UC Berkeley History of Art Department

TAG CLOUD

Aaron Hyman Acknowledgments aesthetics Alan Tansman Aleksandr Rossman Alexandra Courtois American art Ancient art Andrew Griebeler Andrew Sears Andrew Stewart Anne Wagner Anneka Lenssen anthropology archaeology archives art criticism Art Practice Asian art astrolabes Australian Academy of the Humanities award awards BAMPFA Bancroft Library Beate Fricke Berkeley Art Museum Bonnie Wade British art bronze statuary Byzantium Caravaggio CASVA Catherine Telfair Chair Charles O'Donnell chartalism Chinese art Chinese art history Chinese painting Chris Hallett Christopher Bollas College Art Association Commencement conference Contemporary Art courses Courtauld Institute curatorial preparedness Darcy Grimaldo Grigsby De Young Museum digital humanities Diliana Angelova DIstinguished Teacher of Art History Distinguished Teaching Award Dutch art Dutch Studies early globalism Early Modern Ecohistory ecological history economics Elaine Yau Elizabeth McFadden Emma Silverman Endowed Chair faculty faculty recruitment fellowships Finbarr Barry Flood Florence folklore Frederick Douglass Freie Universität Fulbright Gabriella Wellons George Lurcy Fellowship Gerhard Wolf Glenn Adamson global art global modern art Grace Harpster graduate graduate student instructor awards Graduate Student Instructors graduate student support graduate students Graduation Greek art Hearst Museum Hellenistic art history of science Imogen Hart India Indian Art Islamic art Ittleson Fellowship James Cahill Jason Hosford Jessica Flores Jessy Bell Jordan Rose Jordan Ross Julia Bryan-Wilson Justin Underhill Kailani Polzak Kappy Mintie Katherine Mintie Kathryn Wayne King's College London Kunsthistorisches Institut L. S. Lowry Latin American art history Laure Marest-Caffey Lauren Kroiz librarians Lisa Trever Louvre major Manet Margaretta Lovell material culture Matilde Andrews Medieval Art Mellon Fellowship Mellon Foundation Methods Micki McCoy Miriam Said modern art money Monuments Men museum New York Nike of Samothrace object-based learning object-oriented histories Oxford University Panorama Patricia Berger Peru Peter Selz photography Post-Culturalist Pre-Columbian psychoanalysis publications Ramon de Santiago Reading and Composition Renaissance Rumble Lecture Ryan Serpa San Francisco Sarah Cowan sculpture slavery Smithsonian Sojourner Truth South Asia staff Stephanie Pearson Stoddard Lecture Sugata Ray summer sessions T.J. Clark Tate Britain teaching team-teaching Theory Todd Olson Townsend Center undergraduate Verenice Ramirez Visual Resources Center VRA VRC Wenner Gren Foundation Whitney Davis Will Coleman William Ma Wyeth Foundation Yanis Varoufakis
News RSS from UC Berkeley Art History Dept

About Us

News

News tagged Chartalism

  • CALL FOR PAPERS -- Modern Money: Aesthetics After the Gold Standard

    CALL FOR PAPERS

    Modern Money: Aesthetics after the Gold Standard
    Department of History of Art
    University of California, Berkeley
    October 23, 2014

    “Money is the root form of representation in bourgeois society.” So T. J. Clark put it in 1999. Almost aphoristic in its phrasing, the sentence turns on the set of questions it raises – about markets and money flows, about value and abstraction, about whom money belongs to, about the “social reality of the Sign” and the effect money has on artmaking. Money becomes a central form – maybe the central form – of life, inescapable and intractable. The conditions that shape our present and the failure of the Left to devise a practicable response have only intensified the urgency of the proposition and the questions that ground its pivot. Our proposition – the proposition of “Modern Money” – is this: that an obscure genealogy of economic thinking known as Chartalism (the coinage, of 1905, belongs to Georg Friedrich Knapp) alters the constitution of that terrain, obliging us in turn to pose Clark’s questions anew, against the orthodoxies (Left and Right) that have crystallized around them, after as it were the gold standard.

    Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), Chartalism’s present-day incarnation (some call it Neochartalism), offers one of the few compelling responses to commodity theories of money, which bind money and its value to the vagaries of a zero-sum market. The history of commodity-money is the history of our subordination to a medium of exchange that has come unmoored from its making. “Always already,” one all too easily says. Chartalism, meanwhile, argues that money is a creature of law; in so doing, it initiates money’s expropriation.

    For the critical Chartalist, commodity theories of money, even at their most radical and trenchant, inevitably revert to the same logic – the same mysticism, the same devious metaphysics – they hope to dispel. Money is short, these theories presume, the public is broke, and the lion’s share goes to private financiers. Gold remains the standard; “metallism” remains the conceptual framework. Perhaps, for our times, it might best be put this way: the ideological sense of scarcity, of a finitude as natural as it is necessary, that underpins the metallist view of money, one which the Left and Right share, has lost none of its orienting power. Yet money is not finite (who today would dispute this, or could in good faith?); the public cannot be broke; money is not a zero-sum game. MMT, by showing us how the administration and regulation of money is the prerogative of the State, keeps the technics of money’s producibility and plasticity in focus. Money, MMT maintains, is a matter of (public) accounting. It is political.

    This is not to say that MMT (or Chartalism) has all the right answers. Rationalist and progressivist, MMT sees money as an instrument wielded by the State for good or bad. “Functional Finance” is another name Chartalism has gone by. What matters for its adherents is the end to which money is put. MMT’s language, then, has its limitations; its purview is narrowly economic. Above all, it struggles in addressing the point where money and cultural production – monetary value and signification – meet. Or to put it another way, it struggles in addressing money as a form. The virtue of MMT, all the same, is its present-centeredness, even its moderacy. MMT insists – at least this is how we understand it – that economic theory bear the burden of the here and now, of its own situatedness and the infrastructures that (albeit barely, albeit terribly) determine it. Its direct object is present, irrational suffering.

    “Modern Money,” as may be clear, will not be a conference in the usual sense. It will have, or so we hope, something of a seminar about it, something of a conversation whose point of departure is the effect Chartalism has on our dealings with art and aesthetics. Our aim, then, is twofold: on the one hand, to construct a language that puts MMT’s politicized vision of money in contact with the contradictions of modernity and modern image-making and, on the other, to transfigure art and aesthetics in light of chartal money’s historical power. With this in mind, we ask for proposals that take Chartalism’s propositions seriously (the conference webpage, http://modernmoneyform.wordpress.com, provides an introductory list of references), which does not mean, of course, that we are looking for some kind of consensus. Quite the contrary. Proposals that challenge Chartalism and its assumptions are very much welcome, very much desired. Nor can “Modern Money” be discipline specific. Proposals from across the Humanities and Social Sciences, and from all time periods, will be considered. While we encourage proposals that reflect, conceptually, on the problem of (chartal) money and aesthetics, we are especially interested in object-based interrogations.

    The deadline for proposals is August 1, 2014. Please send abstracts (max. 500 words) and short CVs to sferguson@usf.edu and jordanrose@berkeley.edu. Final papers should be approximately 25-30 minutes long. “Finished” drafts will be due by October 9.
     

    TAGS: graduate, T.J. Clark, Jordan Rose, conference, economics, money, Yanis Varoufakis, chartalism