MONEY AS FRAME

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Nicholas Huber
{"title":"MONEY AS FRAME","authors":"Nicholas Huber","doi":"10.7146/nja.v29i60.122846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay responds to “Money as Art: The Form, the Material, and Capital” by the Marxist economist Costas Lapavitsas with reference to the triple manifestation of crisis in the United States during the spring months of 2020 By triangulating the role of money in the COVID-19 pandemic, the ensuing mass unemployment, and the historical nationwide revolt in response to the police murder of George Floyd predicated on a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill, Nicholas Huber makes a three-part claim First, that acceptance of the Marxist theory of fetishism forecloses the possibility of conceiving of capitalist money as art in the sense developed by Lapavitsas, insofar as the latter tends toward transhistorical concepts of both art and money Following from this, any aesthetic function of money in the capitalist mode of production is inseparable from its total social function;that is, capitalist money is at once an economic, political, cultural, and aesthetic mediation unlike any other Finally, Huber draws on Louis Marin's typology of the frame in correspondence with Erik Olin Wright's integrated class analytic framework to argue that the question of whether money is art or not leads us to a dead end Huber suggests that a crisis such as the one unfolding in 2020 raises instead the more challenging question of what social system must come into being, such that a theory of capitalist money as art becomes intelligible © 2020 Institute of Aesthetic Studies All rights reserved","PeriodicalId":38858,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics","volume":"29 1","pages":"158-174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/nja.v29i60.122846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay responds to “Money as Art: The Form, the Material, and Capital” by the Marxist economist Costas Lapavitsas with reference to the triple manifestation of crisis in the United States during the spring months of 2020 By triangulating the role of money in the COVID-19 pandemic, the ensuing mass unemployment, and the historical nationwide revolt in response to the police murder of George Floyd predicated on a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill, Nicholas Huber makes a three-part claim First, that acceptance of the Marxist theory of fetishism forecloses the possibility of conceiving of capitalist money as art in the sense developed by Lapavitsas, insofar as the latter tends toward transhistorical concepts of both art and money Following from this, any aesthetic function of money in the capitalist mode of production is inseparable from its total social function;that is, capitalist money is at once an economic, political, cultural, and aesthetic mediation unlike any other Finally, Huber draws on Louis Marin's typology of the frame in correspondence with Erik Olin Wright's integrated class analytic framework to argue that the question of whether money is art or not leads us to a dead end Huber suggests that a crisis such as the one unfolding in 2020 raises instead the more challenging question of what social system must come into being, such that a theory of capitalist money as art becomes intelligible © 2020 Institute of Aesthetic Studies All rights reserved
货币作为框架
这篇文章是对“金钱是艺术”的回应:马克思主义经济学家科斯塔斯·拉帕维茨萨斯的《形式、物质和资本》一书中提到了2020年春天美国危机的三重表现。通过对货币在2019冠状病毒病大流行、随之而来的大规模失业以及因警察用一张伪造的20美元钞票谋杀乔治·弗洛伊德而引发的历史性全国性反抗中的作用进行三角分析,尼古拉斯·休伯提出了三个部分的观点:首先,接受马克思主义的拜物教理论,排除了将资本主义货币视为拉帕维萨斯所发展的那种意义上的艺术的可能性,因为后者倾向于艺术和货币的超历史概念。由此可见,资本主义生产方式中货币的任何美学功能都与其总体社会功能不可分割;也就是说,资本主义货币同时是经济、政治、文化和美学的中介,这与其他任何一种货币都不一样。Huber利用路易马林的类型学在通信框架的Erik奥林赖特的集成类分析框架,认为是否钱是艺术的问题导致我们一条死胡同Huber危机表明,如2020年的一个展开提出了更具挑战性的问题而不是什么社会制度必须形成,艺术等,资本主义货币理论成为理解美学研究所版权所有©2020
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nordic Journal of Aesthetics
Nordic Journal of Aesthetics Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信