Labor Theory of Value regarding ART!

[вор в законе]

The definition of Value regarding Marx was that ''the value of a commodity is the amount of labor that it is needed for it to be produced''.

It seems that the labor theory of value is not applicable on art. For example, it might take me something like 15 minutes to produce a piece of art, and then to sell it something like $300.000. The amount of labor that I consumed to produce it is asymetric to its value.

A piece of Art might be valued $100.000 and I might value it something like $1.

I mean how the hell do you find the value of a piece of art? Its subjective. Hence LTV is not applicable.

Anyone with a reasonable explanation?

[вор в законе]

Oh and another question that I had. Let's say that a pack of milk is produced. We can find out its value through a pack of milk.

But what if a pack of milk is full of germs? Does it still have the same value despite the amount of labor used in its production??

[IronColumn]

The milk would not be recognized as socially useful if it was sour and fermenting.

As for art, remember there is a difference between price and value-value is the amount of labor in an object, not what you would personally "Value" the commodity at. The value of art could be minimal, but the price would be exorbitantly high. I believe most marxists would attribute this to commodity fetishism, where the art commodity would have a use value (rich person gratification and implied pseudo-sophistication) which is solely predicated on its ridiculous exchange value. As such, the art commodity is actually a textbook case of marx's theory, which is that an absurd and illogical exchange value rules and even determines considerations of use value.

[mikelepore]

Art isn't a commodity, so the Marxian law of value has nothing to do with it. It isn't a commodity because commodities are fungible, that is, any one unit is equivalent to any other unit in the same category. A bushel of oats, or barrel of crude oil, is classified simply by that name, with no individual characteristics. I don't know of any market for works of art bundled by the kilogram or by the ton.

[IronColumn]

Art is a commodity because it is bought and sold with money. Commodities have to be equivalents to be traded in terms of value. So each piece of art isn't exactly the same as the other one, but they are still functional equivalents (because the labour theory is not based on appearance but essence). And of course there is also mass produced "art" in the sense of Warhol and others, which reveals the commodity nature of art better than anything.

Also the idea that there could be something bought and sold in capitalist society that was not a commodity is not understanding the totality of capitalist social relations.

[apathy maybe]

(I have done no economics courses and am not an expert in this field.)

That said, having had debates with "anarcho"-capitalists (anti-state capitalist scum) before, I've learnt the difference between the labour theory of value and the subjective theory of value (or whatever it is called).

Basically, you are confusing the two and mixing them up.

In society today, an object is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it (or what they think it is worth to them at that time). So, a piece of art might be worth a lot to one person, because they really like it and have lots of money, less to another person ('cause they don't have as much money), and nothing to a third person (because they don't like it at all and can't see any point to the piece).

LTV would not take any notice of the subjective opinion of these three individuals, and would say it is worth X because Y amount of labour was point into it.

LTV equates two objects that have had equal amounts of labour invested. Take the example of a loaf of bread and a pot of stew, each takes the same labour and thus are "worth" the same.

However, under the other system, a loaf of bread is worth less to a baker because the baker already has a lot of bread.

[mikelepore]

The whole concept "worth to them" doesn't have anything to do with value. The fact that a jet plane has more exchange value than a loaf of bread isn't affected by anyone's state of mind. There is no desire or mood or sentiment or fad or self-hypnosis any other psychological condition that could possibly make the loaf of bread exchange for a billion dollars while the jet plane exchanges for one dollar.

"Worth to them" is, however, related to the price. The price is an instantaneously varying signal. The value of a commodity only changes when the technology changes materially. The price changes every day. The price is the sum of two terms, the value plus a fluctuating offset.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:07 pm
The milk would not be recognized as socially useful if it was sour and fermenting.
On the contrary, milk in that state is halfway to being cheese. :P

My guess is that like all theories, LTV has a limited field of application. For example, you don't use gravitational theory when dealing with subatomic particles.

[blackstone]

I wouldn't necessarily say that LTV has a limited filed of application persay. Just as you wouldn't use LTV to determine the value of a product in communist society(which is not a "commodity" production society), LTV is outside the realms of works of arts by certain masters,especially art that cannot be reproduced.

