voiceofchoice

Got it, I see what you're getting at. I don't know that I'd agree that Marxism says people can't enjoy things inherently, but often Marxist analysis does focus on being critical of how power and wealth shape societal developments so I take your point that it can end up being the primary focus in a way people might find annoying if they're looking for something else.

I don't necessarily agree that in a vacuum you can really classify that as the best period ever in an objective way unless you have specific metrics, but also you don't really have to. Certainly it would've been an interesting time to be alive. I am actually intrigued in learning more about that period now I will say.

But I think the reason that Berger focuses on the critical class analysis of art is in the title. He's mainly focused on unpacking the way "fine art" gets valued and how/who those ideas of what is desirable, beautiful, etc were shaped. Then he ties that to the way the modern ruling class of his time used art to shape what is valued and desired with the tech/economic advancements at the time.

So focusing on the beauty of specific pieces wasn't really the focus of his work, as I imagine plenty of other contemporaries were already covering that.

As an artist I also don't think that it necessarily takes away from the art to acknowledge that what I make is shaped by my need to also make money and the markets they exist in affect that. I think it can be equally true that the impressionists were capturing nostalgic scenes of everyday life in a novel way that that people would want to buy, but that also was a product of people similarly working within what would sell in a market (which would be an advancement on previous conditions where people could even choose to pursue that kind of life which is revolutionary for the time).

He even acknowledges how his book is only the start of an analysis and it would be neat to see someone pick up this work not just from the perspective of the ruling class that commissioned the art but also the artists who made it and their stories. Obviously a lot of that gets lost with history though so that's probably harder to do.

I feel it's worth mentioning Berger isn't just saying that it's a product of the culture though, but the material capabilities of society too. He was drawing a line between the camera in his time as a fundamental shift in the way images could be created and in the context of a capitalist society looking at how advertizing functions and carries on the tradition of oil painting in crafting the culture of society and art by people with capital. Arguably I'd say in the same way cell phones have fundamentally changed how we use images today (I.e: memes) to grapple with the world around us and the ubiquity of cell phones has changed who can produce that art (even if things like algorithms shape whose art is viewed and the people who own those platforms get to dictate what content will get ad money), but that's a different rabbit hole to go down.

Berger has a different focus specifically on critique because it's easy to look at the surface level of an individual piece without understanding who that art is made for and why that art is somehow valued above other art.

Especially as someone who didn't commission the piece to sit in my home and has no real relationship to these art pieces other than they're old, I find it helpful to understand how it was initially made and then how modern society treats it in continuing a value system that places certain art above others as more "worthy".

Frankly I'd argue he's critiquing the value system that would just off handedly say "virtual art has gone downhill" just because now it's more accessible and easy to create than ever

Great excuse to finally read this. I also recommend 9.5 theses on art and class which is based on this.

You can admit to not understanding something without having to attack it as slop.

Just because our education system does a poor job of teaching critical literacy doesn't mean other people aren't getting something out of this.

If you want to understand art then understanding the economic and political relationships that commissioned it isn't really that crazy.

Just because the video games I grew up with were consumer products doesn't mean those experiences were somehow less important for my life or the people they connect me with.

Art doesn't just pop up out of thin air and the power relationships that affect our daily lives absolutely explains why the artists of a given time makes certain artistic choices.

If you'd rather preserve some kind of Romantic notion that art is somehow outside of the society that makes it then I guess that's your choice, but I'm not out here making much art for free now that I'm an adult with bills to pay just saying. Even the art I make free is with the goal of finding clients and absolutely a product of how that market is organized.

Bubble pop bubble pop

Every workplace is an authoritarian regime where workers don't have a say and grovel with "please don't replace me" like that isn't the entire point.

The whole point of AI is to get rid of you so rich people can play with the planet like it's minecraft. Software engineers just think they're special because they're the ones building it like they'll get a pat on the head for being good little servants to the investor class. Or worse, that their portfolios will let them be the gods who rule over ashes.

It's true, at least the Chinese government is competent in their authoritarianism.

I mean yeah, the human experience is vast and varied, I'll grant you that.

As long as people get to make the best choice for themselves that's really what matters.

There's lots of people who would choose not to expose ourselves to the risks and liabilities because we don't see the rewards as worth it.

That's valid for sure.

Some of us like alone time, just saying.

I have daily reminders that validate my choice. The fact that it's finally something people can choose is a major factor in the downtrend.

Honestly that's fantastic and I'm glad it turned out that way for you. The world needs parents who actually raise their kids and want to.

I only encourage people to do the requisite research to make sure they make the right choice for themselves, because for many it's not.

Sure, which is still not any better cause at least you can quit a job you don't like.

I encourage anyone surprised that people would opt out of babies and raising kids actually spend time with kids.

Not just like for the holidays and pass them back when they start crying, but an actual extended period of time dealing with all the issues that they bring.

You've got to be a special kind of idealistic romantic to still see the appeal afterwards. Which is great for you of course if you do. But there's a reason authoritarians across the world are banning abortion and targeting birth control.

If you don't think child rearing is work then you won't understand why women choose not to have kids in the first place. You cannot be a parent and choose not to work, period. Just because you're not getting paid and ordered around by an adult boss doesn't mean being a trad wife is magically somehow not work. In fact, at least with a regular 9-5 you get PTO and time off.

If you scoff at the idea of flipping burgers your whole life then just imagine it's changing diapers instead.