Robni fetišizam

IF 0.1 4区 艺术学 0 ART Zivot Umjetnosti Pub Date : 2019-07-01 DOI:10.31664/ZU.2019.104.03
R. Pantić
{"title":"Robni fetišizam","authors":"R. Pantić","doi":"10.31664/ZU.2019.104.03","DOIUrl":null,"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":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.03","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robni fetišizam, pravni fetišizam, preobraženi oblici i estetski fetišizam\",\"authors\":\"R. Pantić\",\"doi\":\"10.31664/ZU.2019.104.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.03\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zivot Umjetnosti\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.03\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zivot Umjetnosti","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.03","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

摘要

在本文中,我们分析了马克思主义对艺术政治经济学批判的两个最新贡献:JoséMaría Durán的文章《艺术劳动与价值生产:马克思主义解释的尝试》和Dave Beech的《艺术与价值:古典、新古典和马克思主义经济学中的艺术经济例外论》。虽然杜兰强调知识产权这一法律范畴的出现对艺术的价值生产至关重要,但比奇得出了相反的结论,即艺术劳动不产生价值,因此艺术生产被排除在资本主义商品生产之外。在我们的论文中,我们批评了这两个结论。虽然我们同意比奇的观点,即艺术劳动不产生价值,因此被排除在商品拜物教的意识形态之外,但我们相信,通过转换形式的意识形态,它仍然成为资本主义商品生产的一部分。我们认为,艺术生产部门通过垄断租金的转换形式,与资本主义经济的其他竞争部门建立了生产关系。这种生产关系是由审美拜物教的意识形态促成的,并通过知识产权范畴得到法律拜物教意识形态的支持。因此,与杜兰相反,我们得出的结论是,知识产权允许资本主义经济竞争部门工人产生的剩余价值的隐性转移。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Robni fetišizam, pravni fetišizam, preobraženi oblici i estetski fetišizam
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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