"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. On the other hand, the imaginary price-form may sometimes conceal either a direct or indirect real value-relation; for instance, the price of uncultivated land, which is without value, because no human labour has been incorporated in it." (Capital Volume 1, section 1)

"..that the price of things, which have in themselves no value, not being the products of labor, such as the land, or which at least cannot be reproduced by labor, such as antiquities, works of art of certain masters, etc., may be determined by many accidental combinations."
(Capital Volume 2, section 35

[lombas]

One can work ten days to move a ton of sand twenty meters in the Sahara desert, but it isn't worth a penny.

Unless, of course, someone is willing to pay that penny.

Hence, I reject the labor theory of value.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:40 am
One can work ten days to move a ton of sand twenty meters in the Sahara desert, but it isn't worth a penny.

Unless, of course, someone is willing to pay that penny.

Hence, I reject the labor theory of value.
Worst. Counter example. Ever.

The LTV is a theory as to how capitalist markets work and how prices and value is determined in them, not how value or prices are determined in general.

[lombas]

Originally posted by JazzRemington+September 21, 2007 02:34 pm--> (JazzRemington @ September 21, 2007 02:34 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 08:40 am
One can work ten days to move a ton of sand twenty meters in the Sahara desert, but it isn't worth a penny.

Unless, of course, someone is willing to pay that penny.

Hence, I reject the labor theory of value.
Worst. Counter example. Ever.

The LTV is a theory as to how capitalist markets work and how prices and value is determined in them, not how value or prices are determined in general. [/b]
The labor theory of value is an important economic thought in communist and quite some anarchist schools (mutualism, &c.).

Not just about capitalism. Though of course Smith was an ardent supporter of it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 19, 2007 04:46 pm
Oh and another question that I had. Let's say that a pack of milk is produced. We can find out its value through a pack of milk.

But what if a pack of milk is full of germs? Does it still have the same value despite the amount of labor used in its production??
It is possible for an object to lose value for any number of reasons. The Labour Theory of Value merely states that labor is the only thing which can make an object gain value.

Besides, keep in mind that the value of an object is not given by the amount of labour that was used to create that one specific item, but by the socially necessary amount of labour needed to create an object of that type. In other words, useless/unnecessary labour does not and should not get counted. A loaf of bread is worth the amount of labour necessary to produce it. If you end up using more labour than necessary, the value does not go up.

As for the value of art, the LTV still applies. If it takes you only 15 minutes to produce some piece of art, then it's probably not worth very much, no matter what snobbish art collectors say.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 19, 2007 03:38 pm
The definition of Value regarding Marx was that ''the value of a commodity is the amount of labor that it is needed for it to be produced''.

It seems that the labor theory of value is not applicable on art. For example, it might take me something like 15 minutes to produce a piece of art, and then to sell it something like $300.000. The amount of labor that I consumed to produce it is asymetric to its value.
Value and price is not the same thing in marxist terminology, but generally they are close to eachother. Value is determined in the production, price is determined in the selling. Suply and demand is of cource a factor that affects the price, no marxist claims otherwise. Regarding a Picasso painting for example, supply & demand is more important than the actual value.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 19, 2007 02:38 pm
The definition of Value regarding Marx was that ''the value of a commodity is the amount of labor that it is needed for it to be produced''.

It seems that the labor theory of value is not applicable on art. For example, it might take me something like 15 minutes to produce a piece of art, and then to sell it something like $300.000. The amount of labor that I consumed to produce it is asymetric to its value.

A piece of Art might be valued $100.000 and I might value it something like $1.

I mean how the hell do you find the value of a piece of art? Its subjective. Hence LTV is not applicable.

Anyone with a reasonable explanation?
If you think you can sell a piece of art that took 15 minutes to be produced for 300 kilobucks, why don't you do it? Why don't we all do it, and become all rich?

