Artistic Expression in Exchange for Monetary Gain:How Capitalism Has Placed an Inescapable Value on

Artistic Creativity

Ross Alexander Mason

University of Portsmouth School of Creative arts film and media

April 2014

Dissertation submitted in part-fulfilment for therequirements of the BA (Hons) Drama and Performance

1

Abstract

This dissertation entitled Artistic expression in exchange for monetary gain: how capitalism has

placed an inescapable value on artistic creativity, will focus on how art in a capitalist society

will always be reduced to commodity form in a money-based society, and how this has

obstructed artistic creative expression. Through a Marxist lens it will outline the theories of

commodity fetishism, and apply them in relation to the production of musical theatre,

performance and political art. For part of the discussion, it will focus on the figure of Andrew

Lloyd Webber in conjunction to his standardised production of Megamusicals to examine the

glamorized commodity culture. In addition to this, the graffiti artist Banksy and performance

artist Marina Abramovic will be applied to work in opposition to Lloyd Webber's mainstream

musical productions. This will also contextualise the power of the capitalist rationale by

highlighted how their motivations and ultimate commodification run along a similar path. The

conclusion at the end of this dissertation will show how artistic creativity will always be affected

within a capitalist society. This is not only by conscious thought, but also by the unconscious

pressures of the economy. To finalise the approach of this discussion this dissertation will

propose the idea of a moneyless society in order to reform original notions of creative input. The

approach to research has mainly focused around Marxism and Advanced Marxist practice as well

as the inspiration from William Morris's views on socialism. Additionally, the modes of

reproduction, the notion of freedom and the capitalist capitalist rationale have also been key

areas of study.

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all of the people who have offered me their support, guidance and wisdom

throughout the years.

3

Contents

Page:

Abstract......................................................................................2

Acknowledgements....................................................................3

Introduction................................................................................5

Chapter One:

A Monetary Rationale: The Capitalist Ideal..............................8

Chapter Two:

Popular Culture: Art for Money's Sake!...................................16

Chapter Three:

The Economy Based Autonomy...............................................28

Conclusion: The Next Step......................................................34

Bibliography............................................................................37

4

Introduction

Throughout history, the question of art and its resulting value within an economical system has

been not only constant and prominent, but also highly problematic. This dissertation will be

focusing on how the capitalist rationale has been a main instigator of how the questionable value

upon art has been established. Art has become an item readily available to buy, as Andrea

Steedman states, [i]n modern society, many see art as a commodity. Art is bought and sold

(2011, p. 4). Therefore art can be seen as transformed from artistic expression to an

exchangeable monetary form. To illuminate this relationship between art and money, Marxist

theory shall be applied to the analysis of art forms. The theory of Karl Marx, from Capital

volume I (1967), relates highly to the production of labour, which is a key aspect of the value that

is attributed to art. In addition, he highlights the resultant commodity nature of work. Marx

states:

The mysterious character of the commodity-form consists therefore simply in the fact thatthe commodity reflects the social characteristics of men's own labour as objective characteristics of the products of labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these thing. Hence it also reflects the social relation of the producers to the sum total of labour as a social relation between objects, a relation which exists apart from and outside the producers (1890/1967, pp. 164-165).

Through Marx, it can be seen that the hegemony of capitalist society is compelled to place a

value on such thing[s](1890/1967, pp. 164) through social influence, and does so with a strong

relationship to the labourer. This creates a monetary basis in conjunction with both the work

produced and the individual, and this can be viewed within fetishism. Arato states that Marx

sought to show that in a developed capitalist system the fetishism of commodities penetrates all

spheres of social life (1978, p. 195). Specifically, the area of creativity can be seen as

transformed into a purely fetishistic commodity. The nature of fetishism entails that the

5

consumer conforms to an irrational obsession with products, which ensures a repeated circulation

of purchases. The necessity of consumption in capitalism is highlighted by Marx as he asserts

that [w]hatever the social form of the production process, it has to be continuous, it must

periodically repeat the same phases. A society can no more cease to produce than it can cease to

consume (1890/1967, p.170). Therefore Marx emphasises the role of consumption to sustain

capitalist economy.

This dissertation will prove that true autonomous creativity is impossible due to the

constraints within a money centred society. I will be analysing a range of artistic styles of the

same economic system, that will provide an insight into the similarities that this monetary system

creates. Recognising the connections between materialised art and the fetishised performance

commodity, I will be applying the term art as an umbrella definition for everything that is

represented as creatively expressive. The specific areas of art that will be focused upon will be

musical theatre production, the work of Banksy, and the work of Marina Abramovic. Whilst

musicals unite with capitalist culture in response to the mass production of art, performance and

political artists attempt to exist outside the capitalist ideals.

The first chapter lays a framework for the capitalist rationale from a Marxist lens. It will

assess how these terms have originated, and the ways in which they manifest in society. It will

importantly show how the influx of commodities in society with the resultant demand for these

items have led to commodity fetishism. Furthermore, it will show how the possession of art has

continually been seen as a representation of wealth. It will show how commodities have

grounded capitalism as a hegemonic power. Consequently, it will show how capitalism has

utilised art as a tool to control the masses, which will then lead on to the next chapter which will

assess how Megamusicals have exploited this notion.

The second chapter will focus upon how musicals have specifically been used as a tool by

6

capitalism, and have effectively become incorporated into the global market. Andrew Lloyd

Webber (1948-) will be noted as a key figure who contributed highly to this transformation, and

will show his intention to maximise profits. The chapter will highlight how reproduction has

affected creativity of both the script and the performers. Furthermore, it will show how the

modes of production and the business-like focus of producers have a destructive effect on

performance.

The third chapter will centre around the idea that alternative art forms have attempted to

go against popular culture. However, the main purpose of the chapter will be to show how both

the artists Banksy and Marina Abramovic remain unable to sever their ties with capitalism. To

show this affect appropriately, it will initially assess the notion of freedom and autonomy, and

will show the encompassing impression of capitalism. Secondly, it will focus on how the

extrinsic motivator of money affects intentions and artistic creativity. It will assess how Banksy

and Marina Abramovic have attempted to oppose society, both in the message within their art

and the utilisation of either public walls or the temporal performance. However, it will show how

both artists have been integrated into the capitalist rationale, as they have been affected by

commodification, reproduction, and the pursuit of profits. Therefore this chapter will prove that

art forms that reject the societal norms are transformed and taken in to the capitalist rationale, as

it is an ubiquitous force that is difficult to evade.

The dissertation will conclude with the view that both art work that is conscious of it's

integration, and art work that attempts to resist, are both complicit within capitalism. It will come

to the conclusion that capitalism is inherent in society, so much so that it has become a social

power. This hegemony is therefore the lifeblood that keeps the economy thriving, resulting in a

system which cannot coexist with creative progression.

