Getty Center Berger Assignment
1. The Getty Center in being as opulent as it is must therefore have been sanctioned by several very wealthy people, a prima facie case for its oppressive nature. A recent survey revealed that four out of five experts agree that if the average citizen were able to situate themselves in comparison to just the tension present in Johannes Vermeer’s The Music Lesson alone on any given Saturday morning, there would be an armed class revolt within that very same weekend. The Getty must therefore work tirelessly to ensure these poor saps are endowed with certain worthless learned assumptions. These mislead ignoramuses might look at a Rembrandt or a Monet and relate it to something ridiculous (beauty, truth, genius, …show more content…
As Berger alludes, the idea of works of art having a ‘Market Value’ is deeply disturbing. Market Value represents the value a society attributes to a commodity by the bidding of individuals in accordance with the subjective marginal utility each member of the society affords it. As art is highly coveted by most—due to the modes of oppression aforesaid— the problematic side effect emerges that only individuals in possession of wealth can acquire original works of art (without the implementation of radical art liberation, or theft as it is referred to by the laity.) All wealth can be assumed to be ill-gotten, as otherwise it would be a more ethical mode of influence, such as political clout. It is deeply disturbing that the patrons of the Getty would highly value the artwork just because most people highly value the artwork. As Berger concedes at the end of his work, it is based largely on the writings of Walter Benjamin. This particular German thinker is said to have subscribed to the little-known quant economic theory of Marxism. Those with an understanding of heterodox economic theories will understand why a case (such as the valuation of art in the marketplace) that contradicts the Labor Theory of Value may need to have some distortionary dimension invented in order to be explained (which of course isn’t to say the his thesis isn’t independently valid and representative of reality in its own right, could anyone imagine somebody implying such a thing?) One must take ownership of the history present in art (as otherwise they would have to glean knowledge of history from history textbooks, which are controlled by the only class more pernicious than the art historian: the historian.) Seeing as though the question has taken a counter-revolutionary stance against radical art liberation, the only remaining course of action is to purchase a postcard reproduction of an artwork and to state at it intently until the true nature of ones oppression is