{"id":27,"date":"2026-03-23T09:55:25","date_gmt":"2026-03-23T13:55:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/?post_type=chapter&p=27"},"modified":"2026-04-23T18:27:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T22:27:07","slug":"chapter-3-2","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/chapter\/chapter-3-2\/","title":{"raw":"How to see the Labubu on Karl Marx\u2019s grave, Riley Wilson","rendered":"How to see the Labubu on Karl Marx\u2019s grave, Riley Wilson"},"content":{"raw":"

Introducing Berger<\/h2>\r\nIn 1972, The BBC released a docuseries and accompanying book called Ways of Seeing, by art critic and novelist John Berger. The title is curious; how many ways can there be to see? Surely there\u2019s only the kind that happens with my eyes: that uncomplicated, biological process. Au contraire! Says Berger. Over the course of the novel, Berger deconstructs the forces that shape our field of vision, finding the most macro, society-level consequences in the seemingly inconsequential. Personally, I loved oil painting\u2014walking through the Renaissance section of any museum, I devoured the rich colours of a lord\u2019s cloak, the way painted candlelight falls on the round cheeks of a young girl, and the intricacy of decadent ballrooms\u2014but, unbeknownst to me at the time, these works were an expression of the inequality that persists in the organization of Western society.\r\n\r\nBerger\u2019s careful critique of oil painting as an expression of the colonial and capitalistic roots of the Renaissance clearly inspired Martin Jay\u2019s chapter, \u201cScopic Regimes of Modernity,\u201d in his 1988 book, which discusses how the ordered style of Cartesian perspectivism popularized in the Renaissance shapes the way we see the world. In turn, Berger himself was inspired by the work of German philosopher Walter Benjamin. Indeed, much of the first chapter of Berger\u2019s book discusses how the reproduction of works from the past in museums and art books works to both rationalize the hierarchies of the past and glorify the hierarchies of the present, pulling from Benjamin\u2019s work 1935 work Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.\r\n\r\nWe live in a visual age; the digital world of social media showers us in near constant visual stimuli. Even a screen shot of text can be cropped, zoomed in, and altered to reflect the poster or platform\u2019s way of seeing. Berger\u2019s attention to detail in Ways of Seeing\u2014reflecting deeply on the orientation of the gaze of women of Renaissance paintings and constructing arguments through pictorial essays alone\u2014reminds us that nothing we see is neutral. As such, we must concern ourselves with the strange, oftentimes nonsensical visual world of the internet and meme culture, for it has much to tell us about the way we see in the 21st century.\r\n