Because not all of us can do it. Anyone can be a milker, a baker, a welder, an engineer, a lawyer or a physician, with minimal training. But we cannot produce art, or artists, in a serial way. So how much labour it takes to produce Picasso's Guernica? We know how labour it takes to produce a piece of bread, because the experience is reproductible. We can ask a million people to bake bread, and the result will be a million loaves of bread, and firm knowledge about how much labour times it takes, in an average, to produce a loaf. We cannot do it regarding art. The labour involved in producing Guernica is the labour involved in waiting some centuries for an exceptional individual to be born, plus the labour spent in training him/her as an expert painter. Which means the value of art tends to infinite: it is irreproductible, and, as such, no amount of labour will ever produce a second Guernica.

So price of art pieces also tends to be very high, but it is always below its value.

Also, as all other commodities, a piece of art must have a use-value. This, as the use-value of any commodity, is entirely subjective. In the case of art, it means that the piece in case must be recognised as art. You put a piece of art in your home or office so that people look at it recognise your refined artistic tastes. If you hang a picture that is not recognised as art, people will recognise your lack of taste; so it does not fulfill the proposed use-value (and this is the reason I cannot get rich by spreading some paint over canvas and pretending it is "art").

Hope this helps.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:40 pm
One can work ten days to move a ton of sand twenty meters in the Sahara desert, but it isn't worth a penny.

Unless, of course, someone is willing to pay that penny.

Hence, I reject the labor theory of value.
But if someone is willing to pay money to move sand in the Sahara, it must be close to the value of such labour. Else no one will effectively move it.

In other words, if you offer me a penny to move a ton of sand twenty meters in the Sahara, I will refuse, because it is below the value. Raise your offer until it pays my labour force - and maybe I will accept it.

Hint: actually reading something about LTV is quite easier than moving a ton of sand twenty meters - and much more rewarding.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:40 pm
The labor theory of value is an important economic thought in communist and quite some anarchist schools (mutualism, &c.).

Not just about capitalism. Though of course Smith was an ardent supporter of it.
The LTV is important to anti-capitalists only as an instrument to understand capitalism. It refers exclusively to commodity production, usually capitalist, but also slaverist, or petty-bourgeois. It is not appliable to societies that do not distribute products through market, such as hunter-gatherer communities, feudal agriculture, transhumant herder hordes, "despotic" societies, etc.

Luís Henrique

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:40 pm
One can work ten days to move a ton of sand twenty meters in the Sahara desert, but it isn't worth a penny.

Unless, of course, someone is willing to pay that penny.

Hence, I reject the labor theory of value.
I really don't understand what your trying to say, but i will try to explain the flaws in your argument nontheless.

First, that ten days you spent moving a ton of sand twenty meters in the desert was wasted labor. The sand has potential value, as many natural resources and untreated raw materials.

Remember the duality of a commodity. It has a use value, which satisfies a need and an exchange value.

As long as ore remains buried deep in a mine, it is useless. It must be extracted and transported for use. The same goes for the sand in a desert. It is useless sitting in the desert with the rest of the sand.

Remembering the duality of a commodity, the sand you spent ten days moving must have a use value. It, like the ore deep in the mine, has no utility remaining in the desert.

If it has no utility then it has no exchange value.

C=VU

if

C=V(0)
then V is 0 as well.

C= Commidity
V= Value
U= Utility

Therefore, the ten days spent work was wasted labor.


If, however, someone is willing to pay that penny, then it has a use value or is useful to that person.

LTV can help determine the value of an object. What a person actually pays for it, is up to other factors. :star:

[blake 3:17]

Hint: actually reading something about LTV is quite easier than moving a ton of sand twenty meters - and much more rewarding.

That could depend on if a flood or fire were on its way...

[вор в законе]

Thanks for the replies guys. I am actually studying economics. I know that value and price aren't the same. The problem is that my mind has been infected by bourgeois economics.

Here is what I found from Wikipedia:


The inapplicability of the LTV

The LTV is a theory of capitalist production, or generalized commodity production. There are however, commodities bought and sold under capitalism which have a price even though they do not have a value.

