From 1760 to 1840, the industrial revolution introduced a new manufacturing and labor process to many countries. Further, countries who were engaged with the industrial revolution experienced a change in their social and economic environment. Industrialization brought along the systems of capitalism: which allows private corporations to have control over their means of production and their profits. One business owner does not have the resources to make a profit; therefore, a working class is needed to perform different tasks that all contribute to the success of a company. However, Karl Marx, a political theorist, speaks on the imbalance between the working class and the capitalist. Economic life from the perspective of the worker is, “ the worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range”(Marx and Engels 653). The products that a worker creates does not belong to the individual, it belongs to their boss. 

Let’s consider a hypothetical circumstance where an individual named Phoenix works for a successful summer camp. Monday through Friday he spends eight, sometimes ten hours, organizing activities for his group, singing camp songs for the children’s enjoyment, and ensuring all of his children’s safety. He is the one who sacrifices his summer to ensure that the kids who go to this summer camp are enjoying themselves, yet he does not receive any credit for his work. Yes, a parent might tip him money because their child said “Phoenix is the best counselor ever!”. Yes, he might be promoted next summer to a supervisor because of his excellence. However, George, the owner of this summer camp, is the one who becomes wealthier the more wealth that Phoenix is producing. Phoenix’s work is a reflection of George because he is the face of the summer camp; so if Phoenix is “amazing” the actual amazing one must be George since he is the one in charge. Though George pops into the summer camp activities whenever he is in the mood for it and he spends a majority of his summer lounging around. A liberal-capitalist society will look past Phoenix’s work, look past the dedication of the working class, and immediately praise the capitalist though they perform minimal work.

Marx discusses economic life from the perspective of the worker and the perspective of the owner to highlight the unjust relationship between these two parties. First off, he wants to explicitly share that there is an established relationship between worker and owner. A false mindset that has been embedded into the working class; workers believe that if they dedicate hours into their job and produce the best product possible, then they will be rewarded for their work. This mindset promotes a worker’s independence and the notion that in a liberal- capitalist society, they are in charge of their own work. Even though a business owner can drill into their workers that they are recognized for their work, Marx reveals the nature of capitalism: “… the fact that laboour is external to the worker ie., it does not belong to his essential being, that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself…”(Marx and Engels 654). Marx wants to deconstruct how the working class is supposed to feel towards capitalism. Furthemore, Marx wants people to be aware that in a liberal-capitlaist society, an owner will always reap the benefits of their worker.

Walter Benjamin’s article “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” addresses how art is evaluated at different stages of its creation and how it is generated. Then he goes on to talk about how technological reproduction has affected society’s capitalism. To begin, we examine the idea that art is history, and that as a result, many different types of artwork have been developed over time. Some would argue that before modern replication, art was more distinct to the touch since it wasn’t processed and duplicated. “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. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership” (Benjamin 1168). Handcrafted work is unique in that it retains its individuality across time, space, and place. That being said, art is always duplicated in today’s society; the only difference is in the manner in which it is imitated. One of the first machines reproduced forms of art was woodcut. Following the woodcut, lithography became a method of producing art that was more concerned with quantity and variation than with authenticity. As a result, lithography turns art into a materialistic medium rather than a source of pure, one-of-a-kind uniqueness. People would pay to have “nice art” in their homes despite the fact that most of it was duplicated, causing society to regard things in a more materialistic light. Following photography, artists began to rely less on their manual skills with simple objects like hand and paper. Artists now had to employ perspective in order to represent life scenes in a way that was technologically feasible. Is there a feeling of originality in an image, or is it merely second-hand descriptions of what the artists captured? Even though a photograph appears to be beautiful to the naked eye, it lacks real-time perspective. The snapshot is just a copy of what happened in real life, which detracts from the emotion or reason behind a painting. “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity” (1169) as argued by Walter Benjamin. Authenticity gives art the power of time, space, and place in terms of first-hand creativity, allowing it to properly be deemed art. Because images pass through the hands of thousands of individuals, technological reproduction of art produces manipulation in artwork such as photography. With today’s technology, hundreds of elements inside the artwork may be changed, such as color tone, material, and so on. All of these manipulatable elements detract from the originality and significance of the artwork. Things begin to be mass produced, which introduces Karl Marx’s concepts and capitalism. No one will want to buy art if it continues to be replicated because it has lost its authenticity and distinctiveness. According to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, commodities are items that humans want and need, as discussed in chapter 1 of their book Capital Volume 1, entitled Commodities. “Consequently it was the analysis of the prices of commodities that alone led to the determination of the magnitude of value, and it was the common expression of all commodities in money that alone led to the establishment of their characters as values. It is, however, just this ultimate money-form of the world of commodities that actually conceals, instead of disclosing, the social character of private labor, and the social relations between the individual producers” (Marx and Engel 779). Because art has become a commodity, such products are mass-produced, losing their individuality in the process. Children in 2022 have no understanding of the creative culture underlying Van Gogh’s painting because it is electronically recreated and can be viewed in practically every restaurant, school, and other public places. Art has fallen into the hands of mass production as a result of capitalism, and as a result, art is no longer meaningful or worthwhile but is instead employed as a source of profit for manufacturers.