Evolving Internet Culture, Marx, and the Labubu<\/h2>\r\nJust like fashion, water bottles (see the S\u2019well craze of 2015, the Hydroflask craze of 2019, and the Stanley craze of 2022 for details), and art styles, the visual aesthetic and rhetoric of internet culture has shifted with the times, informing the way we see the world around us. The common themes and style of internet posts have evolved over decades in reaction to the cultural moment. In recent years, posts have taken on an ironic, cynical tone, making light of people\u2019s fears about a possible World War III, government interference, and an economic recession.\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\nFig. 1 Source: @Todayyearsold. WW3 Memes. Instagram, 23 June 2025,\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\nFig. 2\u00a0 Source: @Hercampus. \u201cwhat if millennial cringe was just a coping mechanism all along.\u201d Instagram, 7 March 2025, https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/p\/DG6nQ4YMztT\/\r\n\r\nThe internet of today is irreverent, absurdism pervades. There is an aesthetic for economic crisis and a funny dog for global conflict and unrest. With the existence and popularity of the types of posts showcased in Figures 1 and 2 an entire generation says, \u201ceverything seems so bad anyways, why not laugh?\u201d The rise of the Labubu, a designer collectable toy, is intimately connected to this ironic tone. Even the name of the toy is kind of ridiculous to say, and it\u2019s often used in conjunction with other viral trends of the moment to highlight the ludicrous nature of consumerism and virality in 2025 (Figure 3).\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\nFig. 3 A particularly cogent example of the mood amongst Gen Z internet users. Many express their exhaustion with the constant influx of new trends and \u201cmicrotrends\u201d (trends that fade after a matter of weeks or months), both in fashion and discourse. Source: @Aurafied2. \u201cEddie Brock being subjected to TikTok.\u201d TikTok, 11 July 2025, https:\/\/www.tiktok.com\/@aurafied2\/video\/7526024606998744350\r\n\r\nConsumerism has been supercharged by influencer marketing, fast fashion, and next day shipping. All this is to say nothing of our current political moment, which has often been compared to a circus, especially when speaking about our neighbours down south. Beyond just the American nuthouse, our global politics are also becoming memeified: there are Mark Carney thirst traps and clips of Benjamin Netanyahu being asked his opinion of Burger King. Nothing is serious, and everything always seems to be getting worse. Every month, something we never thought could happen in politics happens, and a new combination of trends appear that would\u2019ve sounded nonsensical only weeks before. Taken together, the state of consumerism and global politics have made for the cynical, ironic, and sometimes surreal timbre of internet culture of today, a moment perfectly encapsulated by the photo of the Labubu on Karl Marx\u2019s grave and its subsequent virality.\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\nFig. 4\u00a0 Source: TOI World Desk, photo via X. \u201cComrade Labubu: Chinese doll makes its way to Karl Marx\u2019s grave in London; post goes viral.\u201d Times of India, 23 Jul 2025, https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/world\/uk\/comrade-labubu-chinese-doll-makes-its-way-to-karl-marxs-grave-in-london-post-goes-viral\/articleshow\/122850151.cms<\/a>\r\n\r\nAs it is known today, the Labubu is a mass-produced toy from China, but it wasn\u2019t created by some faceless corporation. Inspired by Nordic mythology, the story book illustrator Kasing Lung conceived of the Labubu in 2015 when he wrote a story series entitled \u201cThe Monsters\u201d and released an accompanying set of figures (Kaikai Kiki Gallery, n.d.).[RW1]\u00a0 The toy looks like if a gremlin put on a bunny rabbit suit\u2014with rabbit ears and soft fur covering its body everywhere but its hands, feet, and devilish face, which sports a wide grin full of pointed teeth and large, mischievous eyes (Figure 5).\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\nFig. 5 Source: Bakhtiari, Kian. \u201cHow Labubu Became An Unlikely Soft Power Symbol.\u201d Forbes, 30 Sep 2024, https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/kianbakhtiari\/2025\/09\/30\/how-labubu-became-an-unlikely-soft-power-symbol\/<\/a>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe Labubu caught the attention of global audiences in 2024 when K-Pop Idol Lisa from the popular band BLACKPINK posted a photo on Instagram featuring the dolls. Because of a single Instagram post, the Labubu went from a niche, artisan collectable to a widely produced commodity.\r\n\r\nWe can link Walter Benjamin\u2019s concept of aura to the evolution and commodification of the Labubu. \u201c(\u2026) That which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. (\u2026) One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.\u201d (Benjamin 1969) The first Labubu dolls were likely cherished by their owners as unique works of art, however, the Labubu\u2019s popularization in North America as an accessory and a meme meant it became disconnected from its original cultural context and creator\u2014its aura was lost.\r\n\r\nThe price point of the Labubu varies greatly, with common varieties going for around 30 dollars USD and rare pieces fetching as much as 100,000 dollars each. As such, most people don\u2019t actually own a Labubu because they can\u2019t afford it. To many young people, it might seem like the toy is everywhere, but, at least in my own experience, you don\u2019t see Labubus in real life very often. Their cultural domination has mostly taken place on the level of images circulated online. Benjamin discussed the loss of aura of a work of art particularly in relation to the photographic reproduction of artworks\u2014the Labubu is a compelling modern example of this phenomenon. As its likeness was increasingly shared across social media, it ceased being an art piece and became a mere object\u2014symbolizing overconsumption, waste, and the failure of capitalism.\r\n\r\nThere are two ways in which the Labubu has come to symbolize these ideas. First, it became associated with a possible recession amid fears of an unstable economy at the beginning of Trump\u2019s second term. In this period, people began making more posts similar to Figure 2, identifying objects and trends that could be deemed \u201crecession indicators.\u201d The Labubu was one such indicator. The rationale behind this categorization is the \u201clipstick effect\u201d\u2014a phenomenon observed during times of economic downturn wherein people spend more money on small luxury items, like lipstick, to encourage a sense of normalcy in their day to day even as they struggle to make ends meet. Labubu has a relatively high price point, which qualifies it as a luxury item, however, they aren\u2019t expensive enough to rival true luxury items, like a sports car or a Birkin (excluding the 100,000-dollar verities of course). Therefore, internet users posited that the Labubu is the new lipstick: a small indulgence when others seem out of reach. Young people don\u2019t feel confident in their ability to save up for milestone purchases, like their first house or car, and therefore spend their savings on \u201clittle treats\u201d\u2014matcha lattes, clothing, Labubus\u2014instead. As such, many young people have come to associate the popularity of the Labubu with the failure of the system to provide a means to improve their economic situation and move up in the world as it did for generations previous, especially Baby Boomers.\r\n\r\nSecond, the Labubu\u2019s online virality has given it an almost mystical reputation as an accessory, despite its loss of \u201caura\u201d as defined by Benjamin. People buy and display them to define their identities and tell the world about who they are, sometimes collecting an excessive amount. This is where Marx can be pulled in to interact directly with the Labubu. In his 1867 work Capital, Marx outlined Commodity Fetishism, which describes the process under capitalism wherein commodities take on a magical value apart from their human made origins, and, as a result, what should have been relationships between people become relationships between things (1887). I see the Labubu as an extension of this; for one, there is the relational aspect between objects\u2014money is exchanged for a good in an environment highly detached from the makers of the object, who, in the case of Labubu, reside across the world. Secondly, there is the fact that the work of self-representation is being done by objects rather than people themselves. Of course, this has been the case for millennia, as people have always shared information about their identity (gender, interests, culture, and class) through their fashion and accessory choices. However, the fast-paced trends of then internet have put this penchant on hyperdrive. Not only are people representing themselves through objects and judging the identity of others based on their display of objects, but the appropriate objects with which to represent yourself can change every month or even every week. Already, the age of the Labubu is coming to an end just months after its peak in popular culture. In its place will come a new commodity, revered and lusted after for no other reason than the fact that others seem to like it. The Labubu is part of a trend cycle which encourages more consumption than ever, something Marx would\u2019ve abhorred.\r\n\r\nIn sum, the photo taken of the Labubu on Karl Marx\u2019s grave is much more multilayered and telling of our cultural moment than one may suspect. It highlights the ironic and cynical tone of North American internet culture, and, in doing so, reveals deep seated modern anxieties about the economic future of the world. The Labubu is probably the most ironic thing anyone could put on Marx\u2019s grave because it encapsulates the rapid cycle of consumerism enabled by trend culture, the failure of capitalism to prevent regular recessions, and the pervading sense that nothing matters. Thus, the grave of a revered political philosopher becomes the site of an ironic joke, but, of course, stranger things have happened! In addition, the discussion around how to see this photo has allowed me to connect several readings and relevant theories, as the Labubu\u2019s artsy roots and subsequent status as a widely produced commodity recalls Walter Benjamin\u2019s concept of aura and, most ironically, Marx\u2019s commodity fetishism.\r\n

