Philosophy, Literature & the Visual Arts

Taylor Williams Philosophy, Literature and the Visual Arts Formative Assignment

Explore the relationship between Karl Marx’s Commodity

Fetishism and the artwork of Andy Warhol.

Commodities act as the main units of capitalism and Andy Warhol’s artwork aims to

represent capitalist culture in its rawest form. Marx states that ‘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.’1 A piece of art is a commodity as it possesses an ‘exchange value’ (p. 46), yet for

Warhol ‘labour-time’ would have been short and the ‘degree of skill and intensity prevalent

at the time’ (p. 47) would have been minimal. It can be said that ‘American Pop Art blurred

the line between a work of art as a commodity and any other commodity.’2

The imbalance between ‘labour-time’ and ‘exchange value’ evident in Warhol’s

work, coupled with the fact that artwork has no essential physical use - and is therefore

redundant of any ‘use value’ - would significantly call into question its purpose. However, in

terms of Warhol, his artwork aims to self-consciously raise these very questions. Warhol

admits that his studio and mode of production was more like that of a factory and

‘compared to other artists, who could take years to produce one painting or sculpture,

Warhol’s studio was indeed an art factory, producing as many as eighty silk-screen prints

per day.’3 As well as raising these capitalist issues, Warhol’s artwork can be said to cause

pleasure and enjoyment amongst his fans, yet have no ‘intrinsic value’ as such. In terms of

the relations of production, it could be argued that Warhol was similar to a factory owner in

that the artists of his ‘factory’ were reminiscent of labourers. And so, in terms of Marx, their

1 Karl Marx, Capital: Vol. 1. A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, ed. Frederick Engels, trans. Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (London: Lawrence and Wishart Ltd, 2003), pp. 43-54 and 76-87 (All further references will be given in parentheses directly after quotation)2 Xiaoping Lin, Children of Marx and Coca Cola, (Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 2010), p. 3.3 Michael Fallon, How to Analyse the Works of Andy Warhol, (Edina: ABDO Publishing, 2010), p. 75.

1


productivity would have been determined by circumstances such as the ‘average amount of

skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the

social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production,

and by physical conditions’ (p. 47). Because of

this, questions can be raised as to the potential antagonisms between Warhol and his

‘factory’ workers. In treating Warhol as a capitalist, it can be said that to a certain extent

exploitation exists between himself and his workers in terms of ‘wage labour’. Indeed,

Valerie Solana’s attempted assassination of Warhol in 1968 could have been born out of the

frustration surrounding Warhol’s management style. Warhol’s management style and

capitalist tendencies created a sense of estrangement amongst the workers regarding the

artwork they created. Moreover, Solana’s act ‘focused attention on certain power structures

that had always been implicit in factory production.’4 One of Warhol’s factory workers was

quoted at the time as saying ‘nearly all of us at the factory have had our moments of anger

at Andy. He’s promised us fame, money, Superstardom, and only given us walk-on parts in

his home-made movies.’5 It can therefore be said that Warhol’s factory workers represent

what Marx would refer to as the proletariat. Therefore, the assassination attempt upon

Warhol can stand as evidence of a revolt against a capitalist culture. According to Marx, the

proletarian has only ‘the commodity of their labour to sell.’6 And, because of this and the

consequent exploitation of Warhol and his ‘factory’ workers, it can be said that the ‘surplus

value is expropriated by the capitalist and provides for his profits and superior wealth.’7

The emerging

4 Caroline A. Jones, Machine in the Studio: Constructing the Post-War American Artist, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), p. 249.5 Jones, p. 250.6 Michael P. Kelly, White-Collar Proletariat: The Industrial Behaviour of British Civil Servants, (London: Routledge Publishers, 1980), p. 7.7 Kelly, p. 7.