Growing up I had always seen a replication of the piece by Van Gogh, “Starry Night” in my older brothers room. Before realizing what piece it was and by who it was made I had always enjoyed looking at every detail. Yet once I had realized it was “Starry Night”, one of the most famous artworks it made me realize how many more replications of this there are throughout the world. As Walter Benjamin explains in his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproduction”, with so many different ways of seeing different types of artwork without seeing its original diminishes the value of pieces overall.

As artwork or objects become more accessible to everyone around, such as in exhibitions or replications it lessens the value of artwork the same way supply and demand works. The more something is given or supplied the less people will want or ask for it. For artwork certain paintings will always be more known or popular than others yet the need to see the original is not as necessary if there are other options. As Benjamin states:

It might be stated as a general formula that the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition. By replicating the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced. These two processes lead to a massive upheaval in the domain of objects handed down from the past-a shattering of tradition which is the reverse side of the present crisis and renewal of humanity (Benjamin 979).

As Benjamin explains, many different artworks are based on traditions. If replications exist for certain traditional objects it breaks the object away from “the sphere of traditions” . If someone is going to be able to see a replication almost anywhere they will never consider how important something may be as it is able to be found anywhere.

Continuing on, Benjamin also focuses on the idea of there being a mass existence of replications. Mass producing things such as art diminishes the work and authenticity of the object and creator. The creator has most likely spent hours, days, or months on a piece for it to either be passed around or to not have the original acknowledged. If a replication exist somewhere closer to someone they would rather see that one than the original, because at the end they are almost identical to most people.

Adding on to Benjamins explanation that is applicable to modern day, today the internet exists in which is another form of replications. The internet and social media allows for certain art objects to be seen in a different way. Now, and especially during the beginning of covid, many museums offered virtual tours where one could view art online. While it does give an opportunity to those unable to go in person to certain museums it still does apply the varies way in which the value of art is lessened.  People now can simply search up the name of a piece and find it online and there is no need to plan a trip somewhere else to see such amazing pieces. Someone can post a picture of a piece of art and everyone who sees that post will have now seen a replication of it rather than the original.

Work can be a very fun and exciting experience, but it can also be a hellish experience depending on what your job is. One of the worst places to work as Marx would attest to, would most likely be in an assembly line. The reason being an idea that Marx talks about in his piece “Economic and Philosophical Manuscript”. In it he discusses how the division of labor ruins and devalues workers every step of the way. He says and I quote “The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range” (Northon Third Edition, 657). Meaning that the more money that a worker makes for a company the more he loses in the end as the company takes most of his profits, leaving the workers with alone that of scraps. Although, this problem can be remedy if the company were able to evenly spread their profits among their employees, though this becomes a difficult task as the more workers you have the more money you will lose. The worst thing that the division of labor does though, is the fact that it separates the workers from their products. If we were the making of cars as an example, we can see how the division of labor creates a barrier between the workers and their products. If you were to create a car from scratch, by yourself, put your own logo on it, and were to sell it, all the people who bought that car would know it was made from you. You would also have put a piece of yourself into that car, since, the way you built, which parts you used, and how you went about creating it were entirely controlled by you, meaning the car you made is unique. Maybe you would use stainless steel, while others companies would have used aluminum( I don’t much about cars ). It makes the car unique and recognizable from other cars. Compare this, to how a workers create a car in an assembly line. Lets say they only had one task like screwing in bolts, while the worker next to him checks to see if the bolts are properly screwed in. The jobs of these workers has almost no room for creativity or experimentation. There are only so many unique ways in which you can screw in a bolt, and none of them are all that fun. These workers have absolutely no control over the product, which they are creating. Their contribution to the creation of the product is so miniscule, that what they are doing can’t even be considered creating anymore. I think this is one of the most heinous things that the division of labor, does to workers. It strips them of their control over their creation, and makes it a dull, joyless, burden.