Critical Reflection<\/h2>\r\nThroughout this paper I attempted to take on John Berger\u2019s way of hyper focusing on specific aspects of visual culture and engaging in broad, society-level critique in his analysis. Where he focused on the practice of oil painting, I choose one specific \u201cpiece\u201d in the wider \u201cpractice\u201d of internet posting. This practice, of internet posting, could be said to be the modern method of displaying and circulating works that showcase the desires and moods of culture. Rather than on walls or in museums as is the case with oil paintings, posts plaster our phones, often seeming absurd and lowly compared to the works of the Renaissance. However, taking Berger\u2019s lens to even the most ridiculous viral posts demonstrates how we can draw wider meaning from visual media across disciplines.\r\n\r\nThough the person who placed the Labubu on Marx\u2019s grave didn\u2019t place it as methodically as a painter places objects in their painting, the person who captured and subsequently posted it elevated it to a composition. Posting is a deliberate process that involves a valuation of what other people will find interesting, just as the painter tries to honor their commissioner and paint what they might like. Therefore, just as an oil painting can tell us something about the values of their commissioners, internet posts can tell us something about the people who like them, and viral posts can tell us something about wider internet culture. This property of posts as visual media make Berger\u2019s method an extremely effective tool for their analysis.\r\n

Works Cited<\/h2>\r\nBenjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Translated by Harry Zohn, Schocken Books, 1969.\r\n\r\nBerger, John. Ways of Seeing. British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972.\r\n\r\nJay, Martin. \"Scopic Regimes of Modernity.\" Vision and Visuality. Dia Art Foundation, 1988, pp. 3 - 23\r\n\r\nMarx, Karl. \"The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof.\" Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, Progress Publishers, 1887, pp. 46-58\r\n\r\nKai Kai Ki Ki Gallery. Kasing Lung Biography. Kaikai Kiki Gallery, n.d., en.gallery-kaikaikiki.com\/2020\/10\/bio_kasing-lung\/.","rendered":"

