top of page

Reading Marx: History of a Young Artist in Marxist Terms

by Julia Elise Hong

0474dbb3-0001-0004-0000-000000491445_w520_r1.778_fpx58.67_fpy50.jpg

The film is movement, but the film within the film is money, is time.

The crystal-image thus receives the principle which is its foundation:

endlessly relaunching exchange which is dissymmetrical,

unequal and without equivalence, giving image for money,

giving time for images, converting time, the transparent side, and money,

the opaque side, like a spinning top on its end.

And the film will be finished when there is no more money left…

 

- Deleuze[1]

​

I

 

 

Resting her head on the table, the artist looks at the damaged sculpture. Her silent heart is furious.

 

For the work found some feet away from its place and broken in half, the gallery offered to compensate for the cost of the clay that had been used to make it. When she reminded them of what had caused the damage and asked to consider at least the labour that had been put into making the piece and would be required for restoration or reproduction, they did not care to find out how much the labour might be and responded with an unchanged offer to pay for the raw material only. She was then a lonely witness of a great loss: it was as if they were saying, ‘Your sculpture is a thing without a subjective essence to be embodied, like air that is provided by nature and assumes at the most use-value with consumption as its end and not any value with capital and mystery as its end.’

 

Her head, still on the table, is as muted as a still life can be, as it slowly turns toward the other side of the studio. Then there is Marx in red.[2]

 

The book had been sitting there for months, but it was really that afternoon that she saw in it a strange mixture of languid and bright. Lines she had marked finally began to illuminate: “The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life”;[3] and “Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all.”[4] What the gallery was hurting was consciousness of the life-activity, the human being, and the value of an artwork which are their own and the world’s as much as the artist’s.

 

She grabbed a pen and began to write down numbers. She imagined that she was a full-time artist whose income from artwork sales alone would suffice for both the means of production in the studio and the means of subsistence at home. The economic and aesthetic decisions she was setting out to make then would be directly related to the kind of consciousness – hers and the world’s – in which she hoped to exist. The list in USD included studio rent, tools and materials, general artwork prices, gallery commission, collectors discount, apartment rent, car maintenance, insurances, food, clothes, et cetera; and for a simplified plan for a fiscal year, she decided to focus on making a body of paintings in 38.5 x 49 inches, dimensions of her choice after a favorite painting.[5] Based on the calculations, her conclusions were: for the studio income to suffice, she would have to produce 25 paintings in the said dimensions; supposing that she takes six weeks off for holiday, travel, and research and is left with 46 weeks in the year to produce the 25 paintings, she would have to produce at least one painting every twelve days; and along the way, she would hope for some work days that are highly productive (for relative surplus-value) or prolonged (for absolute surplus-value) where additional works in other dimensions and mediums could be produced. Now, the works would not get sold immediately and some maybe never. However, what mattered to the artist was that those in her possession would be potentially capital.[6]

 

She then promised herself that, until it is no longer necessary, she would keep a job elsewhere to make money with which she would play the full-time artist and pay for the very minimal means of production and of subsistence. This way, her life would appear in certain refraction as that of a full-time artist; and this appearance, this expression of a life, would in the end be the true state of her life.

 

That hour before sunset, the young artist herself became capital.

 

 

I:

Until yesterday, you were only thinking about making

and making out of necessity of being a human. I’ve never seen you like this,

calculating and coming up with a number of paintings of the same

dimensions to make in how many days. How does it feel? Are you

concerned at all that you might be handing yourself over to a

production of commodities? And what does it mean to you to sell?

You used to not care to sell and even refused to sell.

 

 

Artist:

Nothing’s changed really. Except by caring to sell, I intend to be

social. I intend to exist in the world and in its consciousness. Those

dimensions or not, the image I make on each canvas will be out of

necessity as ever. Painting and the image present enough problems

for us that will last a lifetime. Once a painting is finished, however,

I in fact want it to be a commodity, one which is conveniently

stretched or framed and easily sellable so that the painting can

have an easier time going out in the world and socializing. And it

will still contain enough problems for me, the fellow artist, the

critic, the art historian, and the viewer, for scholarship and for

seeing. The problems within the image alone are what will

determine whether it is a good painting.

 

 

I:

What about the price? Is it your goal to make much money through

your art? For example, how would you respond to your work being

sold later for millions of dollars in auction houses?