7

Chapter One

A Monetary Rationale - The Capital Ideal

This chapter will analyse the capitalist system from a marxist and advanced marxist

perspective; recognising the shift from a feudal economy, into a capitalist commodity-based

industry. It will lay down the framework of how the capitalist system is inevitably governed by

the constraints of monetary economics. Ellen Meiksins Wood comments how capitalism is the

natural condition of humanity, that it conforms to the laws of nature and basic human

inclinations (2002, p.1). This integration of economics with the human rationale will be

analysed, as an individual's creativity and expression can become confined to the laws of their

economic system. Furthermore, this chapter will address how the capitalist rationale has been a

gradual process and will illustrate how it has dominated society. It will show how this has

become problematical to the cultural ideology of an artist, and has led to the corruption of their

approach to creativity and disillusion towards the creative arts industry. In addition, it will set up

a frame-work that will show the connection between the creative processes in all forms of artistic

expression in order to establish the art market as a governing representation of art. This

framework is necessary for the transition into understanding the power of the capitalist rationale,

which is essential to understanding the creative input in art.

Towards the end of the fifteenth century, the western feudal economy began to shift into

the capitalist superstructure. This change was significant as it affected all areas of the economy

by developing the class based rationale. Money was then distributed to areas of labour and

workers were paid accordingly. This was seen to oppose the feudal state, as the workers were

exploited for their labour and were hired by the bourgeoisie into conditions that were similar to

8

slavery, thus making them easily disposable. The exact time that the capitalist ideal took hold on

society cannot be specified for a number of reasons, with the main reason being that capitalism

must always have existed (Wood, 1995, p.6). Furthermore, capitalism actually appears to have

been lying in wait, as emphasised by Wood who notes that it seems always to be there,

somewhere; and it only needs to be released from its chains (2002, p. 4). This shows the

capitalist system as an ever-growing unconscious state in society that was waiting to fully

emerge. This correlates with that of the lower class within the pre-capitalism society, as many of

them resembled slaves. Due to the constant and ever-present nature of capitalism, it can entangle

itself within many of the worlds leading economic systems and therefore the ideals can grow and

become integrated within them. Therefore, communism, fascism or even Marxism could be part

of a capitalist rationale or, in Wood's terms, perhaps an extension of capitalist ideology (1995,

p.6). Therefore despite these economic structures appearing to divorce themselves from the

capitalist ideal, the reach and power of its grounding in society's ideology is distinctly difficult to

deny.

A capitalist economic system, like many others, is able to function by circulating the

consumption, production and distribution of goods. Whether these goods are food, property, or

non-renewable finite resources such as oil and coal, all of them are obtained in exchange for

money. These items are seen as necessary to sustain human life which means that they are

essential requirements for the population of the economy. Within capitalist economy these

resources are managed by the bourgeoisie, who retain their power through owning the business

through which the labour works. This class-based hierarchy is essential to create order amongst

the labours, allowing for stability and control which society will unquestionably abide. Wood

states that from feudalism, capitalism is allowed to grow and mature (2002, p.4), and from this

the rationale of the capitalist superstructure develops alongside it. This involves concepts such as

9

materialism, commodity and fetishism which become part of the economic unconscious within

every social and political state-of-mind in this money-centered society.

The notion of consumerism was highlighted during the Seventieth Century capitalist

economy when another shift in power occurred, which changed the concept of trade by placing

consumerism at the epicentre of the economic ideology. This furthered the expansion of

businesses and the circulation of money on a international scale. Wood states that accounts of

capitalism have presupposed the existence of a universal profit-maximizing rationality (2002,

p. 4). Therefore this notion can be recognised as a hegemonic power, which further governs the

labourers incentive to progress in their field with the result of profit. Wood continues this idea by

saying that society has, fallen under the more or less permanent hegemonic spell of 'consumer

capitalism'. (1995, p. 7). To exemplify, if people are no longer able to contribute to the capitalist

machine, they will no longer be able to gather food or sustain the essentials for human life. As a

result of the growing margins of profit and growth, the need for labour-productivity to be as

efficient and dependable as possible is paramount otherwise the capitalist economy will no

longer be able to function. Due to this, tradesmen are forced to produce as many products as

possible in order to satisfy the demands of the consumer. Alongside this, technological

advancement was a continuous, almost natural process (Wood, 2002, p. 4), which managed to

maximise the production of goods but equally dehumanised the worker. Furthermore, it relied

less on the skill of a labourer but more on the calculation of demand, hence the focus upon how

much profit each product could acquire.

The continuation of capitalist structures and values affected all areas of culture, including

the art-world. Art began to become controlled and directed by the flow of monetary demands,

which led to the dehumanisation of the artist due to the authority of which the patron had over

the work produced. Adam Geczy comments that around this time artistic innovation was not an

10

issue, since the artist-artisan's duty was to discharge objectives within set prescriptions (2008,

p.131). As artists had to work within certain parameters, their creativity began to become

displaced from their artwork, and their profession became rather similar to mundane labour jobs

of the time which had strict guidelines and a particular way of production. As Geczy further

notes, being an artist was akin to how a carpenter would be for a table or tailor for a coat

(2008, p. 131). Therefore, like many other tradesmen, an artist within capitalism who is paid for

their creation will modify their work for their personal income. Adam Smith comments that the

individual intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an

invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention, (2009, p. 264). This shows

that an artist's creation is not only made for the self-interest of the patron, but inescapably for the

interest of the capitalist economy, to which it enters into by becoming another product to

contribute to the circulation in trade. In addition to this, the control the patrons have in the

production of the art means that the product becomes a reflection of the patrons capitalistic ideal

and wealth. Therefore if the artist exists in the rationale of their own self-interest they have no

way of expanding upon their own creative input and this can hinder the direction of the entire

culture of art. This greatly benefits the capital machine because it uses the necessities of human

life to penetrate an artists' creative production to focus on the profitability of their product. When

relating these ideas to advanced capitalist economics, Geczy comments how, many of the

paintings that have commanded the top prices are of people (2008, p. 137). This shows that the

people's representation of wealth in these pictures, or more specifically patrons, has longevity

within capitalism. Depending on the monetary rewards received by the artwork, society will

view this as evidence for their talent. This influences the creative direction of other artists that

will inevitability respect popularised works.

From pre-feudal economy to every section of culture, the capitalist rationale has made

11

society trapped within it's values. As Katy Siegel and Paul Mattick state, it is hard to imagine a

world without money- a world without capitalism (2004, p. 161). As such a concept is difficult

to perceive in the contemporary world, one can only presume and presuppose various factors.

Wood asserts that the [e]nlightenment conceptions of progress (2002, p. 4) is fundamental to

this notion, which results in social and human progression being linked with a monetary status.

In this way art is used as a catalyst to represent the factor of wealth, as Geczy states, art's first

encounters with patronage were to represent wealth (2008, p. 131). This immediately confines

the artist's piece, with no intrinsic value, as a display of personal riches. An obvious

representation of wealth through art are genre paintings, which are from the sixteenth century.

They were produced to represent the riches of people through still-life imagery, and exhibited

and captured the essence of wealth of whomever possessed the piece. To own one of these pieces

was an accessible and convenient way of flaunting possessions (Geczy, 2008, p. 132-133).

This draws upon the rationalised human and monetary relationship, as people are able to view

their profit of labour as being directly linked to the materials each individual owns. This also

reinforces the argument that art is being made popular, not due to the artists creative ability but

due to the placement in culture that capitalism has given to it which directly represents financial

accomplishment. From this, the artists approach to creativity will adhere to these laws of

financial popularised culture, otherwise they would run the risk of falling from the capital

machine which would mean they could no longer satisfy their self-importance and sustain a

comfortable life.