Introducing Berger<\/h2>\n

In 1972, The BBC released a docuseries and accompanying book called Ways of Seeing, by art critic and novelist John Berger. The title is curious; how many ways can there be to see? Surely there\u2019s only the kind that happens with my eyes: that uncomplicated, biological process. Au contraire! Says Berger. Over the course of the novel, Berger deconstructs the forces that shape our field of vision, finding the most macro, society-level consequences in the seemingly inconsequential. Personally, I loved oil painting\u2014walking through the Renaissance section of any museum, I devoured the rich colours of a lord\u2019s cloak, the way painted candlelight falls on the round cheeks of a young girl, and the intricacy of decadent ballrooms\u2014but, unbeknownst to me at the time, these works were an expression of the inequality that persists in the organization of Western society.<\/p>\n

Berger\u2019s careful critique of oil painting as an expression of the colonial and capitalistic roots of the Renaissance clearly inspired Martin Jay\u2019s chapter, \u201cScopic Regimes of Modernity,\u201d in his 1988 book, which discusses how the ordered style of Cartesian perspectivism popularized in the Renaissance shapes the way we see the world. In turn, Berger himself was inspired by the work of German philosopher Walter Benjamin. Indeed, much of the first chapter of Berger\u2019s book discusses how the reproduction of works from the past in museums and art books works to both rationalize the hierarchies of the past and glorify the hierarchies of the present, pulling from Benjamin\u2019s work 1935 work Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.<\/p>\n

We live in a visual age; the digital world of social media showers us in near constant visual stimuli. Even a screen shot of text can be cropped, zoomed in, and altered to reflect the poster or platform\u2019s way of seeing. Berger\u2019s attention to detail in Ways of Seeing\u2014reflecting deeply on the orientation of the gaze of women of Renaissance paintings and constructing arguments through pictorial essays alone\u2014reminds us that nothing we see is neutral. As such, we must concern ourselves with the strange, oftentimes nonsensical visual world of the internet and meme culture, for it has much to tell us about the way we see in the 21st century.<\/p>\n

Evolving Internet Culture, Marx, and the Labubu<\/h2>\n

Just like fashion, water bottles (see the S\u2019well craze of 2015, the Hydroflask craze of 2019, and the Stanley craze of 2022 for details), and art styles, the visual aesthetic and rhetoric of internet culture has shifted with the times, informing the way we see the world around us. The common themes and style of internet posts have evolved over decades in reaction to the cultural moment. In recent years, posts have taken on an ironic, cynical tone, making light of people\u2019s fears about a possible World War III, government interference, and an economic recession.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Fig. 1 Source: @Todayyearsold. WW3 Memes. Instagram, 23 June 2025,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Fig. 2\u00a0 Source: @Hercampus. \u201cwhat if millennial cringe was just a coping mechanism all along.\u201d Instagram, 7 March 2025, https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/p\/DG6nQ4YMztT\/<\/p>\n

The internet of today is irreverent, absurdism pervades. There is an aesthetic for economic crisis and a funny dog for global conflict and unrest. With the existence and popularity of the types of posts showcased in Figures 1 and 2 an entire generation says, \u201ceverything seems so bad anyways, why not laugh?\u201d The rise of the Labubu, a designer collectable toy, is intimately connected to this ironic tone. Even the name of the toy is kind of ridiculous to say, and it\u2019s often used in conjunction with other viral trends of the moment to highlight the ludicrous nature of consumerism and virality in 2025 (Figure 3).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Fig. 3 A particularly cogent example of the mood amongst Gen Z internet users. Many express their exhaustion with the constant influx of new trends and \u201cmicrotrends\u201d (trends that fade after a matter of weeks or months), both in fashion and discourse. Source: @Aurafied2. \u201cEddie Brock being subjected to TikTok.\u201d TikTok, 11 July 2025, https:\/\/www.tiktok.com\/@aurafied2\/video\/7526024606998744350<\/p>\n