2


capitalist culture of the twentieth century treated art as a consumerist commodity, yet

Warhol claims that ‘his artwork is a criticism of this treatment, not a celebration or

acceptance of it.’8 Evidence of this can be seen in Warhol’s Green Burning Car which aims to

portray the evil nature of a capitalist society. This piece of art represents death at the hands

of the automobile, arguably the twentieth century’s biggest consumer product. However,

there is also evidence of commodification on two levels in this piece of art. The first revolves

around the photograph that was taken, and subsequently sold, to a newspaper that in turn

used it to sell papers. The second is that Andy Warhol himself used this picture to not only

comment on the first instance of commodification, but to also sell this photograph as his

own profitable artwork. Indeed, it can be said that the Green Burning Car represents ‘a

breach of faith in the products of the Industrial Revolution by featuring consumer products

that bring death.’9 It can also be said that capitalist alienation is represented in this piece of

artwork by the man in the background of the photo that is seen to be paying the horrific

image of the car wreckage no attention at all. The fact that the man is not looking towards

the wreckage portrays the feeling of human carnage being so ever-present in society that it

does not even warrant a glance. Moreover, the figures in the picture are nameless and

dehumanised in an attempt to portray ‘social unknowns, suffering what has been called

plebeian catastrophes’10 The ‘exchange

value’ of Warhol’s artwork can also be said to depend upon the social relations of

production. The society that Warhol was targeting was a mid-twentieth century consumer

culture that ‘relied upon mass production and mass consumption, assuming an “ideal

consumer” as the target for advertising and marketing.’11 Warhol famously stated after 8 Fallon, p. 76.9 Andy Warhol, Death and Disasters, (Houston: Houston Fine Art Press, 1988), p. 16.10 Warhol, p. 17.11 Roopali Mukherjee, Commodity Activism: Cultural Resistance in Neoliberal Times, (New York: NYU Press, 2012), p. 55.

3


being asked whether he wanted to be a great artist, ‘no, I’d rather be famous.’ 12 In his quest

to achieve this, Warhol used Campbell’s Soup Cans and Brillo Boxes, or images of stars such

as Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley. Therefore, ‘icons of modern consumerism repeated

over and again rendered the constant reproduction of the mechanical era into a visible

technique.’13 In relation to the ‘mechanical era’, Warhol himself said that, ‘the reason I’m

painting this way is because I want to be a machine, whatever I do, and do machine like, is

because it is what I want to do.’14 And subsequently, in creating numerous prints of two of

the most iconic celebrities of the mid-twentieth century, Warhol hoped to elevate himself

into celebrity stardom, and in doing this Warhol himself became a commodity. In becoming

a commodity, Warhol would have joined the iconic figures of Monroe and Presley as

capitalists that produce works of art in exchange for monetary gain. Furthermore, in

choosing such famous figures as the basis for such easily reproducible pieces of art,

Warhol’s art is ‘perfectly suited to its subsequent reproduction as postcard; reproduction

and copyright make up two sides of this coin of cultural circulation and exchange.’15 It can be

said therefore, that Warhol created his artwork fully aware of how easily it could be

recreated for the sake of commodification.

Although the ‘use value’ and ‘labour-time’ of Warhol’s work may be minimal, it does

hold significant political stature. However, this alone cannot account for some of Warhol’s

extortionately priced artwork. For example, Warhol’s most expensive piece, Eight Elvises,

was sold for approximately $100 million. In terms of a Marxist reading, it can therefore be

said that ‘the social character of man’s labour appears to them as an objective character

12 Thierry De Duve, Sewn in the Sweatshops of Marx: Beuys, Warhol, Klein, Duchamp, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), p. 35. 13 Amelia Jones, A Companion to Contemporary Art from 1945, (New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2009), p. 500.14 Jones, p. 500.15 Paige Baty, American Monroe: The Making of a Body Politic, (California: University of California Press, 1995), p. 70.

4


stamped upon the product of that labour’ (p. 77). This therefore means that when Andy

Warhol’s name is ‘stamped’ upon a product of his ‘labour’, a vast amount of cultural capital

comes with it. This means that Warhol’s work carries with it a certain reputation that helps

to identify a particular person’s social standing. In return for this cultural capital, people are

willing to pay prices for Warhol’s work that drastically supersedes its value as according to

any ‘use value’ or ‘labour time.’ And, because of this ‘the mystical character of commodities

does not originate, therefore, in their use-value’ (p. 76).

It can be said that ‘commodity fetishism consists in disguising the fact that in essence

humans produce value.’16 Evidence of this can be seen in the artwork that Warhol creates.

All of Warhol’s artwork is an observation of a consumerist society that of course, is created

entirely by humans. Furthermore, human beings in turn make the conscious decision to buy

Warhol’s artwork thereby funding this on-going consumerist cycle.

