virtualization of design and production a thesis - Bilkent University

Apparently, speaking of a material culture of men, it depends not only on the
actual and tangible objects that are in man’s immediate environment but also on
the meanings and values that he ascribes to them. So what are these meanings
that we attach to objects and how can we recognize them in our daily lives? Are
they revealing themselves explicitly or do we have to decipher their existence
through further decoding practices?
The beginning point for such a question is Karl Marx’s theory of value. Marx
recognizes objects from two perspectives: use-value, i.e. its utility, and
exchange-value, i.e. the objects’ tradability. For Marx there is a hierarchy
between the two. As soon as the object is traded, the exchange value expresses
itself completely independent from its use-value. Therefore, exchange-value of a
commodity hides the use-value of the object, manifesting itself as the dominant
determinant of the value of the commodity. For Marx, utility is more corporeal
and inherent to the materiality of the commodity whereas exchange value is more
ephemeral and abstract. (Boradkar 2) As he states: “[…] the value of a
commodity is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not
an atom of matter enters into its composition” (Marx 47).
Marx’s opposition between exchange value and use value depends on his theory
of the alienation of labor in production. This may still be relevant for today’s
researchers. However, more recent works by semiologists, linguists, literary
critics and sociologists on human-object relationship deals with the symbolic
values of the object besides that of their use-values and exchange-values.
Originated in the early linguistic studies by Ferdinand de Saussure, semiotic
7