Consumerism has been supercharged by influencer marketing, fast fashion, and next day shipping. All this is to say nothing of our current political moment, which has often been compared to a circus, especially when speaking about our neighbours down south. Beyond just the American nuthouse, our global politics are also becoming memeified: there are Mark Carney thirst traps and clips of Benjamin Netanyahu being asked his opinion of Burger King. Nothing is serious, and everything always seems to be getting worse. Every month, something we never thought could happen in politics happens, and a new combination of trends appear that would\u2019ve sounded nonsensical only weeks before. Taken together, the state of consumerism and global politics have made for the cynical, ironic, and sometimes surreal timbre of internet culture of today, a moment perfectly encapsulated by the photo of the Labubu on Karl Marx\u2019s grave and its subsequent virality.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Fig. 4\u00a0 Source: TOI World Desk, photo via X. \u201cComrade Labubu: Chinese doll makes its way to Karl Marx\u2019s grave in London; post goes viral.\u201d Times of India, 23 Jul 2025, https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/world\/uk\/comrade-labubu-chinese-doll-makes-its-way-to-karl-marxs-grave-in-london-post-goes-viral\/articleshow\/122850151.cms<\/a><\/p>\n

As it is known today, the Labubu is a mass-produced toy from China, but it wasn\u2019t created by some faceless corporation. Inspired by Nordic mythology, the story book illustrator Kasing Lung conceived of the Labubu in 2015 when he wrote a story series entitled \u201cThe Monsters\u201d and released an accompanying set of figures (Kaikai Kiki Gallery, n.d.).[RW1]\u00a0 The toy looks like if a gremlin put on a bunny rabbit suit\u2014with rabbit ears and soft fur covering its body everywhere but its hands, feet, and devilish face, which sports a wide grin full of pointed teeth and large, mischievous eyes (Figure 5).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Fig. 5 Source: Bakhtiari, Kian. \u201cHow Labubu Became An Unlikely Soft Power Symbol.\u201d Forbes, 30 Sep 2024, https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/kianbakhtiari\/2025\/09\/30\/how-labubu-became-an-unlikely-soft-power-symbol\/<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Labubu caught the attention of global audiences in 2024 when K-Pop Idol Lisa from the popular band BLACKPINK posted a photo on Instagram featuring the dolls. Because of a single Instagram post, the Labubu went from a niche, artisan collectable to a widely produced commodity.<\/p>\n

We can link Walter Benjamin\u2019s concept of aura to the evolution and commodification of the Labubu. \u201c(\u2026) That which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. (\u2026) One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.\u201d (Benjamin 1969) The first Labubu dolls were likely cherished by their owners as unique works of art, however, the Labubu\u2019s popularization in North America as an accessory and a meme meant it became disconnected from its original cultural context and creator\u2014its aura was lost.<\/p>\n

The price point of the Labubu varies greatly, with common varieties going for around 30 dollars USD and rare pieces fetching as much as 100,000 dollars each. As such, most people don\u2019t actually own a Labubu because they can\u2019t afford it. To many young people, it might seem like the toy is everywhere, but, at least in my own experience, you don\u2019t see Labubus in real life very often. Their cultural domination has mostly taken place on the level of images circulated online. Benjamin discussed the loss of aura of a work of art particularly in relation to the photographic reproduction of artworks\u2014the Labubu is a compelling modern example of this phenomenon. As its likeness was increasingly shared across social media, it ceased being an art piece and became a mere object\u2014symbolizing overconsumption, waste, and the failure of capitalism.<\/p>\n

There are two ways in which the Labubu has come to symbolize these ideas. First, it became associated with a possible recession amid fears of an unstable economy at the beginning of Trump\u2019s second term. In this period, people began making more posts similar to Figure 2, identifying objects and trends that could be deemed \u201crecession indicators.\u201d The Labubu was one such indicator. The rationale behind this categorization is the \u201clipstick effect\u201d\u2014a phenomenon observed during times of economic downturn wherein people spend more money on small luxury items, like lipstick, to encourage a sense of normalcy in their day to day even as they struggle to make ends meet. Labubu has a relatively high price point, which qualifies it as a luxury item, however, they aren\u2019t expensive enough to rival true luxury items, like a sports car or a Birkin (excluding the 100,000-dollar verities of course). Therefore, internet users posited that the Labubu is the new lipstick: a small indulgence when others seem out of reach. Young people don\u2019t feel confident in their ability to save up for milestone purchases, like their first house or car, and therefore spend their savings on \u201clittle treats\u201d\u2014matcha lattes, clothing, Labubus\u2014instead. As such, many young people have come to associate the popularity of the Labubu with the failure of the system to provide a means to improve their economic situation and move up in the world as it did for generations previous, especially Baby Boomers.<\/p>\n

