The difference between the “real,” “authentic” life and its mere representation has saturated the philosophical discourse from its very onset. Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle usually gets categorized as a further elaboration on this issue. The essential misapprehension of such an understanding lies in the disregard of Debord’s constitutive thesis: “the spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images.” (§ 4) In cultural perspectives, the “real” material dynamics of life – relations between people – is replaced by a purported exchange of images which lack any authenticity.
The concept of cognitive capitalism (Vercellone, 2005), with its theses on the contemporary domination of information and knowledge within capitalist reproduction, further validates this opposition. According to Doogan’s (2009) thoroughly researched and empirically founded insights, our world is still heavily dominated by crude material production which precludes any notion of a new, post-Fordist, virtual, immaterial, post-work stage of capitalism. Similarly, Huws (2003, 2014) warns of the dubious status of the concepts of fluid identities, or hybrid subjectivities, and stresses the prevalence of class and gender issues which still substantially affect the working spheres. Drawing on Davis’s (2013) insights on the necessity of class analysis for the comprehension of the artistic field, I will present the modes in which “creativity” functions as a neoliberal buzzword. More specifically, I will outline the ways in which systemic exploitation, as an intrinsic feature of capitalism, still structures the dynamics of the art field, particularly areas that are fashionably known as “creative industries”.
Materijalna baza proizvodnje – nekoliko napomena o virtualnosti