As money manages to further ingrain itself into the predominant social power in an

economy, the privatisation of goods instantaneously become another essential tool to a capitalist

economic culture. Society's addiction to ownership feeds production supply and demand. This is

recognised by Katy Siegel and Paul Mattick in their book Art Work: Money, who state that in a

12

late-capitalist society, if something is privately owned, money must be paid for it (2004, p. 16).

This furthers the notion that capitalism has developed a private ownership market system which

detracts from the fundamentals of sustaining life, hereby society starts to develop it's need for the

inevitable and inescapable commodified object, whether it has a use or is a product of demand.

Siegel and Mattick continue to comment that:

the prices of goods need to have no connection to how important they are to human life nor how much effort was required to produce them. The amount something costs is affected by the amount people are able and willing to spend on it (2004, p. 16).

The influx in supply and demand brings the capitalist economy into the inevitable irrational

pricing of goods and furthers the transition into commodity-fetishism, resulting in a system

which no longer values goods on their labour production or quality, rather on the need for which

society instructs them items are rare or commendable to own. This is where the power of the

bourgeoisie is prominent and the rich are able to retain a position of power within the capitalist

economy.

The term commoditisation brings with it hidden, but ubiquitous and negative

connotations. This is the idea that society is diverging from only valuing human necessities, to an

obsession with privatised ownership of the external object, be it local or indigenous. Karl Marx

furthers this by stating that a commodity is primarily an external object, a thing whose qualities

enable it, in one way for another, to satisfy human wants (1890/1967, p. 3). This illuminates a

transition from the human need to the human want and has become a bold social trait among all

areas of class, not just with the bourgeoisie. Marx asserts that society isn't concerned with the

question, how the thing satisfies the human want, whether directly as a means of subsistence []

or indirectly as a means of production (1890/1967, p. 3). If society is no longer questioning why

it is they want a commodity or where this material addiction has manifested, capitalist values are

developing into a hegemonic system of control. This is where society is fighting for the power

13

and status of the bourgeoisie, and capitalism teases society with this potential. This could be a

defining feature as to why capitalist ideals were flourishing and manifesting into other forms to

stabilise its reign as an economic power.

Another defining feature of the capitalist ideal comes through the developing notion of

the commodity. This term, coined by Marx is the [f]etishism of political economy (1976/1990,

p. 66), which combines the mentality of giving objects social power with the conclusion that

objects are the stimulus which furthers humanity's capitalist-driven ideology. From a Marxist

perspective, Shelly Brivic states that, [f]etishism generates the commodity forms of property; at

the obsession with property accompanies and may constitute realism in fiction or fact - reality as

a system of control (2008, p. 163). This gives claim to the function of fetishism being an

inevitable quality through the concept of a commodity; a vein that runs through the arm of

society's relationship to an object of value, just as a commodity is an inevitability within the

capitalist ideal of distribution and production. These capitalist values generate an unconscious-

greed that is inherent and vital to maximising profit. Despite this, conscious-greed is widely

accepted in society as a means for progression. The surplus value is robbing the worker of the

labour value their product is worth, and commends the bourgeoisie for owning the worker, much

like a master in a feudal economy. This means of corruption has worked its way into capitalist

economics with such success that it is able to operate without scrutiny. Marx recognises that the

reason why capitalism is able to do this successfully is that surplus labour and necessary labour

merge into one another (1890/1967, p.263). Therefore the value of individual labour, to which

one person's contribution to labour production is no longer valued on how much time or effort

was spent producing a product, rather it illuminates that the need for maximised production of

demand outweighs the individual labour cost. The fetishisation of a specific good is therefore

quantified in order to satisfy the needs of society. In addition to this, fetishism benefits the

14

capitalist ideal by coexisting with the influence of the capitalistic rationale. This leaves society's

concerns with ethics shadowed by the benefits of their fetishistic desires and the consumerist

need the capital ideal.

From the analysis of the origin of feudal state it can be seen that the capitalism system

came into power because it was viewed a a liberation and yielded freedom from the constraints

of the feudal economy. However, the pre-capitalism system has developed into something very

similar and now could be considered simply a lesser evil. To further the connection of a

governing monetary system over artistic input I will be following this by applying the

foundations of the theories mentioned through the next chapter. I will address and analyse

performance styles which push themselves towards a capitalised agenda in order to maximise

profit and popularise their art through the cultural rationale. It will focus upon how creative input

is disregarded when the motivation of money ensues and becomes the direct focus of production.

A noticeable change in rationale is how each person has developed a self-obsessed, egoistic

approach to the way they live their life, which has developed from the fetishised consumption of

goods through the acquisition of monetary rewards. From this one can see that, at the pinnacle of

every action comes the desire to provide for themselves. In such an environment an artist cannot

assimilate their creative input.

15

Chapter Two

Popular Culture: Art for Money's Sake!

This chapter will analyse the mainstream art market in relation to the capitalist rationale.

It will show how the art market has consciously utilised branding, of which it has placed

significance onto artist and production names. Through examining Andrew Lloyd Webber

[1965-] and the nature of megamusicals, it will show that the intent behind creating

performances are entrenched in the aim for profits. By looking at the integration of Fordism with

the creation of musicals, it will endeavour to show how this pursuit of profits has produced

shows that are both standardised and globally consumed. It will then highlight how this has had

an impact upon the quality of productions, and the creative input from performers. Overall, it

will display how all types of artistic expression, whether they are material or performance, can

be seen as becoming an extension, in the words of Jean Bauldrillard, of pure sign (1981, p.1).

This would further the art as being little more than another signifier of money. Therefore I will

integrate this through the exploitation of the mainstream art-market, creating a link between the

way art is sold through the auction house and the similarities with commercial performance

industry.

The obscure valuation, objectification and fetishisation of all commercial-art industries

can be seen as linking back to the introduction of the auction house. From it's emergence, the

auction house has shown how monetary-value has secured a relationship with creative

expression. The commercial art market is governed by a bourgeoisie who go by a different alias

but share a common interest in marketing and selling creative work. In performance they are

referred to as producers, and in the distribution of art material they are recognised as art-

16

administrators. The producers & administrators control the art-market by managing the

popularity and marketability of artwork. Through this, artists are made part of a system that

secures their marketability (Geczy, 2008, p. 137). This highlights the essential activity of

promotion, of which Damien Hirst is an example of someone who skilfully promotes his own

artwork. Hirst is considered to be one of the most marketing-savvy artists in the world

(Michaels, 2012, p. 103). This form of marketing and promotion is necessary in the capitalist

society of competition and survival.

The name that is attributed to a piece of art is a significant aspect of the marketing

involved. This creates a monetary value upon this name which is vital to sell the item. Adam

Gezcy recognises that the inclusion of the artist identity within the marketing strategy is

important when dealing with an abstract value such as art (2008, p. 137), this is because art

does not have an inherent use value. Furthermore, most of us have no criteria (or confidence in

the criteria) to judge the price (Findlay, 2012, p. 13), therefore consumers are led by the value

attached to the work. The requirement for artists to capitalise upon their identity is emphasised

by Bernard Denvir and Howard Gray who state, if you are going to make a living, or even part

of a living, out of art, you must become known (1989, p. 47). Thus the use value is replaced by

the exchange value, and the artists' brand-name can become distinguishable as a product of trade.

