theory

Something I do want to add is that usually art pieces by famous artists and whomever aren't reproducible commodities, so their prices will not be correlated to their labor-value and doesn't involve the law of value. A Picasso painting can't be reproduced, he only made one of each particular painting (ignoring his own little copies), and it's the fact that it's the original Picasso is what makes it such a hot item.

The above is not the type of product that Marx analyzes. The analysis is of capitalism as a system of producing (mass-producing) commodities. The law of value describes a social mechanism where labor is reallocated and re-divided in order for society to re-produce commodities. These reproducible commodities will have long-term prices which correlate with how much value, think labor, goes into them.

A one-off, super special, unique, and non-reproducible commodity by a respected artist is not really the type of reproducible commodity that Marx is interested in analyzing. You may as well treat special artworks lile that as financial assets that rich people use park their money into. Their obnoxiously high price is the point.

You can analyze them still, but they have their own laws.

Things like coca-cola, microwaves, food in your grocery store, cars, etc. are reproducible commodities. Throw enough labor at it and you can make as many as you want within physical limits. Nobody cares if John Q. made your coca-cola or Suzie Sue; or if it was made or sold in Detroit or Mumbai. Each can of coca-cola is treated as if it is just another identical manifestation of coca-cola made with generalized labor.

But that last can of coke that Donald Trump chokes on is no longer a reproducible commodity, it is now a collectors item. Its uniqueness is what is valued by society. That fact that it can't be reproduced with human labor is what makes that particular can of coke so valuable. No amount of labor can re-create Trumps final meal.

So the laws of value, the laws of commodity production, don't really apply to that particular item. But these items are not the majority of products under capitalism, and are not the focus of Capital

Now this isn't to say that all paintings, artworks, etc. are non-reproducible commodities.

The artwork I have at my home is not by any famous artist, it's some mass-produced artwork (probably just printed by some machine with a little bit of labor going in to its production) that is a rip-off of Matisse. This is a re-producible commodity. Build more printing machines and hire more printshop workers and we can make even more Matisse rip-offs! At this point the art I buy is like Ikea furniture. Mass produced and mass consumed.

This type of "artwork" (if it is art, idk I guess? Sure I'm not picky) does have a price that is correlated to its value (the labor inputs from the workers and embodied labor of the machines and supplies, etc.). Even if the artwork wasn't factory made but done by handicraft (think handwoven baskets or trinkets or etc.) and is sold on a market then it can still be an artwork and a reproducible commodity, and the law of value can kick into gear in regulating how much social labor goes into its production.

Also another thing to take note of, is that all art - reproducible or not - still relies on the labor of the artist. And also the labor that went into the art brushes, the paint, the canvas, etc.. Even the labor that goes into feeding and clothing the artist, because this artist most likely didn't feed themselves. And who gets to do the labor of art vs the labor of feeding the artists? So even if an artwork is not a reproducible commodity we can still talk about the labor, and perhaps the value, that goes into producing it - even if the market never "discovers" this value.

Also, also - a few other things to note in case there is confusion regarding them.

• Products are things created by human labor. That may not be the standard Marxist term, but let's just use it for now.

• Not all wealth is created by labor, though. So not all wealth are products. Nature can provide wealth for humanity that doesn't involve labor. Grapes are just growing out there and clean (sometimes) water exists and no person may have created it, but we can still consume it. So not all wealth are human products.

• Commodities are products (wealth produced by human labor) that are created for the purpose of exchange. Not all products are commodities, but all commodities (in the Marxist definition) are products and hence wealth.

• Use-Value is a qualitative aspect of a thing that makes it desirable for humans. It can't be quantified. As long as somebody wants it and finds a use for it, then that thing has a use-value

• All wealth has a use-value

• All products have a use-value ('m thinking, because why else would humans expend labor on it).

• All commodities must have use-value for someone or else they nobody would want them and they couldn't be sold for exchange, and if they can't be sold for exchange they can't be commodities.

• If you try to make a commodity that nobody on this planet wants then your labor is not recognized by society as useful. The labor you exerted was your own individual exertion of time and energy, but it doesn't become part of our collective social labor because society doesn't recognize your exertion. Hence, your labor in that case doesn't produce value. Value is social, relational, and objective.

• If you are the only one that wants the thing you produce, then your labor produced use-value for you, but didn't produce value for society, your labor not social labor with a social recognition if you are the only one on the entire planet who likes what you produce.

• Exchange-Value is a property of commodities, items made by labor and for the purpose of exchange. The exchange-value allows for different commodities to brought into a quantitative relation with other, with their long-term prices correlate to their labor value when sold on a market.

So if a handicraft worker is making paintings to feed themselves and their family, and hence are making many products for the purpose of exchange then these are commodities with exchange-value and use-value.

If you are painting a landscape for your own enjoyment and not for sale, then your art product does have use-value, but does not have exchange-value and is not a commodity.

Not all things that are sold have a price that corresponds to their value. Again, if something is one-of-a-kind then it tends not to sell at its value.

And Marx's analysis is on the 99.whaterver% of things that surround us - not these one-of-a-kind offshoots and unique Picasso paintings - but the reproducible commodities that now fill our world and our shelves.