 

 

Artist:

Auction houses…. Much money, I don’t know. I just want the

works to be reasonably priced, enough to support natural, material

development of my art, studio, and home. You know me. I’ve

never had much desire for money. Now, this might sound a little

contradictory. My response to the art being sold for millions is

positive. Positive in two ways: one, why not, I wouldn’t mind such

appreciation of the value of my art and my life-activity and human

being it embodies; and two, I want to go beyond the habit of

frowning upon such million-dollar sales and offer a perspective

that would otherwise be unthinkable, that sees such sales simply as

another case of social reality. Let’s take a step back from the

millions of dollars as quantity. Instead, think about them in terms

of quality. The millions of dollars are essentially an expression, a

language spoken by a group of people. I want my works to be of

such great capacity that they can be multilingual; and the language

spoken in an auction house would simply be one of the many

languages the works speak. I’m suddenly reminded of Derek

Jarman. He spoke much about finding “family within the films”

and “the real purpose of filmmaking” being “to create

community.”[7] His filmmaking would bring people together, actors

and financiers alike.[8] It is my hope that my works will socialize

with everyone, nonprofit galleries and auction houses alike, and

bring people together. So, let’s say a million-dollar transaction

happens somewhere. Whether that transaction involves me at all

would be less my business. I would simply be excited about my

work’s multilingualism.

 

 

II

 

 

The artist, not a scholar of Marxism, began reading Marx, only vaguely interested in the two things she did not understand: money and society. What had always resonated to her experience was rather the mystification of metaphysical reality Marx criticizes in the Hegelian or German idealism. Clearly, something had caused her to extend her thinking and to invest some days in perusing over social reality and Marx’s scientific socialism and materialist conception of history.

 

She had once expressed her concern about her work suffering in the material and social world because of her character and relation to the world. For her, the world was always a contemplative moment between she and nature, she and the tree, she and the rain, and between she and God – and less an economic one involving production, property, capital, and socialization. Of course, her life, too, was driven to an extent by productive forces that are natural to a human being – to, as Marx would say, “real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms.”[9] She would spend hours thinking and producing ideas, paintings, and sculptures. But she was never prolific nor cared to be: for example, she would continue painting over a few canvases without ever finishing them. Also, she would feel a bit queasy calling herself an artist and any profession for that matter. It was always other people that called her an artist. But then, she changed and decided to be one.

 

To this day, it is not clear to me what happened to her, why she changed. Is it simply that the hours of thinking and producing had to be translated somehow into material and that she, too, could not avoid accumulation? Marx points out human need, greed, and passion as reasons for accumulation.[10] Was she, too, needy, greedy, and passionate? I could never forget the first sight of her introducing herself as an artist. It was extremely touching to see her grow and be part of the world in that way but at the same time mournful.

 

The artist breaks into laughter.

 

“Touching and at the same time mournful,” she repeated and said that, having read Marx, she recalls it as a positive moment in her life. Although unaware of Marx then, in the moment she called herself an artist, she was making a flip in her perspective, very much like Marx’s inversion of Hegel’s theory, and trying to become a full human being by engaging in material intercourse, buying, selling, and accumulating. “Now the question is: How do we buy, sell, and accumulate with grace and without feeling insecure or ashamed?” she said. And then she added that there is something truly revolutionary which has less to do with his inversion, his most rational and scientific critique of capital, and his imagination of communism. What surprised her was to see Marx’s concepts as heavily invested in appearance and expression – or language.

 

 

Artist:

In Marx, things often ‘appear’ as, in the form of, or to be. They are

always in ‘an expression of’ what they really are. For example,

Marx defines communism as “the positive expression of annulled

private property.”[11] Exchange-value is “the mode of expression,

the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet

distinguishable from it.”[12] He also defines a commodity as one that

appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood”

but “is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical

subtleties and theological niceties.”[13] Lastly, value is what makes

every product “a social product as language”;[14] and “both [£110

and £100] are but limited expressions for exchange-value.”

[15]  These are only the few of many occurrences of appearance,

expression, form, and language. That the thing is invested in them

might imply a few things. Let’s say a thing is given a price of

$100. One, the thing is social: it exists in the language of $100 in

order to have material intercourse with other things of the world

which understand what $100 means. Whether language is required

by the thing because the thing is social to begin with or language

forces the thing to be social is beside the point. Two, the thing

exists, or at least we can believe or feel that the thing exists: the

language of $100 exists to embody the thing; and if the thing did

not exist at all, the language of $100 would not exist, either. Three,

because $100 is mere appearance, expression, and language, there

is no need to get overly excited nor lament over the number which

only dresses the thing and is not the thing. Appearance is refracted,

expression limited, and language living, so there is always a

possibility that the thing is really less than or more than the price it

is given.