Second, the Labubu\u2019s online virality has given it an almost mystical reputation as an accessory, despite its loss of \u201caura\u201d as defined by Benjamin. People buy and display them to define their identities and tell the world about who they are, sometimes collecting an excessive amount. This is where Marx can be pulled in to interact directly with the Labubu. In his 1867 work Capital, Marx outlined Commodity Fetishism, which describes the process under capitalism wherein commodities take on a magical value apart from their human made origins, and, as a result, what should have been relationships between people become relationships between things (1887). I see the Labubu as an extension of this; for one, there is the relational aspect between objects\u2014money is exchanged for a good in an environment highly detached from the makers of the object, who, in the case of Labubu, reside across the world. Secondly, there is the fact that the work of self-representation is being done by objects rather than people themselves. Of course, this has been the case for millennia, as people have always shared information about their identity (gender, interests, culture, and class) through their fashion and accessory choices. However, the fast-paced trends of then internet have put this penchant on hyperdrive. Not only are people representing themselves through objects and judging the identity of others based on their display of objects, but the appropriate objects with which to represent yourself can change every month or even every week. Already, the age of the Labubu is coming to an end just months after its peak in popular culture. In its place will come a new commodity, revered and lusted after for no other reason than the fact that others seem to like it. The Labubu is part of a trend cycle which encourages more consumption than ever, something Marx would\u2019ve abhorred.<\/p>\n

In sum, the photo taken of the Labubu on Karl Marx\u2019s grave is much more multilayered and telling of our cultural moment than one may suspect. It highlights the ironic and cynical tone of North American internet culture, and, in doing so, reveals deep seated modern anxieties about the economic future of the world. The Labubu is probably the most ironic thing anyone could put on Marx\u2019s grave because it encapsulates the rapid cycle of consumerism enabled by trend culture, the failure of capitalism to prevent regular recessions, and the pervading sense that nothing matters. Thus, the grave of a revered political philosopher becomes the site of an ironic joke, but, of course, stranger things have happened! In addition, the discussion around how to see this photo has allowed me to connect several readings and relevant theories, as the Labubu\u2019s artsy roots and subsequent status as a widely produced commodity recalls Walter Benjamin\u2019s concept of aura and, most ironically, Marx\u2019s commodity fetishism.<\/p>\n

Critical Reflection<\/h2>\n

Throughout this paper I attempted to take on John Berger\u2019s way of hyper focusing on specific aspects of visual culture and engaging in broad, society-level critique in his analysis. Where he focused on the practice of oil painting, I choose one specific \u201cpiece\u201d in the wider \u201cpractice\u201d of internet posting. This practice, of internet posting, could be said to be the modern method of displaying and circulating works that showcase the desires and moods of culture. Rather than on walls or in museums as is the case with oil paintings, posts plaster our phones, often seeming absurd and lowly compared to the works of the Renaissance. However, taking Berger\u2019s lens to even the most ridiculous viral posts demonstrates how we can draw wider meaning from visual media across disciplines.<\/p>\n

Though the person who placed the Labubu on Marx\u2019s grave didn\u2019t place it as methodically as a painter places objects in their painting, the person who captured and subsequently posted it elevated it to a composition. Posting is a deliberate process that involves a valuation of what other people will find interesting, just as the painter tries to honor their commissioner and paint what they might like. Therefore, just as an oil painting can tell us something about the values of their commissioners, internet posts can tell us something about the people who like them, and viral posts can tell us something about wider internet culture. This property of posts as visual media make Berger\u2019s method an extremely effective tool for their analysis.<\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/h2>\n

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Translated by Harry Zohn, Schocken Books, 1969.<\/p>\n

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972.<\/p>\n

Jay, Martin. “Scopic Regimes of Modernity.” Vision and Visuality. Dia Art Foundation, 1988, pp. 3 – 23<\/p>\n

Marx, Karl. “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof.” Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, Progress Publishers, 1887, pp. 46-58<\/p>\n

Kai Kai Ki Ki Gallery. Kasing Lung Biography. Kaikai Kiki Gallery, n.d., en.gallery-kaikaikiki.com\/2020\/10\/bio_kasing-lung\/.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":596,"menu_order":5,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-27","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/27","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/596"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/27\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":180,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/27\/revisions\/180"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/27\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=27"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=27"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/visualculture-howtosee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=27"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}