Цитата:
Сообщение от Vivien
, I recalled a lecture on politekonomike 
Universal Capital, Marx's formula: D-T-D ',
Na eto i byl rasschiot ! 
where D - the money, T - goods, D '- the amount of money in increments.
If you just want the money turned into money in increments - to intermediate T.
In this case, T - a commodity - labor. In our case, T - is the work of the artist. |
Po Marksu eto ne sovsem rabotaet.
I, kstati, T eto kombinatsiia truda hudoznika i prodavtsa.
A vot i paradoks Marksa. Ia ego ispol'zoval v svoei dissertatsii. Perevodit 'seichas ne budu - hochu spat', u nas pozdno .
According to Marx: "A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another" (Marx, 1867), in this way fine art perfectly qualifies as a commodity in that it satisfies human wants.
However Marx contradicts himself by saying: "... nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value "(Marx, 1867). Fine art, unless a painting is covering hole in the wall, is not a utilitarian object in practical terms. Consequently art and the artist's labour must cost nothing.