The focus upon an artist's name can entail that the artwork will be viewed in value terms

due to the attached name instead of considering the work's creative merits. Gezcy confirms this

by asserting that mediocre artworks are bolstered to ridiculous heights (2008, p. 137).

Similarly, the producer and the production name of a musical can become an assurance of

quality, but may not reflect the reality of the show. A performance can lack in creativity but still

be popular, as The Woman in White (2004) by Andrew Lloyd Webber, was recognised by Sharon

Weltman as mediocre but well received (2007, p. 87). Thus, the quality of content can be at

17

odds with the reception of a musical, which can be generated from both popular opinion as well

as the name behind it. Michael Findlay asserts that ideally, we should be guided only by our

personal response to the art itself, but all to often collectors respond to what they read and hear.

(2012, p. 32). This emphasises how the culture in which consumers live can sensationalise a

product and make them believe something is of good quality, but in truth it is mediocre. The fact

that The Phantom of the Opera (1986), has been reported to have accumulated in excess of $5.6

billion (Facts and Figures 2014, para 1) worldwide, which indicates that Andrew Lloyd

Webber can be seen as a culturally-unquestionable brand. Instead of his or others work being

commended for originality, creativity or skill, these artistic characteristics are mainly overlooked

by the average consumer, and art can have a discrepancy between the creativity and it's success.

The art market has thus become a place in which such a constant exchange of money

occurs. It highlights how commercial artistic expression has become just another form of

commodity. Gezcy has even commented that the art market has become equal to the stock

market (2008, p. 137). This is particularly provocative, as the trade of artistic expression is

compared to the trade of stocks, which rapidly rise and fall in worth according to the exchange

value of other stocks. This highlights the tenuous and paradoxical nature in which the value of an

artwork is worth by comparing it to the price it has been given. This business aspect of selling art

is once again highlighted, but in conjunction with musicals, as Bill Bolton & John Thomson

claim that people who successfully produce and stage the musical shows are entrepreneurs

(2013, p. 306). One of the key representations of a entrepreneurial figure of the musical theatre

industry that is Andrew Lloyd Webber (1965-), who was described by David Lister as the

multinational businessman (1995, para. 6). Webber intends for his performances to be profitable

and the amalgamation of artistic expression with business guided by an entrepreneurial person,

signifies that the theatre producer becomes a large part of global marketisation. Therefore they

18

aim to produce a product of theatre which will be easily marketed and globally distributed.

Branding plays a large part of how this monetary exchange for a product is maintained in

capitalist culture. Rosemary J. Coombe describes the proliferation of branding within culture as

he comments that "our daily life occurs within a material environment that is dependent upon

and organized around overarching symbols, many of which are clearly tied to commercial

enterprises (2004, p. 380). These commercial signs for products are to produce profits and

acquire monetary worth. When a consumer purchases a brand, it will supply them with a

temporary feeling of superiority depending on the value that is attributed to it. This creates a

fetishistic cycle for the consumer, as David Wengrow, by using Baudrillard's theory, suggests that

this process can only be sustained through further acts of purchase and consumption, so that

commodity branding ultimately seeks to create a whole pattern of social and economic

dependency (2010, p. 14). Therefore these brands become fetishised by a consumer as they

heavily buy into and rely upon the brand. The application of brand identity to products with no

intrinsic worth is essential as it needs to induce an appearance of quality and to be recognised as

a commodity. Rosemary J. Coombe further comments about the expanse of this covering many

aspects of life, as branding has extended beyond goods and services to mark spaces and

experiences (2004. p. 380). This is of particular importance when applying it to artistic

performances by Andrew Lloyd Webber, such us the heavily branded Cats (1981) or The

Phantom of the Opera (1986). Dan Rebellato comments that when we think of the

megamusicals we often think of the brand images: the big-eyed orphan, a cat's eyes, a combined

Japanese pictograph/helicopter. (2009, p. 45) Not only is a consumer buying into Webber's

name, but also the name of the performance, and the brand symbols.

Megamusicals, like most material art, do not have a traditional notion of use-value

connected with them. As Findlay highlights, art serves no necessary function [] nor does it

19

seem to be linked to any essential activity (2012, p. 13). Instead, the value of a musical in

culture is produced through the enjoyment experienced by the consumer, which in turn permits it

to be considered as a product of worth. Adorno argues that this process transforms the event into

a pure commodity by the trade of pure exchange value, as he states:

If the commodity in general combines exchange value and use value, then the pure use value [...] must be replaced by pure exchange value, which precisely in its capacity as exchange value deceptively takes over the function of use value (1991, pp. 38-39).

Therefore when a musical performance is recognised as not having a monetary use value, the

principles by which the performance is valued represent that of a pure exchange value. Hence the

product with pure use value is depicted to have inferior value to a product with pure exchange

value, as this value does not have a sustainable or rationale worth because it does not link with

the labour involved, which in this context can again be related directly to the musical. It is from

this that Adorno believes that the way in which a performance retains the aspect of enjoyment

stems from the value of its exchange, as he states the more inexorably the principles of

exchange value destroys use values for human beings, the more deeply does exchange value

disguise itself as the object of enjoyment (1991, p. 39). And so, the fetishised commodity form

of these performances is a powerful tool in which the monetary value of the performance product

will fundamentally determine the level to which it is enjoyed.

The commodity nature of which musicals have been produced and marketed have been

recognised in critical receptions. Theatre critiques present musical commodities with appraisal

and even delight in their commodity nature. For example, Julie Harmon recognises Stephen

Schwartz's (1948-) musical Wicked (2003) as one of Broadways hottest commodities (2012,

para 1). Viewed from a Marxist perspective, Harmon is connoting that the show is aimed towards

the production of money. Therefore it must assume it's transformed form into money (Marx,

1978/2006, p. 463), by adopting all the roles that a commodity entails. Not only is the

20

commodity nature of musicals acknowledged, but Harmon also asserts that it is an absolute

must see for any true lover of theatre (2012, para 1). This insinuates that, in order to become

defined as a lover of theatre, one must first recognise that they are purchasing an experience with

a high exchange value and realise that this process is representative of their own monetary-

expression. As Adorno asserts, the triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that

consumers feel compelled to buy and use its product even though they see through them (1991,

p. 167). This questions the position of popular culture in relation to creative work, as society

tends to glamorise this culture of commodities and accept that capitalistic ideals are inescapable.