 

 

Where the artist found grace in material intercourse was in Marx’s descriptions of the thing as one which is invested in appearance and is distinguishable from that appearance: that the thing in completion is one which exists in metaphysical reality and at the same time social reality. This began to mean a number of things for her studio practice: one, thinking about money and trying to sell works or find other means to at least stay afloat financially would be her way of being social and thus a full human being; two, trying to maintain an appearance of a life of an artist would be her way of being an artist; and three, through the ups and downs in sales and representations in the art world, she would always remember that her life-activity or human being – what the thing really is – is in the studio. She said something happened to her art, too, once she started thinking about appearance and language for the interest of becoming a full human being: aiming to create images of a full human being or the thing which is complete gave her painting enough problems; and all other concerns regarding dimensions, the thing as a commodity, etc. mattered less, hence the simplified plan for 25 paintings in the same dimensions.

 

 

Artist:

This is the most paradoxical part about Marx. In his highly

scientific analysis, a commodity becomes “a mysterious thing.”[16]

 

 

I:

At this point, I want to ask: Would you consider yourself a

Marxist? And what do you think about communism?

 

 

Artist:

I wouldn’t call myself a Marxist. What intrigues me about Marx is

that his work gives rise to the thought of appearance, expression,

and language; and I don’t think that’s what people have in mind

when they call one another a Marxist. Plus, if I ever call myself

one, it would be to say that the Marxist theory, method, and

language have entered my consciousness; and that means I would

have to call myself a Hegelian at the same time. As for thinking

about communism, I’m staying strictly in the text; and

there is an aspect of it that I question which has to do with its existence in

language. When Marx says, “the dictatorship of the proletariat…

itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes

and to a classless society,”[17] ‘dictatorship’ reads to me as

language: what is dictated, said aloud. Going from capitalism to

communism is then going from language to language; and we

would continue to exist in mystery. So, I ask: Is communism which

Marx pictures revolution enough?

About the Author

Julia Elise Hong is a Korean-born American artist living and working in Los Angeles. In her practice spanning painting, sculpting, and writing, Hong creates images of a double-bind and pursues, through its power of vagueness, pedagogy and transformation. In recent projects, she has been focusing on figurative work to reflect on a double-bind of subjectivity and relations and seeing in the work an opportunity for an epistemic shift toward deterritorialization of the thing, the singular subject, and each life. Hong graduated in 2023 with an MFA from Claremont Graduate University and has previously studied at the Oslo National Academy of the Arts, Columbia University, and the University of California San Diego. 

References:

​

[1] Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2: The Time-Image, 1985 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 78.

[2] Robert Tucker, ed. The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd edition (New York: Norton, 1978).

[3] Karl Marx, “The German Ideology: Part I,” 1845-46, in The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd edition (New York: Norton, 1978), 154.

[4] Marx, “German Ideology,” 158.

[5] Hippolyte Flandrin (1809-1864), Jeune Homme nu assis au bord de la mer, figure d’étude (Young Male Nude Seated Besides the Sea, study),  1837, oil on canvas, 98 x 124 cm (38.5 x 49 inches)

[6] Marx, “Capital, Volume One,” 1867, in The Marx-Engels Reader, 329. Description of the yet-to-be-sold artworks as ‘potentially capital’ is inspired by Marx’s description of the money which circulates in the manner of M-C-M (money-commodity-money; “buying in order to sell”) as capital and “potentially capital.”

[7] Interview by producer and critic Simon Field in 1989.

[8] Derek Jarman: Life as Art (Andy Kimpton-Nye, 2004, U.K.).

[9] Marx, “German Ideology,” 154.

[10] Tucker, introduction to The Marx-Engels Reader, xxv.

[11] Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” 1844, in The Marx-Engels Reader, 82; underline mine.

[12] Marx, “Capital,” 304; underline mine.

[13] Marx, “Capital,” 319; underline mine.

[14] Marx, “Capital,” 322; underline mine.

[15] Marx, “Capital,” 333; underline mine.

[16] Marx, “Capital,” 320-321.

[17] Marx, “Class Struggle and Mode of Production,” 1852, in The Marx-Engels Reader, 220; shortened by me.

bottom of page