{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","uuid":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","normalized_title":"timeforthingslaborleisureandtheriseofmassconsumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","isbns":["9780674250529","9780674250536","9780674979512"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":355,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Time%20for%20Things%20Labor%2C%20Leisure%2C%20and%20the%20Rise%20of%20Mass%20Consumption","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/search"},"page":{"printed_page":262,"pdf_page":270,"physical_index":270,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"81cf3f6d1c3ac9f79e7272a4840b19e0a737811c4d6bf6ccb2a3a510a8ebd866"},"chapter":"FOR","content":"Of course, the distinction between plain, functional, useful properties and fanciful and superfluous aesthetics is not just found in twentieth-century industrial societies. It is present in and is probably in part a legacy of a complex of cultural currents, including Protestant asceticism, Victorian utilitarianism, as well as modernist minimalism. Perhaps therefore, the distinction is just one element of the general process of rationalization supposedly underlying all of these. Yet to approach the concern about style obsolescence as just a manifestation of a modern imperative to subordinate form to function does not explain why the practice of frequent model changes was portrayed as a kind of fraud, in which the consumer gets cheated out of something. More sense can be made of the value-laden distinction between the aesthetic properties of commodities and their narrowly functional properties when it is interpreted in terms of the theory of consumption as wage-labor commensuration set out in Chapter 4.107 If this theory is right, it would follow that the functional properties of commodities—those seen as securing some duration of use—would be diferentiated from properties seen as peripheral to use (narrowly construed), such as aesthetic characteristics. So for example, a car’s material properties endow it with a certain amount of durability and with certain technical capacities. Owning that car then gives the consumer access to a concrete reserve of potential activity (use power), which is similar in kind to the activity given up as labor in exchange for the wage. The aesthetic characteristics of the car, however, are by comparison much more dificult to make commensurable with labor power. This is because it is hard to construe the aesthetic properties of objects, as opposed to their functional, use-conferring properties, as objectively commensurable with labor. There are two reasons why this is so. First, the aesthetic characteristics of products are less clearly linked to a temporal span of activity than their functional characteristics. This makes it more dificult to think of aesthetic properties as commensurable with the duration of activity given up as labor. Second, aesthetic value is typically regarded as at least somewhat subjective in nature. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then how can the aesthetic dimension of commodities serve as a criterion for establishing the objective fairness of a given wage? It is dificult to see how the quite subjective aesthetic side of the commodities aforded by the wage could serve as an objective measure of purchasing power.\n\n262\n\nTime for Things","previous_page":261,"next_page":263}