When a product is successful and receives a high level of satisfaction by culture, it is

inevitable to become fetishised by consumers. Consequently, the means of reproducing the

product to receive more profits is capitalised upon. These reproductions are required to be

identical to the original model, to ensure the same satisfaction and to receive the same, or

increased profits from the consumers. One of the most significant reproductions of performances

is within the megamusicals produced by Andrew Lloyd Webber. Regarding his production of

Cats, Andrew Lloyd Webber commented that he cloned the show (Burston, 2013, p. 64), in

which he made identical copies to be performed globally. Lloyd Webber and Mackintosh had

absolute control over the product, with the same design, lighting cues, and choreography

(Wolf, 2011, p. 158), thus ensuring no differences occurred between performances. Stacy Wolf

comments that even the computerized cues coordinated both scenography and music, and the

sung-through format produced a score that was prerecorded, saved, and replayed nightly in the

exact same way. (2011, p. 158). Thus every performance would be an identical copy. Dan

Rebellatto describes such identical productions as explaining the nickname Mctheatre of which

the shows are not new productions; they are franchises (2009, p.41). These productions are

similar to McDonalds restaurants, as they also appear world-wide, with identical products and

21

are therefore widely accessible. The link between these types of performance commodities and

capitalism is highlighted by Rebellato as he asserts that Mctheatre productions are entirely

typical of the methods of global capitalism. (2009, p. 41) as each of them have been performed

thousands of times in front of millions of people in hundreds of productions in dozens of cities

worldwide. (2009, p. 40). The replica performances have been designed to be consumed

worldwide and due to high ticket sales, have succeeded.

A key part of how reproduced musicals have become identical and standardised

commodities, is due to them becoming subjected to Fordism. This term has been coined to

reflect loosely the pioneering mass production methods and rules of management applied by

Henry Ford in his car factories in America during the 1920s and 1930s (Amin, 2000, p. 21). The

nature of how musicals are produced and presented evidently links to this auto mobile

manufacturing process, as Rebellato emphasises, there is a clear continuity between the

methods employed in creating the megamusical and [...] the production line. (2009, p. 43). Due

to the repetitive and standardised nature, such as the unchanged actions and script, the actors

become idle workers, who are constantly reproducing a show that is confined to very strict

boundaries. Wolf states that [t]he assembly-line production seems especially anathema to

theatre when the actors, too, become cogs in the theatrical machinery (2011, p.158), thus they

become mere robotic mechanical parts of the well-oiled musical machine. This is particularly

highlighted in the Lion King (1997) as the costumes are the stars, and the actors merely their

operators (Rebellato, 2009, p. 45). Therefore actors are lacking in any creative expression and

can be viewed as the personification of the Fordist production line.

These musical reproductions have a negative and draining impact on the quality of the

shows, which leads to the reduction of what Walter Benjamin called the aura (1982, p. 219).

As Benjamin noted, that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the

22

work of art(1982, pp. 218-219). Benjamin makes the distinction of quality between original and

reproduction as he asserts that there is indeed no greater contrast than that of the stage play to a

work of art that is completely subject to, or, like the film, founded in, mechanical reproduction

(1994, p. 532). In Benjamin's view, the production on a stage is a purer form of art than the

mechanical reproduction on film. However, it is important to note the change when musicals

began to be mass produced. Burston asserts that whilst:

Benjamin sought to mark the theatre as a place where the assembly-line was still kept at bay, and where actors were still in possession of their aura [] with the arrival of theatrical Fordism, the theatre came fully and finally to inhabit the age of mechanical reproduction (2013, p. 62).

Therefore this idea of the aura is diminished within these reproductions and with the wide

separation of the replica from the unique original product. The interesting, originally creative,

and spontaneous factors are affected as standardization means that many of the usual virtues of

theatre are diminished: its liveness, the uniqueness of each performance, the immediacy, its

ability to respond to space and time (Rebellato, 2009, pp. 41-42). The actor's integration within

a particular moment is important for a show to react to its surroundings, and emphasis on spatial

awareness is a key factor. Benjamin asserted that even the most perfect reproduction of a work

of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place

where it happens to be (1982, p. 220). Wolf confirms Benjamin's view of the aura in

conjunction with time and space, as he asserts that a living actor locked in a temporality other

than the 'now' is lost in both translation of art and transformation of spirit (2011 p.158).

Therefore, the quality of the musical is affected by the nature of reproduction, and the purity of

an artists creativity is masked by the feeling of stale deja vu.

Through the standardisation of musicals, it is not only the quality of the show that

becomes affected. The reproductive nature of musicals entail that the actors perform repetitive

and imitative actions. These creative vessels are enforced to stay in the narrow limits of what has

23

already been organised and directed. As Burton asserts, [b]roadway's big fat comeback has

owed a great deal to the influence of megamusical methods of reproduction which have had an

indelibly negative impact upon industry conceptions of an actors and acting (2012, p. 60). The

performers' interpretation of their character in the musical is very limited as Wolf comments that

the actors creativity is stifled first, by a locked down, soundtracked production that allows no

flexibility in timing, and second, by a rehearsal process that is solely imitative and not inventive

(2011, p.158). Both the actors and the script is affected as the actors aren't breathing

performances into the text anymore, they are mimicking the breathing of others instead

(Burston, 2013, p. 60). Whilst Sarah Green favourably comments that much as we might rail

against Mackintosh and these big productions, they are generating and inspiring future

performers and audiences (2012, para 5), it is evident to see that her assumption is idealistic

because in fact for performers, creative expression is very limited. The position of the performer

comes secondary to the profitability and popularity of the art.

In conclusion, popular culture can be viewed as a catalyst which has been exploited by

the governing bourgeoisie to produce artistic productions and transform them into products of

entertainment. This is furthered by the notion of art administrators and producers who seem to

push the capitalist economy as far as they can to squeeze every last drop from it. The producers

rationale is further conditioned by their ambition which manifests through the capitalist

environment in which they operate. As McQuaig and Brooks assert, they have become rich, not

by exercising their talents in some mythical 'free market' but by exercising those talents within a

tightly regulated, government-enforced monopoly (2013, p. 49). This process transforms the art

into a repeated product, viewing it equal to that of the fordist notion of the production line. This

means it resembles a clear Marxist commodity. Furthermore this standardises the performance

and digresses the actors to have little, or no, creative input. Moreover, Walter Benjamin's

24

concept of the aura is lessened by work which does not appear to be new and original, therefore

the creativity of the piece is not only being dulled down.

25

Chapter Three

The Economy Driven Autonomy

The affect of the commodified and reproduced nature of musical performance has led to

radical artists that attempt to avoid the mass-culture and monetary status of musicals. However,

as this chapter will show, through either the unconscious workings of the capitalist rationale, or

their own eventual emergence into commodification, they reassert and uphold capitalist values.

Furthermore, it will emphasise Stephan Duncombe's quote that all culture is, or will

immediately become, an expression of the dominant power (2002, p. 9). It will explore the

concept of freedom and autonomous art, through analysing the works of artists that attempt to

create art which is generated from an intrinsic desire but is still affected by extrinsic monetary

factors. This discussion will be centred around the work of Marina Abravovic and Banksy (who,

throughout this chapter will be referred to as he). The application of both will set a contrast in

respect to performance and material art work, but highlight similarities in that their rejection of

the usual commodities has gone against their aim. Banksy is seen as a representation of graffiti-

art in society, and Marina Abramovic has become a key figure in performance art. This chapter

will therefore express the impossibility to create art in a society that is free from the rule of

capitalist ideals, which are either unconsciously situated within the art or is consciously worked

in to produce money.

