Table Of ContentSpeculationasaModeofProduction
Historical Materialism
Book Series
EditorialBoard
SébastienBudgen(Paris)
DavidBroder(Rome)
SteveEdwards(London)
JuanGrigera(London)
MarcelvanderLinden(Amsterdam)
PeterThomas(London)
volume 176
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedatbrill.com/hm
Speculation as a Mode
of Production
Formsof ValueSubjectivityinArtandCapital
By
MarinaVishmidt
LEIDEN | BOSTON
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Names:Vishmidt,Marina,author.
Title:Speculationasamodeofproduction:formsofvaluesubjectivityinartand
capital/byMarinaVishmidt.
Description:Leiden;Boston,MA:Brill,[2018]|Series:Historicalmaterialismbook
series,ISSN1570-1522;Volume176|Includesbibliographicalreferencesand
index.
Identifiers:LCCN2018041088(print)|LCCN2018045128(ebook)|
ISBN9789004384774(ebook)|ISBN9789004291379(hardback:alk.paper)
Subjects:LCSH:Art–Economicaspects.|Speculation.|Capitalproductivity.|
Finance–Politicalaspects.
Classification:LCC N8600(ebook)|LCC N8600 .V562018(print)|
DDC706–dc23
LCrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2018041088
TypefacefortheLatin,Greek,andCyrillicscripts:“Brill”.Seeanddownload:brill.com/brill‑typeface.
ISSN1570-1522
ISBN978-90-04-29137-9(hardback)
ISBN978-90-04-38477-4(e-book)
Copyright2019byKoninklijkeBrillNV,Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillNVincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillHes&DeGraaf,BrillNijhoff,BrillRodopi,
BrillSense,HoteiPublishing,mentisVerlag,VerlagFerdinandSchöninghandWilhelmFinkVerlag.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,translated,storedinaretrievalsystem,
ortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,
withoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
AuthorizationtophotocopyitemsforinternalorpersonaluseisgrantedbyKoninklijkeBrillNVprovided
thattheappropriatefeesarepaiddirectlytoTheCopyrightClearanceCenter,222RosewoodDrive,
Suite910,Danvers,MA01923,USA.Feesaresubjecttochange.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperandproducedinasustainablemanner.
Contents
Preface vii
Acknowledgements xii
Introduction:SpeculationasaModeofProductioninArtandCapital 1
1 Introduction 1
2 SpeculationasMethod 5
3 HowDoesArtSpeculate? 9
4 IsThereaSpeculativeModeofProduction? 11
5 ChapterSummaries 13
1 Speculation:theSubjectivityofRe-structuringandRe-structuring
Subjectivity 28
1 SpeculationintheNegative 34
2 SpeculativeSubjects 41
3 FetishismandtheProductionofSubjectivity 49
4 SpeculationorRealSubsumption 53
5 ToHumanisCapital 59
6 HumanCapitalandArt 61
7 SpeculationandAbstractLabour:anAbstract 63
8 Self-Appreciation? 67
9 FromSelftoSpecies-Being 71
10 ValueEqualsZero 73
2 TopologiesofSpeculation:theTensesofArt,LabourandFinance 78
1 ‘Counterproductive’andAbstractLabour 86
2 AutonomyinGeneralisedSpeculation 93
3 SpeculationandContingency 98
4 Whatisan‘AbsoluteContingency’? 102
5 FuturesandtheFuture 105
6 ArtasCounterproductiveLabour 113
7 InvisibleLabour 118
8 VisibleFinance 122
9 Conclusion 124
vi contents
3 AestheticSpeculationsandAntagonisms 126
1 IsArtWorking? 135
2 RealSubsumption 146
3 NegativeComposition 153
4 TheSpecialistofNon-specialism 154
5 NegateHere 162
6 TheCritiqueofthePowerofJudgementandtheCritiqueofthe
PowersofArt:KantianInterlude 166
4 WhateverIndicator:Indeterminacy,Judgement,andPuttingthe
SpeculativetoWork 175
1 Introduction 175
2 TheNameofArt 177
3 ToBeDonewiththeJudgementofArt 182
4 Counter-artisticProduction 185
5 WhateverIndicator 188
6 ReproductivePotentiality 193
7 SubhumanCapital 197
8 ArtistPlacementGroup–IncidentalPerson,orNegationofthe
Artist? 199
9 ExcursusonUse-Value 206
10 ArtisticCommunism–aSpeculativeGesture 209
11 Art–DepartureorDestination? 214
Conclusion:WhitherSpeculation? 217
1 OneMoreTimeifYouWouldbeUseless 219
2 TrajectoriesoftheGeneric 223
3 PrognosticCoda 228
Bibliography 231
Index 251
Preface
Nineteenth-century English crafts entrepreneur and political organiser Wil-
