48
I think I've seen discussions about this before, and obviously the USSR produced art because we still see statues of Lenin today. But how does this translate in modern times with the instance of obscure art or other modern art? Often the purpose of that art is to explicitly go against societal norms for aesthetics.
In Capital, Marx is addressing generalized commodity production under capitalism, not a way to evaluate “value” in every object humans produce. A piece of art you make to sell is not a “commodity”. Mass-produced art made by workers in a factory, yes. But a single piece of art is outside the bounds of the laws of capitalism as Marx is describing. So it’s not really that your art does or does not contain value, it’s that it’s not a part of his analysis.
I’ve seen the idea you are citing to address the “mud pies” argument. Essentially, a commodity that no one wants (a mud pie) contains no value, even if it involves human labor.
I am admittedly getting into interpretation here and open to criticism.
I don't get that argument because the mudpie has no commodity value either. Why are people laboring to make things they or nobody else can use? Just because all value comes from labor doesn't mean all labor produces equal value
It's not labor that Marx cares about but socially necessary labor. So the mudpies argument falls apart by simply noting that making mudpies isn't socially necessary labor because nobody fucking needs or wants mudpies lol
I'm going to type up a huge reply, but I have to punch back in for my government-mandated 8 hours of mudpie baking