Whilst capital values are clearly displayed in the production of musicals, performance art

and graffiti aim to present and create art that can be perceived as being free from these external

constraints. Capitalism can be seen as a force that pervades the intentions of artistic creativity, by

setting up the belief that individuals function through their own freedom of choice. Sam Harris

26

exemplifies this by asserting how, in society free will is an illusion (2012, p. 5) and that from

this, [t]houghts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and

over which we exert no conscious control. (2012, p. 5). This disassociation of free-will has a

large impact upon many aspects of an individuals life, specifically upon the direction and

intention of their actions. Ansari argues that a structured economy can chang[e] the direction of

individual actions compared to the course those actions would have taken if external pressures

had been absent (2013, p. 328). Therefore the nature of capitalist ideals invade and corrupt an

an individual's freedom, and distorts their approach to creative thinking, hereby dictating how

individuals expresses themselves in artwork.

From the notion that an individual has a lack of free will through the illusion of freedom,

is furthered by the theory of interpellation. Althusser defines interpellation as the process which

ideology 'acts' or 'functions' in such a way that it 'recruits' subjects among the individuals (it

recruits them all), or 'transforms' the individuals into subjects (it transforms them all) (2012, p.

130). This emphasises how capitalist ideology is driven onto people, and modifies them into

subjects of control. King adapts Althussers's theory and claims that [a]ll hailed individuals,

recognizing or misrecognizing themselves in the address, are transformed into subjects

conceiving of themselves as free and autonomous members of a society that has in fact

constructed them (2003, pp. 566- 567). This continues the notion that society is propelled

further into the illusion of freedom. The engrained rationale is emphasised by Duncombe's

summary of Gramsci's notion that culture is not something out there but intimate, internalized

into our consciousness and directing often without our knowledge our activity (2002, p. 9).

In opposition to this and in relation to artistic creativity, Fortier asserts that Adorno, sees in

modern art not a reflection of capitalist oppression but more or less unfettered works of reason

and enlightenment which, especially in their formal liberations, point beyond the blinkers of

27

capitalism (2003, p. 156). However, as previously noted, it is evident that the capitalist

rationale is engrained within every aspect of culture and society, and that as a result, an artist

would not be able to completely diverge from it. Therefore capitalism has manipulated the tool

of art into the false belief that an individual is resisting the dominant economy.

From an individual's lack of free will, an artist in a capitalism system cannot be be truly

autonomous. Hamilton notes that autonomy is art's resource against administered society, but as

Bernstein puts it, it is a heavily qualified one, thoroughly conditioned by what it opposes,

verging on emptiness, complicit despite itself, and indefinitely vulnerable (2009, p. 258).

Despite the intention of art to oppose the dominant features in society, it cannot fully escape the

conditions in which it is created. This opposes Adorno's belief that the unconscious-mind evades

capitalism and can comment critically upon society. As Hamilton asserts, Adorno believes that

the principal social function of autonomous art in the era of modernism [is] social critique. He

holds that it is only though becoming socially autonomous, that art becomes self-conscious and

socially critical (2009, p. 256). However, within capitalism, this claim is malleable as economic

values predetermine the direction of critical art, therefore Adorno's notion of the purpose of

autonomy is controlled. Hamilton furthers this by emphasising the difficulty of autonomy in

capitalist economy as society unconsciously connects with the function of economic conditions

for example humans would have somehow to lose the need for furniture, before items of

furniture could become autonomous art. Even exhibited in a museum, furniture's functional

origins are inescapable(2009, p. 263). Therefore art cannot completely be autonomous due to

the fact that it connects with society and is integrated fully within it.

The effects of capitalism upon artists can most readily be seen within attempts to create

art that can be consumed and also produce money. This is particularly evident through examining

the contrasting factors of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. Intrinsic motivation is usually

28

proclaimed to be the main motivation when creating a piece of art. This can be affected by

money as Daniel Pink asserts that when money is used as an external reward for some activity,

the subjects lose intrinsic interest for the activity (2005, p. 8). The potential to benefit

financially from producing artwork means intrinsic motivation in capitalist society has become

corrupted and distorted. Most significantly, the quality of creative expression exhibited in their

art is reduced by the principle of the external reward. As Amabile asserts several studies have

demonstrated that extrinsic constraints can undermine creativity (1985, p. 394) and is

detrimental (1985, p. 393). Therefore not only is personal enjoyment and intrinsic motivation

distorted, but the quality of the artwork is greatly reduced. This is in stark contrast with

philosophers such as Immanuel Kant who define artistic creativity as 'free', not performed for

wages but governed only by the genius of the artist(Mattick & Siegel, 2004, p. 18). Within the

capitalist rationale artists are easily coerced into creating art for monetary purpose, and therefore

their creative input is thwarted.

Whilst individuals are directly affected by the capitalist system, some artists have

attempted to go against the grain of the political economy. The graffiti artist Banksy appears to

reject the ideals and fetishistic desires of capitalist society by using the wall is the weapon of

choice to hit them back (Banksy, 2006, n.p). Therefore Banksy attempts to rebel against society

by creating original political art which can, at times, be considered controversial. Through this

Banksy is able to critique political society within, what he hopes to be, an original context. He

states, I like to think I have the guts to stand up anonymously in a western democracy and call

for things no one else believes in like peace and justice and freedom (2006, n.p). Therefore

Banksy considers his work to have a significant political message. However, how much this goes

against society is debatable, as Banksy is still conforming to capitalist restrictions in some ways.

The style of graffiti art itself can be seen as a repeated pattern of culture, Fisher claims that

29

'Alternative' and 'independent' don't designate something outside mainstream culture; rather,

they are styles, in fact the dominant styles, within the mainstream (2009, p. 9). Therefore, by

graffiti art claiming itself to be original and expressive it is,in fact, creating a paradox which

society will connect mainstream culture to the work produced. Furthermore, Duncombe proposes

the argument that any form of rebellion in culture:

does not and cannot exist. The dominant system is one of such complete and ideological and material hegemony than any cultural expression, even if it appears rebellious, is, or will soon be repackaged and transformed into, a component of the status quo (2002, p. 7).

Therefore, any radical graffiti artist will always be, in some way, manipulated by the economy

through the integration with money.

Banksy's artwork is not only subject to criticism redarding it's level of radicalism, but has

become further immersed into society by the commodification of his work. Banksy has displayed

his work on public property, proclaiming that the wall is the best kind of canvas, (2006, n p).

Using these materials to display his artwork, he can be seen as rejecting the constraints of

ownership and materialism. As Banksy comments, in graffit art [t]here is no elitism or hype, it

exhibits on some of the best walls a town has to offer, and nobody is put off by the price of

admission (2006, n.p). However, this evasion of money has been thwarted as his work has sold

at auction for hundreds of thousands of dollars (Macnab, 2011, p. 30). Banky's graffiti have

become commodities involved in fetishism and capitalism values. The original intent has been

negated and has shown the easy incorporation of work into the art market that has attempted to

evade capitalist values. As Duncombe asserts through Adorno:

capitalism [...] transforms nearly all culture into commodities. This alienates us from the very things upon which we bestow meaning, and reduces our cultural passions, and even cultural rebellions, to pseudo activity easily incorporated back into the system (2002, p .11).

