The ways we are producing, distributing and using our esthetic – outcomes? products? (this object orientation is part of the problem) – strips our activities of meaning; the performances, for example, can be appropriated into a system of pleasure at an absolute and protected remove from the circumstances of creation.


If we’re begging for wealth from the wealthy can we do other than endorse the ideology of wealth, down to a dramaturgy that supports acquisition and hoarding (of information, for example)?


More thought-provoking material from Garcia Canclini’s Transforming Modernity:


“Artisans whose weaving sustains their own community have a good understanding of the relation between their work and selling and consumption, but when they sell their work to intermediaries (who take the textiles to an urban market or abroad to offer them in the end to unknown buyers) they lose, together with part of the value, the global conception of the process. Their loss is even greater if outside intervention causes a fissure within production itself by turning artisans into mere wage laborers (in a workshop or at home) who limit themselves to doing designs imposed by others and stylings of traditional Indian iconography that are not theirs. The separation between the material and ideal aspects of production appears, at the very moment of doing the work as an extreme consequence of the dispossession inflicted by capitalism. The loss of economic ownership over the object goes together with the loss of its symbolic ownership The distance that a capitalist organization of labor and the market establishes between artisans and crafts parallels the rupture between the economic and the symbolic, between material (commercial) and cultural (ethnic) meaning.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *