exceptionalism in Classical, Neoclassical and Marxist Economics by Dave Beech. While Durán emphasizes the emergence of the legal category of intellectual property rights as crucial for value production in art, Beech has reached the contrary conclusion that artistic labour does not produce value and that artistic production is therefore excepted from capitalist commodity production. In our paper, we criticize both conclusions. While agreeing with Beech that artistic labour does not produce value and is thus excepted from the ideology of commodity fetishism, we believe that through the ideology of converted forms it nevertheless becomes part of capitalist commodity production. We would argue that the sector of artistic production, through the converted form of monopoly rent, establishes a production relation with other, competitive, sectors of capitalist economy. This production relation is enabled by the ideology of aesthetic fetishism, supported by the ideology of legal fetishism through the category of intellectual property rights. Contrary to Durán, we thus conclude that intellectual property rights allow for a hidden transfer of surplus value produced by the workers in the competitive sectors of the capitalist economy.","PeriodicalId":41082,"journal":{"name":"Zivot Umjetnosti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.03","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48747423","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Art markets are not homogeneous, the difference being especially between the art products that can be technically reproduced and the unique products. As for the former, regulations of the copyright type introduce certain specificities (the author retains some rights over the object in circulation— for example, she or he can withdraw it). In case of unique goods, the demand is determined by the buyers’ tastes and does not result from some generally valid presupposition: thus, these goods have a price, but they have no value. Since the aesthetic nature of the reproducible works of art is subject to the same laws as the unique artworks, the economy of unique artworks can serve as a paradigm for the economy of artworks in general. According to a theory developed by Rade Pantić, the price of unique artworks is a monopoly rent. As any other rent, it is determined by non-economic mechanisms. These mechanisms should allow for the freedom of individual tastes and at the same time provide a unique field within which these idiosyncratic attitudes can interact. The mechanisms determining the rent (price) of artworks are therefore ideological apparatuses that present themselves and their elements (individual taste judgments) as non-ideological, and moreover formulate the judgments as individual receptions open to “interpretation,” i.e. as cognitive-affective material to be processed in specific symbolic formations (in curatorial practices, art criticism, philosophical interventions, and alike). In contemporary art, the structure of ideological apparatuses reproduces domination-through-fragmentation, typical of contemporary capitalism.
{"title":"Vantržišna motivacija tržišta umetničkih dela","authors":"Rastko Močnik","doi":"10.31664/ZU.2019.104.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.04","url":null,"abstract":"Art markets are not homogeneous, the difference being especially between the art products that can be technically reproduced and the unique products. As for the former, regulations of the copyright type introduce certain specificities (the author retains some rights over the object in circulation— for example, she or he can withdraw it). In case of unique goods, the demand is determined by the buyers’ tastes and does not result from some generally valid presupposition: thus, these goods have a price, but they have no value. Since the aesthetic nature of the reproducible works of art is subject to the same laws as the unique artworks, the economy of unique artworks can serve as a paradigm for the economy of artworks in general. According to a theory developed by Rade Pantić, the price of unique artworks is a monopoly rent. As any other rent, it is determined by non-economic mechanisms. These mechanisms should allow for the freedom of individual tastes and at the same time provide a unique field within which these idiosyncratic attitudes can interact. The mechanisms determining the rent (price) of artworks are therefore ideological apparatuses that present themselves and their elements (individual taste judgments) as non-ideological, and moreover formulate the judgments as individual receptions open to “interpretation,” i.e. as cognitive-affective material to be processed in specific symbolic formations (in curatorial practices, art criticism, philosophical interventions, and alike). In contemporary art, the structure of ideological apparatuses reproduces domination-through-fragmentation, typical of contemporary capitalism.","PeriodicalId":41082,"journal":{"name":"Zivot Umjetnosti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.04","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69461680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Nacrt za kritiku političke ekonomije umjetnosti","authors":"Nikola Dedić","doi":"10.31664/ZU.2019.104.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.02","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41082,"journal":{"name":"Zivot Umjetnosti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69461599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The difference between the “real,” “authentic” life and its mere representation has saturated the philosophical discourse from its very onset. Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle usually gets categorized as a further elaboration on this issue. The essential misapprehension of such an understanding lies in the disregard of Debord’s constitutive thesis: “the spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images.” (§ 4) In cultural perspectives, the “real” material dynamics of life – relations between people – is replaced by a purported exchange of images which lack any authenticity. The concept of cognitive capitalism (Vercellone, 2005), with its theses on the contemporary domination of information and knowledge within capitalist reproduction, further validates this opposition. According to Doogan’s (2009) thoroughly researched and empirically founded insights, our world is still heavily dominated by crude material production which precludes any notion of a new, post-Fordist, virtual, immaterial, post-work stage of capitalism. Similarly, Huws (2003, 2014) warns of the dubious status of the concepts of fluid identities, or hybrid subjectivities, and stresses the prevalence of class and gender issues which still substantially affect the working spheres. Drawing on Davis’s (2013) insights on the necessity of class analysis for the comprehension of the artistic field, I will present the modes in which “creativity” functions as a neoliberal buzzword. More specifically, I will outline the ways in which systemic exploitation, as an intrinsic feature of capitalism, still structures the dynamics of the art field, particularly areas that are fashionably known as “creative industries”.
{"title":"Materijalna baza proizvodnje – nekoliko napomena o virtualnosti","authors":"Goran Pavlić","doi":"10.31664/ZU.2019.104.08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.08","url":null,"abstract":"The difference between the “real,” “authentic” life and its mere representation has saturated the philosophical discourse from its very onset. Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle usually gets categorized as a further elaboration on this issue. The essential misapprehension of such an understanding lies in the disregard of Debord’s constitutive thesis: “the spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images.” (§ 4) In cultural perspectives, the “real” material dynamics of life – relations between people – is replaced by a purported exchange of images which lack any authenticity. \u0000The concept of cognitive capitalism (Vercellone, 2005), with its theses on the contemporary domination of information and knowledge within capitalist reproduction, further validates this opposition. According to Doogan’s (2009) thoroughly researched and empirically founded insights, our world is still heavily dominated by crude material production which precludes any notion of a new, post-Fordist, virtual, immaterial, post-work stage of capitalism. Similarly, Huws (2003, 2014) warns of the dubious status of the concepts of fluid identities, or hybrid subjectivities, and stresses the prevalence of class and gender issues which still substantially affect the working spheres. Drawing on Davis’s (2013) insights on the necessity of class analysis for the comprehension of the artistic field, I will present the modes in which “creativity” functions as a neoliberal buzzword. More specifically, I will outline the ways in which systemic exploitation, as an intrinsic feature of capitalism, still structures the dynamics of the art field, particularly areas that are fashionably known as “creative industries”.","PeriodicalId":41082,"journal":{"name":"Zivot Umjetnosti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.08","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69461780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Dvije godine, pet ratova poslije","authors":"Ivona Grgurinović, Wolf Böwig","doi":"10.31664/ZU.2018.103.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2018.103.05","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41082,"journal":{"name":"Zivot Umjetnosti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69461111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"O umjetnosti Srednje i Istočne Europe — samo negativna referencija","authors":"V. Vuković","doi":"10.31664/zu.2018.103.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31664/zu.2018.103.06","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41082,"journal":{"name":"Zivot Umjetnosti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/zu.2018.103.06","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69461288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：