Therefore this supposedly radical art has been placed back into society to generate money, as

Jameson states, even the most offensive forms of this artare all taken in stride by society, and

30

they are commercially successful unlike the productions of older high modernism.(1998, p. 19).

Therefore even political art can be readily consumed in capitalist society.

Banksy's integration within the art market and the resultant commodification of his work,

can be seen to be replicated in Abramovic's performance art. Abramovic situates herself as an

important part of this style of art as she refers to herself as the grandmother of performance art

(Allain & Harvie, 2013, p. 13). An example of a performance which integrates commodification

is where she used human centrepieces as performers and charged customers to take part. Bishops

asserts that there was:

controversy around Marina Abramovic's 'human table decorations' for the LA MoCA gala(November 2011): eighty-five performers were paid $150 to a kneel on rotating 'lazy susan' beneath the tables, with their heads protruding above, staring into the eyes of diners who had paid upwards of $2,500 for a ticket (2012, p.230).

The way in which the audience had to pay such a large sum of money for a ticket highlights how

the intention for the target market of the audience to be of a higher-class in society. Therefore

Abramovic's intentional incorporation with money into her performance confines it to a pure

commodity form. Bishop further comments that:

What is shocking is the performance's banality and paucity of ideas, and the miserable fact that a museum such as LA MoCA requires this kind of media stunt dressed up as performance art to raise money (2012, p. 230).

This adheres to the notion of generating profits for an exhibitor from a piece of performance art,

which fundamentally goes against the notion of performance art being an uncommodified piece

without value. This further detracts from the performance intent for autonomy as there is a

conscious mind-set that the piece is being performed for money, in order to make money, which

is comparable to any other form of labour.

Even in performance art which cannot be directly defined as a cultural commodity, it still

exhibits traits of capitalist commoditisation, a way in which this is shown is through the

production of films and images. As established, the individual is impressed with inherently

31

capitalist ideals and therefore the performer is also viewed in such a way, Sean Cubitt claims that

in our period of history, and in our Western societies, there is no performance that is not always

already a commodity (1994, pp. 283-284). Therefore the set-up for the commodification of a

performance could be seen as predetermined by the external factors of society. Due the personal

nature of performance art the documentation process seems like a necessary function in order to

expand the perception of the work into culture. This directly applies to Marina Abramovic who

produced the film The Artist is Present (2012), where she documents and comments upon her

performance within the context of her position as a performance artist. Similarly to musicals,

there is the distance between the original and the reproduction. This reproduction of work is

therefore viewed as a representation of the moment, as Jacques Attali considers, that

performance is generally heard only once- it is a unique moment [,] in repetition, potential

hearings are stockpiled (1985, p. 41). As Marina Abramovic is a conspicuous figure in

performance art this documentation displays that it is nearly impossible for this style of art to

escape the hold of commodification, therefore the capitalist model is impressed onto it, and the

performance can be viewed as another representation of capital ideals.

In conclusion, capitalism can be seen as an all-encompassing ideology, which allows

individuals to believe that they are free to a certain extent. Despite the efforts of artists to break

free of societal restraints, they are never truly separated from the rationale, and become

compelled to re-immerse themselves in the commodity nature of art. As Banksy and Abromovic's

integration in the economy proves,

Capitalist ideology in general, Zizek maintains, consists precisely in the overvaluing of belief in the sense of inner subjective attitude at the expense of the beliefs we exhibitsand externalize in our behaviour. So long as we believe (in our hearts) that capitalism is bad, we are free to continue to participate in capitalist exchange (Fisher, 2009, p. 13).

From this quote, we can deduce that Banksy and Marina may be able to justify participating in

32

the system that they are against as their artwork intends to depart from it. Therefore, within the

desire to shift the balance of monetary gain comes the paradox in which the artist is

commodifying the work and profiting from it, despite originally being created to be different

from art with an intentional monetary purpose. The effect on society is noted by Smith as he

comments that someone who pursu[es] his own interest [...] frequently promotes that of the

society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. (Smith, 2009, p. 264). This

can also contribute to people's lack of interest in the issues, as Fisher comments, when people are

shown to be subjected to capitalism, it provides a temporary release, and thus allow[s] us to

continue to consume with impunity (2009, p. 12). Therefore, artists who go against their aims

are not only promoting what they wished to go against, but also encouraging people to carry on

with their cooperation in the system.

33

Conclusion

The Next Step...

In conclusion, I have shown that the capitalist rationale is a highly engrained part of society, that

affects the production of artwork. I have shown that both musical performance and radical art are

equally determined and influenced by the capitalist rationale. The producers of megamusicals

make their productions identical and globally accessible as they wish to gain maximum profits.

In contrast, radical artists wish to eschew the commodity nature of art and comment upon society

in alternative ways to the mainstream. However, they continue to work within capitalist

limitations, as this has been proved to be unavoidable, and their work turn into commodities.

This is all key to my argument that artistic expression is exchanged for monetary gain, as it has

been shown that art will always be turned into a commodity and sold. Furthermore, the extrinsic

motivator of money effects creative expression, as the quality in a piece of work is reduced.

What is clear from this dissertation analysis, is that the value of art has become conflated,

and this can be attributed to the unrealistic prices placed by marketing, brand, and the value of

enjoyment. In particular, Webber is a key figure in gaining large profits from musicals, and

creating a brand of the production and of his identity. In contrast, Banksy and Abramovic,

attempt to break free of the restricting society but they are unable to gain complete autonomy

and freedom. As I have shown, the amount of free will that a person has is very debatable, and it

is difficult to gain complete freedom of thought and action. The original intentions of these

artists could be questioned of whether they were truly rebelling against commodity.

Therefore it is clear to see the power that capitalism holds. Fisher emphasises the impact

that it has on others as he asserts that it is a monstrous, infinitely plastic entity, capable of

34

metabolising and absorbing anything with which it comes into contact (2009, p. 6). This is clear

to see in relation to the artists that have become involved in capitalist values. The significance of

participating with the rationale is noted by Fortier as he proposes that what needs to be kept on

mind is both that capitalism is a hyper-abstract impersonal structure and that it would be nothing

without our co-operation (2003, p.13). However, as previously noted, participation can be

conscious and unconscious, so the power of capitalist ideals can be even stronger than imagined.

Due to the impact upon creativity, only through a moneyless society would we be fully

able to express our true creative potential. Fisher emphasises that the power of capitalism entails

that a moneyless society would be hard to envisage, as he comments that, the widespread sense

that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now

impossible to even imagine a coherent alternative to it (2009, p. 2). However, Wood believes

that there may be another option as she asserts:

The increasingly transparent weakness and contradictions in the capitalist system may eventually convince even some of its more uncritical supports that an alternative needs to be found. But the conviction that there is and can be no alternative is very deeply rooted, especially in Western culture (2002, p. 2).