liamMorriswasknownforhisuntiringchampioningof artisanalproduction
aspartandparcelof socialrevolution,andartfurnishedtheprototype.‘Art’,
Morriswrote,‘istheexpressionof joyinlabourratherthananexclusivelux-
ury’.Today,overacenturyafterthisresoundingproclamation,inatechnolo-
gicalenvironmentthatitsauthorcouldscarcelyhavebeguntoimagine,this
idea,thatartmightconstitute‘joyinlabour’,andthatitisthischaracteristic
ofartspecificallythatdefinesitsimportancetoindustrialcivilisation,hasalso
cometomeansomethingthatMorriswouldhavestruggledtorecognise.Take
the artistic work of Christine Hill, which consists of reproducing the activit-
ies and paraphernalia of small business. Hill both runs a small boutique in
Berlin and thematises the processual aspects of this proprietorship as part
of the enterprise, reflecting on an ‘outmoded’ but decisively back-in-vogue
formofartisanaltradewhichbecomeseverlessdistinguishablefromtheeco-
nomicprofileof thecontemporaryartist.Anotherartist,JeremyHutchinson,
upends Morris’s rejection of industrial production by commissioning ‘erro-
neous products’ from East Asian factories.The resulting objects, the form of
whichHutchinsonleavestothediscretionof theworkerinquestion–some
aremeticulouslydestroyed,otherswhimsicallyaltered–thenembodythelov-
ing, artisanal, ‘concrete’ labour of factory operatives who otherwise have no
control over their work. Finally,Theaster Gates – who once titled a show at
theWhiteCube‘MyLaborisMyProtest’–hasforgedalucrativeandcritically
vauntedcareerwhichhasmobilisedinterestandinvestmentinderelicthistor-
icallyAfrican-AmericanareasofChicagothroughacomplexandperformative
practiceinvolvingobject-making,advocacyandthephysicalrehabilitationof
spaces,asortofbenignartist-run(ratherthanart-led)gentrification.LikeMor-
ris,Gatesseemstoprovideaviewontobothanunalienatedformoflabourand
a set of social arrangements in which it can be realised, a vision vouchsafed
inbothcasesbytheavailabilityofprivatecapital.Whatcanallthesepractices
besaidtoshare,howeverprovisionally?Theystraddleartisticandnon-artistic
typesoflabour,gamblingonanartisticpracticereachingbeyondartbymeans
ofart,foracriticalpurchaseorreal-worldeffectswherearthasnopre-existing
claims.AsAdornohasnoted,theartworkmaybeaplenipotentiaryofaliber-
atedfuture,butatthesametimethe‘basiclevelsofexperiencethatmotivate
artarerelatedtothoseof theobjectiveworldfromwhichtheyrecoil’.1Thisis
thecharacteristicgestureofspeculationasamodeofproduction.
1 Adorno2007a,p.7.
viii preface
Why ‘speculation as a mode of production’?The reason for choosing this
formulationisthatitconjoinsthetwosensesof speculationtobedeveloped
in what follows – the speculative practices of art, and financial speculation
asanintensificationofcapital’sintrinsictendencyforfuture-orientedgrowth.
Whilespeculativethoughtisaconstantfeatureof art,particularlyincritical
practiceswhichrelatetotheconditionsof theirownproductionasmaterial,
‘financialspeculation’canbemorebroadlydefinedastheself-expanding,or
self-valorising, dynamic of capital as such.This is the tendency that is high-
lighted in value-form analysis – speculation as social form – rather than the
specificsubsetoffinancecapitalwhichcanbenamedas‘thefinancialindustry’,
althoughthismorespecificfocusisnotexcludedfrommyanalysis.Myprimary
aim here will be to show how such speculation aligns itself with the ‘open-
endedspeculation’ofthinkingandart,onlyforthisopennesstostabiliseitself
onotherlevelsof thetotality.Thesearethelevelswheretechnicalandideo-
logical instruments such as derivatives and ‘human capital’, no less than the
intensifiedexploitationandprimitiveaccumulationtheymakepossible,apply.
Hence‘speculationasamodeofproduction’referstotheopen-endedpro-
cessesofartandconceptualthought,aswellastheoverdeterminedprocesses
oftheincreaseofvalueincapitalism.Itmustbenotedthatthesetwotraject-
oriesarehardlyasinsulatedfromoneanotherasthephrasingmightsuggest.