"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. On the other hand, the imaginary price-form may sometimes conceal either a direct or indirect real value-relation; for instance, the price of uncultivated land, which is without value, because no human labour has been incorporated in it." (Capital Volume 1, section 1)[5]

However the socially necessary labour theory of value only becomes inapplicable for uncultivated land when that land can never be productive no matter how much commercial labour is expended on it. Desert sand, gibber plains and icy wastes have very small land values because no commercial labour can be diverted from other uses to be usefully employed. In other cases the price-form will represent the indirect socially necessary labour that could be usefully employed.

* pieces of art which could be explained as instances of monopoly

* uncultivated land which has value, even if there is no labor involved. The value of land is explained by the theory of rent. Both Ricardo and Marx developed theories of land-rent based on the LTV.
* paper money. According to Marx "The function of gold as coin becomes completely independent of the metallic value of that gold. Therefore things that are relatively without value, such as paper notes, can serve as coins in its place." (Capital, Vol 1, Part 1) Section 2 [6]

LTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#The_inapplicability_of_the_L TV)

It says LTV is not applicable on pieces of ART because ''they could be explained as instances of monopoly''.

I wonder what that means. Especially on mathematic terms, how can we measure its value.

[JazzRemington]

Well, an artist wouldn't charge less than the materials he used to create it, correct? The labor he used to create the art also is a factor. Art produced under a Capitalistic regime would be the same, only a surplus value would be created as well. Andy Warhol is an example of this, as he hired people to deliberately produce his work ala the factory system.

But what about a piece of art that sells for much more than the cost to produce it? I guess it could be explained as instances of monopoly.

I think what the wiki is saying is that a particular artist is capable of producing only a particular work, thus they have a monopoly of some sort, and can charge any amount they want.

[McCaine]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 22, 2007 11:20 pm
Thanks for the replies guys. I am actually studying economics. I know that value and price aren't the same. The problem is that my mind has been infected by bourgeois economics.

Here is what I found from Wikipedia:


The inapplicability of the LTV

The LTV is a theory of capitalist production, or generalized commodity production. There are however, commodities bought and sold under capitalism which have a price even though they do not have a value.

"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. On the other hand, the imaginary price-form may sometimes conceal either a direct or indirect real value-relation; for instance, the price of uncultivated land, which is without value, because no human labour has been incorporated in it." (Capital Volume 1, section 1)[5]

However the socially necessary labour theory of value only becomes inapplicable for uncultivated land when that land can never be productive no matter how much commercial labour is expended on it. Desert sand, gibber plains and icy wastes have very small land values because no commercial labour can be diverted from other uses to be usefully employed. In other cases the price-form will represent the indirect socially necessary labour that could be usefully employed.

* pieces of art which could be explained as instances of monopoly

* uncultivated land which has value, even if there is no labor involved. The value of land is explained by the theory of rent. Both Ricardo and Marx developed theories of land-rent based on the LTV.
* paper money. According to Marx "The function of gold as coin becomes completely independent of the metallic value of that gold. Therefore things that are relatively without value, such as paper notes, can serve as coins in its place." (Capital, Vol 1, Part 1) Section 2 [6]

LTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#The_inapplicability_of_the_L TV)

It says LTV is not applicable on pieces of ART because ''they could be explained as instances of monopoly''.

I wonder what that means. Especially on mathematic terms, how can we measure its value.
One cannot measure the value of individual products in any sensible way. Also, I would advise against using the Wikipedia article on the LoV/LTV; it's really bad and full of Ricardian nonsense (at least last time I checked).

[mikelepore]

Regarding why art is a monopoly... If by "art" you mean unique objects, that is, you're not talking about infinitely reproducible audio-video recordings, etc., art distribution is a monopoly because each category contains quantity 1. Category: Crude oil -- quantity available in the world: x millions of barrels per year: Category: Van Gogh's painting 'Sunflowers' -- quantity available in the world: 1.Therefore, no laws of economics can ever apply to it. Any economic theory is about a continuous process of production and distribution.

[blake 3:17]

This stuff really needs to be talked about in concrete historical terms. Art and art collections have particular value that isn't strictly economic but are part of other economic formations.

I'd really recommend Supercollector by Hatton and Walker, that studies Charles Saatchi. Hatton and Walker see Saatchi and the Saatchi collection as a contemporary version of the Medicis.