However, Wood also agrees with Fisher, in regards to the opinion that it is a difficult thing to

imagine especially within the current society we live in. Therefore some critics may believe that

a future without a money-centred society is incredibly difficult to consider. However, both Marx

and William Morris had visionary ideas on a moneyless future economy. Marx positively:

Imagined a world that would no longer be ruled by money; he believe[d], moreover, that capitalism itself was creating both the possibility and the necessity for such a world, in which people themselves, not the profit-driven forces of the market, would decide what toproduce and how to distribute it (Mattick & Siegel, 2004, p.170).

In addition, the artist William Morris had also envisaged a future in which creativity was free to

reign. Morris saw a future in which, in Thompson's words:

The creative impulse was no longer constrained and corrupted by the pressures of commercialism. In this context the autonomy and the freedom of the worker would

35

transmute labour into artistry. His imagined economy was a marketless, moneyless one (Thompson, 2006, p.18).

In this society this would affect the art created in a positive manner because [f]or Morris, the

ideal society was one that prioritized creativity not consumption (Thompson, 2006, p.18), and it

would give space to the expression of human creativity (Thompson, 2006, p.18). Therefore,

unlike in the current capitalist society, creativity would thrive, and would have no limitations.

This dissertation has therefore shown how a less restricted economy based on value and

commodities would benefit not only artists but also individual freedom.

Work Count: 10,214

36

Bibliography

Adorno, T, W. (1991). The Culture Industry. London: Routledge.

Arato, A. (1978). Aesthetic theory and cultural criticism. In A. Arato & E. Gephardt. (Eds.), Essential frankfurt reader (pp. 185-224). New York: Continuum Publishing Company.185-224.

Allain, P., & Harvie, J., (2013) The routledge companion to theatre and performance. London: Routledge.

Althusser, L. (2012). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In S. Zizek (Ed.), Mapping ideology (pp. 100-140). London: Verso.

Amabile, T. (1985). Motivation and creativity: effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 48(2), 393-399. Retrieved from http://pages.pomona.edu/~ajr04747/fall2008/math58/papers/amabile_1985_psp-48-2-393.pdf

Amin, A. (2000). Post-fordism: models, fantasies, and phantoms of transitions. In A. Amin (Ed.),Post-fordism: a reader (pp. 14-52). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.

Ansari, T. (2013). Dimensions in discourse: elementary to essentials. Indiana: Xlibris Corporation.

Attali, J, (1985) Noise: the political economy of music. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Banksy. (2006) Bansky: wall and piece. London: Century The Random House Group Ltd.Baudrillard, J. (1981). For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (C. Levin, Trans.). St.Louis: Telos Press Ltd. (Original work published 1981)

Benjamin, W. (1982). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In F. Frascina, C. Harrison, & D. Paul(Eds.), Modern art and modernism: a critical anthology (pp. 217-220). London: Harper and Row Ltd.

Benjamin, W. (1994). The work of art in the age of its technical age of reproducibility. In S. Ross(Ed.), Art and its significance: an anthology of aesthetic theory (3rd ed., pp. 526-538). Albany: New York Press.

Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial hells: participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. London: Verso Books. Brivic, S. (2008). Joyce Through Lacan and Zizek. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Bolton, B., & Thompson, J. (2013). Entrepreneurs: talent, temperament, and opportunity (3rd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

37

Brooks, N., & Mcquaig, L., (2013). The trouble with billionaires, how the super-rich hijacked the world (and how we can take it back). London: Oneworld Publications. Burston, J. (2013). Recombinant broadway. In A. Moran, & M. Keane (Eds.), Cultural adaptation (pp. 53-102). London: Routledge.

Coombe, R. J. (2004). Commodity culture, private censorship, branded environments, and globaltrade politics: intellectual property as topic of law and society research. In A. Sarat. (Ed.), The blackwell companion to law and society (pp. 369-391). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Cubitt, S. (1994). Laurie anderson: myth, management and platitude. In J. Roberts (Ed.), Art hasno history! The making and unmaking of modern art (pp. 278-296). New York: Verso.

Denvir, B., & Gray, B., (1989). Making art pay London: Phaidon Press Incorporated.

Duncombe, S. (2002). Introduction. In S. Duncombe. (Ed.), Cultural resistance reader (pp. 1-16). Verso: London.

Facts and figures. (2014). Retrieved from the Phantom of the Opera Website: http://www.thephantomoftheopera.com/the-show/facts-figures

Findlay, M. (2012). The value of art. London: Prestel.

Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism: is there no alternative? Hampshire: O Books.

Fortier, M. (2003). Theory/theatre. London: Routledge.

Geczy, A. (2008). Art: histories, theories and exceptions. Oxford: Berg.

Green, S. (2012). The wicked stage: Mctheatre have musicals joined the world of mass commercialisation?. Retrieved from: http://www.ayoungertheatre.com/the-wicked-stage-mctheatre-have-musicals-joined-the-world-of-mass-commercialisation/

Hamilton, A. (2009). Adorno and the autonomy of art. In, S. G. Ludovisi, & G. A. Saavedra (Eds.), Nostalgia for a redeemed future: critical theory (pp. 287-304). Rome: John Cabot University Press.

Harmon, J. (2012) Wicked costa mesa. Retrieved from http://wickedtour.net/wicked-costa-mesa

Harris, S. (2012). Free will. New York City: Simon and Schuster

Lister, D. (1995, February 11). The cloning of Andrew Lloyd Webber. The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-cloning-of-andrew-lloyd-webber-1572543.html

Jameson, F. (1998). The cultural turn: selected writing on the postmodern, 1983-1998. London: Verso.

38

http://wickedtour.net/wicked-costa-mesa

King, R. (2003). Interpellation. In R. Makaryk (Ed.), Encyclopedia of contemporary literary theory (pp. 566-567). University of Toronto Press: Toronto

Macnab, M. (2011). Design by nature: using universal forms and principles in design. Berkeley: New Riders

Marx, K. (1967). Capital: a critique of political economy (C. Paul, E. Paul, Trans.). London: Orion Publishing Group Ltd. (Original work published 1890)

Marx, K. (1990). Capital: volume one (B. Fowkes, Trans.). London: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1976)

Marx, K. (2006). Capital: volume two (D. Fernbach, Trans.). London: Penguin Books Ltd (Original work published 1978)

Mattrick, P. Seigel, K. (2004). Art works: money. London: Thames and Hudson.

Michaels, F. S. (2012). Monoculture: how one story is changing everything. Canada: Red Clover Press.

Pink, D. (2010). Drive: the suprising truth about what motivates us. Edinburgh: Canongate Books.

Rebellato, D. (2009). Theatre and globalisation. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Smith, A. (2009). The wealth of nations. Blacksberg: Thrify Books.

Steedman, A. M. (2011). Art for the people, art by the people. Doctoral dissertation. California: California State University.

Thompson, N.W. (2006) Political economy and the labour party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884-2005 (2nd ed.). Oxon: Routledge

Wengrow, D. (2008). Prehistories of commodity branding. Current Anthropology.49(1), 7-34. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/523676

Wolf, S. (2011). Changed for good: a feminist history of the broadway musical. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wood, E. M. (1995) Democracy against capitalism: renewing historical materialism. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Wood, E. M. (2002). The origin of capitalism: a longer view. London: Verso.

39