Warhol’s references to his studio as manufacturing and functioning like a ‘factory’

can relate to the paintings of L.S. Lowry. The common theme of Lowry’s paintings was the

Industrial Revolution, and paintings such as Industrial Landscape epitomise the oppressive

reality of life in an industrial Lancashire, in which ‘rows of mean terraces dominate faceless,

stick-like figures’17 In Lowry’s work, as well as Warhol’s, it can be said that he is commenting

on the relentless manufacturing of commodities and the labour force required for

consumerist society to function. The fact that the people in Industrial Landscape are

‘faceless’ emphasises human alienation and the fact that they do not stand alone as human

beings, rather they are part of a much larger machine driven towards creating commodities

that will in turn be sold for profit. They also compare to Warhol’s workers in the sense that

their labour would have been low-skilled, and suffered the same exploitation at the hands of

16 Pamela Odih, Advertising and Cultural Politics in Global Times, (London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2010) p. 81.17 Gilbert Stelter, Canadian City: Essays in Urban and Social History, (McGill-Queens Press, 1984), p. 190.

5


their respective capitalist dictators.

However, although Lowry and Warhol may be making similar statements regarding

the consumerist nature of society, Lowry’s ‘labour-time’ would have been significantly

higher. Yet, in comparison, one of Lowry’s most expensive works - The Football Match - sold

for approximately £5.6 million as opposed to Warhol’s estimated $100 million for Eight

Elvises. Perhaps this can partly be explained by the difference in cultural capital, as unlike

Warhol, Lowry never confessed to wanting to be a celebrity and is subsequently quoted as

saying: ‘all my life I have felt most strongly against social distinction of any kind.’18

In conclusion, in terms of Marx’s Commodity and Fetishism theory it can be said that

Warhol operated his art business like a factory owner. And, like a factory owner he aimed to

exploit his workers with minimal wage and maximum profit. In doing this, Warhol used the

most popular commodities of the consumerist society, such as Elvis Presley and Marilyn

Monroe, to sell his artwork in a statement against consumerism. However, Warhol

depended on consumerist society in order to sell his paintings. He admitted himself that he

was not entirely interested in becoming a great artist, rather he would prefer to be famous.

With no intrinsic value or physical use, artwork - especially that of Warhol’s - provides an

interesting example of consumerist society at its purest as people buy mainly for the gain of

cultural capital.

This in turn can compare to Lowry and his artwork regarding the Industrial

Revolution. He too is making a statement about consumerist society and the relentless

production of commodities. However, he worked individually and there is therefore no

exploitation of workers and no production of paintings in a factory like manner. Therefore,

18 Shelley Rohde, A Private View of L.S. Lowry, (Fulham: Collins Publishers, 1979), p. 235.

6


the ‘labour-time’ would have been much higher, but the exchange value was still much

lower.

Word Count: 1, 912.

Bibliography:

Primary

Marx, Karl. Capital: Vol. 1. A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, ed. Frederick Engels,

trans. Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (London: Lawrence and Wishart Ltd, 2003).

Secondary

Baty, Paige. American Monroe: The Making of a Body Politic, (California: University of

California Press, 1995).

De Duve, Thierry De. Sewn in the Sweatshops of Marx: Beuys, Warhol, Klein, Duchamp,

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012).

Fallon, Michael. How to Analyse the Works of Andy Warhol, (Edina: ABDO Publishing, 2010).

Jones, Amelia. A Companion to Contemporary Art from 1945, (New Jersey: John Wiley and

Sons, 2009).

Lin, Xiaoping. Children of Marx and Coca Cola, (Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 2010).

Mukherjee, Roopali. Commodity Activism: Cultural Resistance in Neoliberal Times, (New

York: NYU Press, 2012).

7


Odih, Pamela. Advertising and Cultural Politics in Global Times, (London: Ashgate Publishing

Ltd, 2010).

Rohde, Shelley. A Private View of L.S. Lowry, (Fulham: Collins Publishers, 1979).

Stelter, Gilbert. Canadian City: Essays in Urban and Social History, (McGill-Queens Press,

1984).

Warhol, Andy. Death and Disasters, (Houston: Houston Fine Art Press, 1988).

8

Philosophy, Literature & the Visual Arts

Documents

Transcript of Philosophy, Literature & the Visual Arts