I think I've seen discussions about this before, and obviously the USSR produced art because we still see statues of Lenin today. But how does this translate in modern times with the instance of obscure art or other modern art? Often the purpose of that art is to explicitly go against societal norms for aesthetics.
Marx is talking about commodities, which are supposed to be distributed in a marketplace. My personal erotic Sonic fanfic that I wrote for my personal consumption isn't a commodity in the same exact way my personal wooden chair that I carved to personally sit on isn't a commodity either. Goya's Black Paintings aren't commodities because there are just shit Goya painted on the walls of his house after becoming a recluse. Art doesn't necessarily have to be politically and socially responsible if the art is for personal consumption only. The flip side is that art that is meant to be distributed ought to be judged by its political content and edifying potential or lack thereof.
Reminds me of people cutting walls out of buildings to sell Banksy pieces.
It's funny because I think being on a cut-out wall makes it a more interesting art piece in a vacuum, but it also totally negates the point of graffiti as a public display on existing infrastructure.
The art is the contradictions sharpening.
Yes, when they transferred his wall paintings onto canvasses, that was a form of commodification because now the paintings can be sold on the marketplace as paintings. The house he lived in can also be placed on the marketplace (unless Spain turned the house into a Goya national museum), so the wall paintings could also be commodified in this way.