First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between physical things that have their own value and pure media that actually have no value of their own, but derive their value entirely from bearing cultural phenomena (books, musical records, movie tapes, et cetera). I would term the issue as "value dynamics in consumer goods vs. tools vs. media vs. artifacts." Let us define these categories.
Consumer goods mean things to be consumed and thus to disappear. They lose their form while activating their value. The most typical representative of this group is food. People, who buy and use consumables, are consumers. An important point is that normally people do not "put their soul" into consumables, do not feel a personal affiliation with them.
Tools are supposed to be used in their current form, namely to produce (fix, upgrade, destroy, preserve, etc.) other things. They gradually depreciate while being used and normally turn into nothing (in terms of their initial function, at least) in the end. People, who buy and use tools, fit the notion of customer. Since tools are normally used for some prolonged time people can develop some personal feelings toward them, but this phenomenon is not in direct relationship with the nature of tools. They do not appeal to feelings by nature, they have to function.
Media are things that do not have intended value as physical ones, but get value exclusively from inscribed cultural phenomena. They are exclusively intended to communicate with people. Media gradually physically depreciate while being used, like tools do, while inscribed cultural phenomena normally appreciate at the same time. People, who buy and "use" them comprise audience.
Artifacts are things, which supposed to be valuable for their physical features like tools, but derive their value mainly from unintended cultural use. These are, for example, unique old buildings, cars, tools, other relics, collectibles, et cetera. People, who buy them or buy access to them are collectors, visitors, tourists. I could not come up with a generic name fitting this category of buyers, but this is not a critical point here.
There are two general points we have to stress. Firstly, some physical things can compound features of described above types. Secondly, this happens when people mix their social conduct or attitudes toward things. For example, a family can live in a unique old mansion suitable more for a museum than for casual dwelling. Another example is when someone buys a house, but threats it like a consumable, puts no feelings in it and sells at the first opportunity. Yet another example of a general nature is that when a work of art is considered as something "to entertain" (and usually to be forgotten by) people, thus turning the work in some kind of a consumer good and correspondingly turning audience into consumers.
The above were my first thoughts, which hadn't looked as clear as I would like them to. Anyway, I brought them to my students. I had not even tried to be very elaborative, because expected nothing else, but an avalanch of thoughts and essential clarification of the subject in the end. Well, it turned otherwise this time. A lot of new questions - this was what I got. Moreover, the subject had slipped away and provoked us to turn to economics, ethics, other areas all along.
OK, you can see and judge for yourself... When I finished my short speech in the class I faced a real curiosity. It did not take long to get the first question.
- Войдите, чтобы оставлять комментарии