Therecentperiodhasseenthesubjectivequalitiesofcreativity,flexibilityand
innovationbecomeobjectivefactorsofworkplaceproductivity,whileobjective
productivityitself shiftstotheindeterminacyandriskassociatedwith‘creat-
ivefinancialinstruments’asthedominantmodeofcapitalaccumulation.What
hasbeendiscussedinmanyquartersas‘financialisation’highlightstheestab-
lishmentofthesespeculativeprocessesasthecorelogicofcapitalaccumula-
tion.Thisisreflectedinthesocialfieldintheinstitutionalisationofspeculative
processes(suchas‘risk’)ingovernance,workandwelfare.Theexploitationof
risk (or risk-based exploitation) as the cornerstone of social reproduction in
thisperiodcanbesubstantiatedthroughapanoplyof empiricalstudiesand
critical analysis, but the concern here is to draw a parallel between contem-
porary capital and contemporary art as they come to constitute the poles of
a society structuredaroundspeculation, reflectedin social practicesranging
fromsystemsofwelfareprovisiontotheconstitutionoftheselfandtheimage
ofwork.
The subjective experience of speculation becomes economically codified
as ‘creativity’ in the neoliberal labour market. As a consequence, creativity
becomes, paradoxically, a characteristic of abstract labour – the generic cat-
egoryforthesocialinstitutionofwagelabourinacapitalistsociety,indifferent
astocontent.Iwillarguethatsuchashiftheraldstheconversionofthehypo-
preface ix
statisedcreativityofartintoapre-eminentinstanceofspeculationasamode
of production, since art becomes no longer just a commodity in the market
oragratuitousactivitybutatoolof socialisationandre-valorisationof land,
populationsandpoliticalentities.Itthustakesonanewinstrumentalityrelat-
ive to the autonomy and heteronomy assigned to art by Marxist critics such
as Theodor W. Adorno; albeit an instrumentality which speculates with the
autonomyandfreeuniversalitybestoweduponartinanunfreesocietyinorder
tomakeitsethicalclaims.
Theprofoundstructuralanalogybetweenartandmoneyisthateachrepres-
entsaninstanceof self-valorisingvalue,insofarasbotharesocialmediations
which are anchored in a self-referential or reflexive circuit of valorisation –
criticalvalueinartisgeneratedfromtransactionswithinitssemanticdomain,
muchasinspeculativefinance(or‘fictitiouscapital’,inMarx’sterms)money
generatesmoremoneythroughtransactionsinternaltofinancialmarkets.This
homology,revealingbothartandmoneyasmarkedbythenebulousnessand
reflexivityofvalueclaims,hasbeenpickedupbyartistswhocollideso-called
‘criticalvalue’with‘capitalvalue’inworksexploringthesocialandformalcor-
respondencesbetweenworksofartandmoney.Butthediscussionofthissym-
metryisintendedchieflytoilluminateanotherpoleofart’srelationtothereal
abstraction of the capital relation, one which is constituted by the homolo-
gies between art and a self-motivated and creative labour-force increasingly
encouragedtoseeitself asaninvestment,i.e.,tomodelitself ontheendless
productivityofcapitalratherthanlabour,andmorespecificallyonafinancial-
isedcapitalwhichexpandsbymeansof(managed)risk.
One aspect of this is the re-invention of labour as ‘human capital’, a shift
whichservestoeliminatelabourasaseparateandpotentiallyantagonisticpole
in the capital-labour relation. Labour also experiences itself as capital in its
directrelationshiptothefinancialsystemthroughtheprivatisationof social
reproduction.Thisisthesubsumptionof keypublicassetssuchaspensions,
housingandeducationintocreditmarkets,orthetransformationofpublicpro-
visionfoundedonsocialsolidarityintocommodifiedmarketassetsfoundedon
self-investment.Thuswecanproposethatspeculationasamodeofproduction
alsoimpliesabecoming-speculativeofreproduction.Thisiswhereartbecomes
salient,asalreadynoted,initsabilitytoprojectformsofcommunityandsocial-
ity,whetherideallyorparticipatively,thatpurporttore-socialisethesubjectof
humancapitaland‘askquestions’intimesofpoliticalquiescence.Art’sability
toaddimaginativevaluetoplacesandsituationsgivesanemancipatoryimago
tolabourandmaterialconditionsgrownevermoreexploitative,opaqueand
unalterable,andtoitssubjects,whoseekto‘addvalue’tothemselvesascre-
ativecommoditiesinthelabourmarket(inperversecontinuitywithMarxian
