It's not demeaning to talk about art as commodity. Just more practical for me to discuss films and art as such in a capitalist system in order to stop revolving the art around the artist as an auteur or singular idealogue.
Commodities are talked about as:
A product of labor and its usefulness. Since labor is already alienated under capitalism, we define art based on its usefulness. I place its spectacularity as its social use. In most cases, if the art doesn't please one's senses first, it's useless for me. Narratives and message come after and should correspond with the spectacular qualities.
It's not demeaning to talk about art as commodity. Just more practical for me to discuss films and art as such in a capitalist system in order to stop revolving the art around the artist as an auteur or singular idealogue.
Commodities are talked about as:
A product of labor and its usefulness. Since labor is already alienated under capitalism, we define art based on its usefulness. I place its spectacularity as its social use. In most cases, if the art doesn't please one's senses first, it's useless for me. Narratives and message come after and should correspond with the spectacular qualities.
Ah, fair enough. I see where you're coming from- strictly in a Marxist sense.