Mass music: capitalism and the death of the self

What defines our western society? To me, it often feels like capitalism and consumerism. What does it mean to create art in a capitalist society? We often consider artistic merit, authenticity and the value of art. However, these three things are easily exploited and commercialised, making them the opposite of what they are, much like how the individual worth of mass music 'itself' becomes mass worth and profitability). 

Capitalism aims to turn art into a commodity. The characteristic of a commodity is to monetise an object whereby its value is only in relation to everything else within the marketplace. If you put a price on these things, their value is only worth their price. What is the value of a sheep as a food source versus as part of a picturesque view? The fundamental issue here is that the commoditisation of art offers no consideration of individual value or the value of its production, human labour or collaborative/community efforts. This commodification of value will inherently create a division of authorship between the consumer and the art.
Furthermore, capitalism seeks to exploit art as an industry. Art, or the presentation of art through media and advertising, is being produced for the marketplace. The issue is that the art follows a set of conventions based on mass culture because we understand what the consumer wants. This creates a dialectical process between the art and the consumer; the idea of value becomes a dialogue between the value of human creativity and the price it will sell for. 

A critical factor in this commoditisation is the introduction of recording and streaming technologies. Reproduction itself is not necessarily a bad thing. In music, we have pastiche writing. In fine art, we have imitation. Both processes take skill and may enhance the artist's skill, supposedly increasing the value of further art produced at an individual level. Reproduction can also produce imperfections which can hold inherent value to the audience on an individual basis. Reproduction can be both a form of art and art itself; photography is entirely based on this principle. There is no 'original work', rather a reproduction and heavily distorted representation here. Therefore, why is art that is produced and then reproduced in mass a problem?

Imagine there are two tables, one hand-made by a carpenter and one mass-produced from a multi-national furniture store. Instinctively, we may say that the former has more inherent value - but why? In the ready-made table, the object's form is not inherently from the designer's creativity but rather the analytical perception and assumption of aesthetics based on capitalist reasoning. Perhaps it is the perception of individual ownership that the object makes the receiver experience a sense of uniqueness, a process whereby an object may be seen as an extension of who you are. 

It is a good thing when an artist has a philosophical awareness. The value of art is dialectical; how does an artist or consumer see the concept of price besides the value of human work? By engaging with philosophical ideas their art poses, artists can try to resolve this tension and go beyond these conflicting terms to reach something new, a common objective of art creation.