Other than the unnecessarily wordy content, or the annoyingly frequent in-text citations, the article we read about burning man, in my opinion, missed the mark in a lot of ways. First, the question, "can consumers escape the market?" assumes "the market" to be well defined. What is a market, what does a market consist of, what qualifies a transaction as a market transaction, etc, etc, etc? These are all questions that go unanswered in the text.
This idea that those at burning man, as well as the writer of the article express, that money isn't allowed in black rock city, nothing may be sold or bought, and barter, trade, and generosity are to be used assumes that money has some inherent negativity associated with it. Does it? What is the root of money? http://emanaton.com/article/philosophical/franciscodanconia Read that except, and find out for yourself. Money is nothing more than a tool of exchange. It represents the value of your labor, your mind, your ability to create beauty, etc. Money facilitates the transactions between two people and simplifies the process, nothing more. Lets say for instance I spent the first part of my time at burning man creating a wonderful piece of art. I then realize I need a pair of sandals, so I go trade my piece of art for a pair of sandals. I fail to see the difference between that and selling my art, obtaining money, and purchasing the sandals with that money. Either way, the value I created is what earned me the pair of sandals. I forgot exactly how Graham stated it in class, but she said something along the lines of, "bringing money into a transaction depersonalizes the experience and diminishes interaction between the two parties." I reject that notion completely, based largely on the content of the link posted above. That statement seems to imply that money and produced goods are independent of each other, which i believe to be entirely wrong. Both are wealth, simply in different forms. Whether i have a piece of artwork to trade for sandals, or $65 to trade for sandals which i obtained from selling my artwork, the transaction is the same, the value proposition is the same, the interaction is the same, and the mutual benefit is the same. One of the interviews from the article quotes a man as saying, "When people vend things they’re not personally attached to the things that they’re selling and they’re not really attached to the money that they’re getting for it, either. It’s going to go towards purchasing things that might be precious to them, but, but it’s distanced, it’s this [compressing gesture with hands] intellectual space that, you know, creates distance .between people." Why you would ever cite a quote in a research paper thats this nonsensical is beyond me. But again, this guy seems to be trying to say that material goods and money are the antithesis of each other. They're not, they're one in the same, simply different forms of the same principle, a representation of man's ability to produce.
Do the people at burning man, or the author of the article, realize why this is a type of community that can't exist for more than a week at a time? They claim to have created a consumer-less community of friends, but have they? No. A more accurate description of what they have done is to create a productive-less community. During this week in August nothing but drug induced art is produced, no food, no medicine, no transportation technology, no science, no wealth, no prosperity, no sustainability, no energy, no water, nothing. Nothing to better society as a whole, nothing to better your neighbor, nothing to better the stranger you'll never meet, nothing. I think the biggest problem with the article is that it portrays burning man as this sort of ideal that we should aspire to. Wrong. Its easy to become disillusioned and began to believe this festival has some moral center, but I think its important to realize the truth about burning man. Its unbelievably easy to pack up camping supplies, go live in the desert for a week, have no obligations, no job, no timeline, no responsibilities, and get fucked up on acid, DMT, shrooms, whatever. This is a high that can only last until your wealth runs out though, with wealth being water, food, and the necessities to live. These burning man goers consumer massive amounts of goods throughout the festival, food, water, drugs, fire wood, gas, propane, snacks, alcohol, etc. The difference between their "community of friends" and "the market" is that the market necessitates production and creation. Their community of friends simply stocks up on supplies and consumes these supplies over a week long period in the desert until they're gone. If humans could live off of obscure artwork and hard drugs, then yeah, this would be an idealistic society. Unfortunately, however, i don't think we've made it there yet.
The article also claims, in many ways, that "the market" inhibits creative expression and artistic creativity, that we must set aside market principles to truly create works of art. Im getting kind of tired of writing about burning man and how the attendees are hypocritical, but ill finish up with this last argument. The Beatles, Elvis, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, U2, Pink Floyd, The Chili Peppers, The Who, AC/DC, Aerosmith, Michael Jackson, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Van Morrison, Pearl Jam, Etc, etc, etc, on to eternity! And thats just music. Think about the art that exists in out society today, from the creativeness of marketing ads, to culinary artistry, to painters, writers, and poets, the beauty of our cities, bridges, and accomplishments, the online community of creativity is endless and growing, our cars, homes, and belonging are all beautiful, our photographs, school work, and cohesive human nature are awe inspiring, even down to the individual people in our society, nearly everything is gorgeous. Has "the market" made it more difficult to make a living through music, writing, or art in general? No, there are more artists in the world now than at any other point in human history. All this thrives in "the market". To claim that the market inhibits creativity is naive to the extreme and ignores the beauty of the world around us. "The market" has created the most conducive environment for creativity in the history of the world. Not to mention healthcare, medicine, space travel, air travel, car transportation, nuclear power, the internet, bridges, tunnels, cities, communities, parks, schools, science foundations, museums, stadiums, infrastructure, the large hadron collider, bullet trains, robots, computers, phones, prescription drugs, food from all over the world available locally for reasonable costs, holidays, ski areas, etc etc etc.
I guess to the question, "can consumers escape the market?", id have to answer, "why would we want to?".
***And yeah, i realize that much of what the article was concerned with focused on how corporations are evil, not capitalism. Their actions, however, don't make sense if their goal is to discredit and denounce corporations. They would lead us to believe that you must escape the market in order to take a stand against the "evil corporations". No, a capitalist society does not support corporatism. There is a difference, and you can denounce one while participating in the other.
***Let's be realistic... For all the hype and self righteous claims about the meaning of burning man, this event is simply a reason to go camping in the desert for a week, trip out, experience oddities, and enjoy the experience for what it is, careless fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment