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 the

requirements of the BA (Hons) Drama and Performance

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.

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

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

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 that
the 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

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.

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

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

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 unconsciousgreed 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 monetaryexpression. 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 graffitiart 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 exhibits
and 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 to
produce 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 global
trade 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 has
no 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. 116). 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-stagemctheatre-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-webber1572543.html
Jameson, F. (1998). The cultural turn: selected writing on the postmodern, 1983-1998. London:
Verso.

38

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