It is exchange value, forwhy exchange value imply to money, so in the capitalist system exchange value is always dominate over use value. The needs and marks can be can stereotype and standardization by capitalism. In addition, Frankfurt school thinks that, capitalism created “textual artefacts” with using popular culture and marketing them. “Textual artefact” involves people’s expectation, so people consume of standardization of production. Today modern people generally cannot take something because of
(Heller) In contrast to Heller and Keedy, who claim the intuitive approach to be the wrong one, he editors of “Pretty Ugly” state the contemporary anti-aesthetic graphic design to be educated and self-aware: “This is a highly educated generation of designers using their knowledge to break with what they were given as rules. They use intuition as much as intellect in order to enter new territory that is beyond so called ‘professionalism’.” Heller states that “Ugliness as its own virtue diminishes all design” and wants designers to think about function first. But if the goal is to challenge the tradition, promote freedom of interpretation and turn everything upside-down, than we can say that 'ugly ' designs fulfill their function. The use of ugliness in postmodern graphic design can be justified by the necessity to transmit the message in the world where the unified standard of 'right ' method no longer exists and where a strong response needs to be provoked. The anti-aesthetic elements can serve a designer successfully, if they are used in the right context, are chosen purposefully and deliberately.
Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism defines the abstraction of a product’s true value with a “magical” presentation of product through advertising and institutional brand name policies. The dominance of the bourgeoisie/capitalist owner classes illustrates the power of commodity fetishism that promotes products to the proletariat/consumer in the marketplace. The fetish qualities of product detract from the physicality of the production process, which is then diluted through advertising promotions for the unwary consumer. This type of promotion is a great problem for consumers, since many of them may tricked into buying a faulty or unhealthy product through brand-name trickery. More so, consumers may become addicted to their desires in the purchasing of a product, which only alienates them from better products that may actually improve their lives.
“In general, sociological interest in the move to mass consumption in the second half of the nineteenth century was restricted to indicating the limitations of strictly economic or market explanations of human behavior.” (Featherstone, 2010: 16) By contrast the British cultural studies reject any high/low culture distinction created by the Frankfurt School, instead taking seriously the artifacts of media culture “thus surpassing the elitism of dominant literary approaches to culture.” (Kellner). British cultural studies overcame the limitations created by the Frankfurt School notion of a passive audience, completely numb by the cultural products fed to them and created the concept of an active audience that creates their meanings and what is popular. “It is of the people, and the people’s interests are not those of the industry – as is evidence by the number of films, records and, other products (…) the people make into expensive failures.” (Fiskey, 1989: 24) Employing Gramsci 's model of hegemony and counter hegemony, British cultural studies aimed to
This was termed as imperialism by Lenin. Karl Kautsky’s theory of imperialism: Karl Kautsky introduces the term of ultra imperialism, which is in stark contrast with the Marxist Leninist claim of imperialism. As discussed above, Leninist idea suggests that imperialism is the final stage of any capitalist system. In argument with that, Karl Kautsky theorizes the possibility of creating of a cartel which he suggests is another possible step in the evolution of capitalism. Kautsky believes that imperialism is a policy adopted by industrialized states so as to cope with the loss of agrarian traditions in the core.
Again as different from Psychoanalysis, false consciousness in the individual is the result of economic ordering rather than the working of libidinal forces and the unconscious mind. History for Marx is site of continual conflict, a conflict of domination and subordination. What creates false consciousness and victimises the poor is ideology. Ideology articulates the ruling ideas of the society and transforms those ideas into common ideas of the society. Ideology is a strategy of universalizing and naturalizing the ideology of the rich and the aristocratic.
Each type of capitalism is gathered around some native “indignations” and “nostalgias”: for example, the disappearance of authenticity and personal values is confronted with the impersonal domination of the market, while the ideals of equality and transparency are still historically contrasted with the clash of social classes that promoted the bourgeoisie and accelerated capitalism. Hence, Boltanski and Chiapello argue for a social critique and an artistic critique that should diagnose properly all the insufficiencies of each phase of capitalism. Normatively, the two of them are constituted independently. My argument is that the first model, that of the social critique, has the privilege of opening a taboo subject for artistic capitalism, meaning “the rejection of any contamination of aesthetics by ethics.” Socially, this critique considers that the life style of an individual is modelled by personal aspirations to welfare, reflecting, on the same time, symptoms of decadence and inauthenticity. The artistic mercantilism appears, in the terms of this social critique, responsible for encouraging the reception of an art object as a criteria for social inclusion and validation, since it reflects either the belonging to the same social class, tested through the power of
Hybrid Cultures of the Globalizing World: The Inetavibility of Cultural Appropriation Cultural appropriation, the borrowing of another culture’s values, is often juxtaposed with the exploitation of a minority’s culture by the dominant. The mergence and convergence of cultures are/is? overlooked as one taking an oppressed culture’s properties without the authority to do so. What this viewpoint fails to see is that “cultural appropriation” paves the way for “transculturation”, the formation of hybrid cultures. Evaluating this exchange as stealing or appropriating merely ignores the fact that the world is formed by different cultures.
1.To determine the impact of media imperialism on the cultural landscapes of the world. 2.To see how the western countries have become a victim themselves. 3.To determine the extent Americanization of cultures through the media. Introduction. At all levels of the human entrance, language is very vital, and human behaviours are dependent on that.
Although focusing on European populism unlike Müller who talks more about the American counterpart, Taggart also defends the idea that populism is detrimental to democracy. As Müller, he says that it is the dismissal of opposing views as illegitimate that that makes it anti-democratic. Taggart goes further to argue that populist do not put their concerns on representation but on betterment of governance of the nation thus, seeing democracy as unnecessary or secondary. He also mentions the populist creation of the “heartland”, a pure nation that was brought down by the establishment and their support of globalisation. Taggart sees that creates a discrimination of people that are equal under the same rights and that by regarding them as an “other” they are being anti-democratic as well.